St Helena Records 1706-1709

Introduction: This is the ninth volume in the series St Helena Records. The series includes the official minute books of the island’s Governor and Council, which recorded their meetings, deliberations and decisions, with abstracts of correspondence, proclamations and regulations, judicial proceedings and financial business. The volumes served as the principal administrative record of government on St Helena and were often titled “Consultations”. Its authority was derived from the EIC, with final decisions directed by instructions issued from London.

Source: Images of the original records can be viewed on the British Library’s website: https://eap.bl.uk/archive-file/EAP1364-1-1-9.

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: All pages remain intact, with only minor visible damage or slight text loss. From section 175/167 onwards, the manuscript shifts to an elaborate Copperplate script with ornate flourishes, which significantly reduces the amount of text on each page. From this point, the layout of the text becomes noticeably more disorganised.

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.

Content: It was observed that many of the early Council meetings were retrospectively signed by Thomas Goodwin, who wrote the date using the Latin month abbreviation “Xbr. The 6th. 1707”, meaning 6 December 1707.[1] The reason for these retrospective signatures is explained by a note dated 26 November 1707 (text location 94/86), which states: “the Councill books have not for Some time been Signed for a great While together which is thought to have been the Neglect of the Clarkes of the Councill, so that Now peruseing the said books they will seem like Faulties, since the late Governours hand are not to any for above a Year Since”. As a result, Thomas Goodwin, who had been appointed as the new Governor by 1707, retrospectively signed every Council meeting record between January 1706 and November 1707.

Pagination: The page numbering begins immediately near the start of the volume on 9/1. The sequence proceeds normally with no indication that pages are missing or that page numbers are duplicated.

Dates: During the period covered by this volume, England and its colonies followed the Old-Style Julian calendar, in which the legal new year began on 25 March (Lady Day). The earliest date recorded in this volume is a consultation held on 5 November 1706, and the latest is a consultation held on 20 September 1709.

The Council meetings were held during the administrations of Captain Stephen Poirier (1697-1707), Thomas Goodwin (1707-1708) and Captain John Roberts (1708-1711).

AI Generated Summary

This is a continuous account of the island of St Helena across roughly thirty-three months of East India Company government, from the closing weeks of Stephen Poirier’s administration in late 1706 to the early autumn of 1709 under Governor John Roberts.

Governance and administration

The period opens under Governor Stephen Poirier and the council he had assembled. By the summer of 1707 Poirier was a man already failing. He refused to pass accounts brought to him, was struck speechless by his own decline and died on 8 September 1707 of a dropsy. Thomas Goodwin succeeded him under a 1701 commission as deputy and second in council, with Edward Mashborne moving up to deputy governor and William Marsden to third. The new administration immediately confronted a regulatory archive in disorder. Some ten years of general letters from the Lords Proprietors were missing from the council’s books. Wills lay rat-eaten in their chests. The seal on the lease of Mr Desfontaines had been pulled off by Poirier’s order in his last weeks. Goodwin’s council ordered separate accounts to be taken from the day of Poirier’s death, fresh inventories of the stores, and the imposition of weekly sittings to clear the backlog. The administrative reformation began with the recovery of the documentary record itself. [69-75, 82-86]

Goodwin’s council moved cautiously through the autumn and winter of 1707-08 and the spring of 1708. It paid more attention than its predecessor to procedural form. Disputes between members appeared openly on the record. On the question of whether further cattle could be bought from Leonard Hunt to discharge his debt, Goodwin, Mashborne and Marsden each gave a different opinion, with Mashborne supplying the most concrete operational figure to appear in the consultations of these months: the Company already had above five hundred head of cattle on pasture barely sufficient for two hundred. The bench recorded the disagreement and deferred decision. The willingness of the new administration to expose its internal differences on its own books distinguished its book-keeping from the unified front the Poirier council had typically presented. [134, 147]

The summer of 1708 brought a much sharper change. On 24 August 1708 the ship Fleet frigate, Captain Charles Newton commander, reached the road with the Worshipful John Roberts on board, constituted Governor of the island by the Honourable Court of Managers, and with him seventeen new soldiers and a cargo of fresh stores. His commission was read in council, with Goodwin demoted to deputy governor, Mashborne to third, Marsden to fourth and Daniell Griffith - the same Griffith whose conduct had so often vexed the previous bench - elevated to fifth in council on the directors’ own express direction in the general letter of 7 April 1708. A public proclamation went out, demanding that all persons demean themselves to Roberts as Governor as they would answer the contrary at their peril. Inventories were ordered to be taken of all moneys, goods and merchandises in the stores, with the books to be balanced to the day of arrival. Within forty-eight hours Roberts had taken the Charter of Union oath sent from London, surveyed the existing fort, settled on a plan for a new fort of one hundred and thirty foot square, and committed the council to a programme of rebuilding that would dominate the rest of the year. [175-178]

The new administration moved at once to harden the disciplinary apparatus of the council itself. When it transpired that consultation matters had been leaked beyond the council board, with the result that the people had been encouraged to despise the government and that councillors had begun to vote as the people would have it rather than as they ought, Roberts brought forward three resolves. The first declared that whosoever revealed the secrets of the consultations was a traitor to the Honourable United Company and unworthy of his seat. The second declared the same man a betrayer of the local government and the cause of its being rendered despicable. The third suspended any offender from his employment until the Honourable Masters’ pleasure was further known. The clerk was barred from allowing any books or papers to leave his hands except to the council, and no consultation paragraph could be made public without the Governor’s express direction. The mechanism plugged the leak by raising the price of betrayal from dismissal to a charge of treason against the Company. [189-190]

Across the early months of 1709 the council took up the great problem the directors had pressed on every previous administration: the want of any working corpus of the island’s laws. The old books, the council recorded on 11 January 1709, lay so intricate and irregular, and were so much injured and damaged by time and age, that it was difficult to find anything in them or to make any sense of them. Captain Mashborne and Mr Griffith were ordered to collect all the laws, orders and ordinances of the island into a single volume to be titled the Book of Laws and Constitutions of the Island St Helena. On 28 March they laid before the council a body of laws methodically and handsomely set out, with an alphabetical index for ready consultation. On 4 April the council resolved to sit daily, the majority being sufficient where attendance was incomplete, to filter from the collection the laws still in force from those repealed in the meantime by the Lords Proprietors. The corpus was to be read at the country church to thirty-six of the principal inhabitants summoned by warrant, and copies were to be deposited with the churchwardens for the consultation of any planter who came forward. [208, 220, 221]

The reading at the country church on 26 April 1709, attended by Mashborne, Griffith and Alexander, produced an unexpected institutional development. The thirty-six chose twelve of their number to consider the corpus further, drawing in particular on planters who had appeared often in routine council business. The twelve studied the laws across most of May and produced, by the consultation of the early days of June, a written submission of nineteen grievances under the headings of arms, assemblies, alarms, slaves, market house, beef, dogs, cattle, fencing, juries, wholesale, retailed liquors, civil law, ships, taxes, guns, the Great Wood and lessees. The submission was framed with elaborate courtesy. The twelve acknowledged that they must submit to their superiors not only for wrath but for conscience sake, and undertook not to be frugal of their blood in defence of the island. They thanked the council for communicating the laws and constitutions, since this had never been done before and they had always been kept in ignorance of them. The council disposed of each grievance in turn, conceding the dogs and the alarms, deferring markets and beef for representation to London, and rejecting the fencing complaint as it had just imposed the planting law upon all freeholders, lessees and inhabitants. [225, 226, 236-242]

In the same period the council renamed Fort James. Across the consultations of late April and early May 1709 the entries record the seat of government no longer as Fort James but as the United Castle in James Valley. The new title carried the contemporary political vocabulary of the Act of Union of 1707, the same vocabulary that gave the Honourable United Company its name under the 1708 settlement of the Old and New East India Companies. The renaming arrived together with the assertion of fiscal authority. The 22 February 1709 consultation had already established a sliding penalty regime for moderate administrative offences at the five-pound level, and on 26 February the council issued an order requiring all cattle, goats, sheep and swine on the island to be entered in a marks register kept for the purpose, on penalty of five pounds for non-registration and forfeiture of any unregistered animals turned upon the Lords Proprietors’ waste. The mechanism converted the inhabitants’ working livestock into a documentary asset of the new administration. [216, 228]

By the high summer of 1709 the council had begun a parallel exercise of recovering its archival memory more deeply. After the Johnson title question opened on 5 July 1709 had exposed the gap in the council’s books between 18 May 1689 and 17 Dec 1698, Griffith and Mr Alexander were ordered on 19 July to begin an abstract of all the books, letters, orders and directions relating to lands, tenements and other matters from the first settlement of the island to the present day. Suits, quarrels and misdemeanours were to be buried in oblivion, with the single exception of the life and behaviour of George Hoskison. Mr Free was to write under them. By the consultation of 30 August the pair had brought the work down to the entries of 26 November 1684. Two of the live decisions of the summer rested on paragraphs retrieved from that very letter: the Johnson title question came from its twelfth paragraph, and the renewal of the sugar trial at Sandy Bay came from its seventeenth. [255, 266]

Across the summer of 1709 the council’s management of its own seating arrangements gave it another small instrument of order. After captains, mates, pursers and surgeons of visiting ships had presumed during the late shipping season to sit on the upper or right hand of the council, Roberts laid down a written protocol. In shipping season, captains of men of war, commissioned officers, captains of merchant men, supercargoes and eminent merchants who had served the Masters in India were to be allowed precedence out of civility, but no inferior officer of any kind. In the absence of shipping a fixed order of seating was prescribed: deputy governor on the Governor’s right, third in council on the left, fourth on the deputy’s right, fifth on the third’s left, then the minister, the clerk, the engineer, Ensign Caden and the doctor. Position at the council board became a continuous public record of standing on the island. [197]

Military and defence

The fortification of the island ran like a continuous thread through the period. Under Goodwin in 1707 and 1708 the principal work proceeded under Hans George Newman, who had advised on the Lemon Valley platforms in September 1707. Christian Frederick Vogell, the new engineer sent out from London, arrived in late 1707 and clashed almost immediately with Newman. The two specialists fell to blows at the line of works, with Newman calling out that Vogell knew no more than the cat, was a fool and would leave the island in disgrace, and Vogell threatening Newman in turn with violence. The council disposed of the dispute by finding both equally in fault, with each ordered to pay his own witnesses and neither to obstruct the other’s work. The arrangement preserved both men in service at a moment when the council’s defensive programme could not afford the loss of either. [131, 139]

When Roberts arrived on the Fleet frigate on 24 August 1708 he ordered the immediate construction of a new fort of one hundred and thirty foot square on his own plan, with lodgings within the fort arranged to his design. A separate fortification at Mundy’s Point was approved at the same time, as a work of very great use for the preservation and safeguard of ships in the road. Captain Charles Newton was directed to deliver one bag of one thousand Spanish pieces of eight from one of the Honourable Company’s chests of treasure on board his ship for the use of the Company’s affairs ashore, the cash chest at the United Castle having stood at only fifty shillings in March 1708 and at no more than five pounds eleven shillings on Roberts’s arrival. The treasure chest had been intended for India; it was diverted to the building of the new fort. [175, 178, 181]

The labour for the new works was drawn at first from the inhabitants’ own slaves at two shillings the day. Loitering and the daily pretext of fetching firewood produced a wage loss of two shillings a day for each absent slave, sometimes for half a day at a time. On 28 August 1708 the council resolved that all blacks at the fortifications should work from six o’clock in the morning to six in the evening, with only half an hour for breakfast and an hour and a half for dinner. Quarter-day abatements were ordered against owners whose slaves were absent in the morning or afternoon. Mr Marsden was appointed to inspect and oversee the workmen. From 12 October 1708 the wage was cut to one shilling and sixpence the day and the workforce was reduced, with a preferred list kept of those who first offered their slaves at the reduced rate. The same rate held for the highway labour reckoned at one shilling and sixpence for both whites and blacks at the warrant of 30 August 1709, the council having settled on this figure as the working unit rate for daily charges across its various schemes. [180, 187, 188, 267]

Defence of the island required constant attention to ordnance and watches as well as masonry. Sergeant Dwight was found at Prosperous Bay on 25 May 1708 absent from his post, with only one soldier present, the sergeant himself having given the other leave to go fishing. Dwight defended himself with the observation that he had remained within a mile of the lookout, with as good a prospect as if at the bay, and could have reached it in very little time. The council dismissed the failure with only a severe check on his promise that it should never be so again, treating proximity to the lookout as sufficient. The first sighting of an approaching ship was incentivised under Roberts by a one-dollar reward to whoever first descried her, free planter or soldier alike, an unofficial distributed early warning system funded only when ships actually arrived. [176, 162]

The discharge of slaves from the fortifications on 12 October 1708, after the new fort was well advanced, was reversed and then re-imposed across 1709 in a manner that wove the defensive programme into the fencing and planting laws. The council had reasoned, in May 1709, that fifteen years of decay in the island’s woods had passed while successive councils fortified its outside. From 5 July 1709 the council declared that all blacks were to be discharged from work at the fortifications on Saturday 9 July, unless their owners could give sufficient testimony that the quantity of wood required by law had been planted, that their lands were fenced in, and that they had slaves enough to comply with these laws and to spare. The mechanism converted the planting and fencing laws into an operative enforcement instrument at a single fixed moment, with the most valuable form of labour the inhabitants commanded as the lever. [187, 248]

Through July and August 1709 the council took further measures to professionalise the defensive establishment. Thomas Burnham, a free planter known by experience to be a good workman in stone-laying, was engaged at four shillings the day for a fixed year from 25 July 1709, finding himself in diet. On 6 September 1709 a Dutch stone-cutter, named in the consultation as William and continuously employed at the fortifications since 28 July 1708, was moved off the older hybrid arrangement, in which he had been paid as a soldier on guard days and at a stone-cutter’s rate on others, onto the same standard contract as the two stone-cutters whom the council had engaged in England. He was now to receive thirty pounds the year with his diet, and to be discharged from soldier’s duty for the remaining term of his original engagement. The council’s skilled craftsmen were being standardised onto a uniform contract. [254, 270]

The Mundy’s Point castle project, opened in August 1708 and pursued through Burnham’s engagement and the new lime kiln at Sandy Bay, was laid aside on 6 September 1709 when it became clear that the burning of lime in Sandy Bay Valley was destroying the wood at a great rate. Only one thousand to twelve hundred bushels of lime had been produced against an estimated requirement of eight to ten thousand bushels. The council judged it was in the Masters’ interest to set the castle aside until coals could be brought from England, and not to destroy the wood on that account. The slaves were redirected to break limestone at Rupert’s Valley sufficient to carry on the council’s business in the interim, and the lime already at hand was committed to building houses for the council, the doctor, the gunner and the planned ammunition stores at the United Castle. [254, 269, 270]

Smaller security questions ran across the period. The mutiny of William Knight, boatswain of the ship Europe, on Captain Humphrey Bryant’s complaint of December 1707, brought before a tribunal sitting with the masters Carswell, Cammell, Opie, Felton, Bennett and Pennell, produced the most striking example. Knight had refused to acknowledge Bryant as commander, had threatened to seize the boat with forty men, had advanced with a bucket of water to put out the galley fire, and had refused to deliver the ship’s books. He had earlier been struck by Captain Pocock at Butchers Island and by Bryant himself in Johanna road. The tribunal’s disposal of the matter, with the case continuing across several consultations, illustrates how the council functioned as a continuing court for the discipline of shipboard mutinies as well as for the building of fortifications ashore. [104-110]

Settlement, land and tenure

Land allocation on the island operated through petitions to the council, with grants made for terms varying from a few years to as many as sixty-one. The pattern of the period shows planters putting forward layered petitions in which a rejected first request was at once followed by a second on different ground, as in the case of Richard Swallow senior, whose application of November 1708 for five acres of waste land in Deep Valley was refused because the same ground had already been promised to Thomas Ellis junior. Swallow then asked, at the same sitting, for a building plot in Fort James Valley next to Captain Mashborne’s, in exchange for thirty feet next to William Coulson’s ground on the back side of her house. The council ordered Mashborne and Swallow to settle the line between themselves, on three constraints: the new plot could extend back to the water course, but could not block Mashborne’s light or any passage of use to the public or to neighbouring properties. The cost of any preliminary work undertaken in anticipation of the first refused grant was to be borne by Swallow alone. [203, 204]

The council inherited from earlier administrations a settled but irregular system of long leases. Robert Bell’s lease of November 1708, renewed in his own name from a previous grant to George Bridges, ran for sixty-one years. By February 1709 the council had concluded that long leases were no longer in the proprietors’ interest. At the consultation of 8 February it resolved that no further leases were to exceed twenty-one years. At the same sitting the council halted all further grants until existing holdings had been measured and registered, on the ground that several planters held more land than they paid the Honourable Company for, and that the major part of the inhabitants had no leases for their land and never had. A new register book was to be kept, with space left in it for plans, into which all parcels of land were to be entered with their leases attached. Transfers were to be effected by reference to letter-coded plans within the register itself, the entry serving as a sufficient transfer without further conveyance, since the transaction had been done before the Governor and council. [206, 210]

The annual settlement of accounts laid down by the advertisement of 23 February 1709 required all inhabitants to deliver to the clerk of the council, between Monday 7 March and Monday 14 March, an account under their own hands of the lands, tenements and cattle they had held in 1708, with an account of their respective families both whites and blacks. On 29 March 1709 the Revenue Book compiled from those returns was brought before the council, and the charges on each inhabitant were transferred to the store books of account, with the false-return penalty already in place from earlier orders to back the cross-check. The signed annual return became the working data source from which the highway warrant of 30 August 1709 drew its slave counts. The list returned on that warrant gave seventy-three whites and one hundred and twenty-nine blacks across the settled population subject to the levy. Seven months had been enough to convert what had been administrative opacity into a single quantitative record of the island’s population. [215, 220, 267, 268]

The tenure regime fell hardest on those who had received land in the early years of settlement under conditions whose documentary trace had since become obscure. The case of Mrs Elizabeth Johnson, widow of the former Governor Joshua Johnson, illustrated the pattern. On 5 July 1709 the council found, in reviewing the old books, a letter from the Lords Proprietors of 26 November 1684 brought by the ship Shrewsbury, whose twelfth paragraph had ordered the resumption into Company possession of a house in Captain Johnson’s possession that had been built at the Company’s charge. The order had never been carried out, in part because many letters between 18 May 1689 and 17 December 1698 were missing from the books. On 2 August 1709 Mrs Johnson and her son appeared before the council, and she said she had been in possession of the house and ground for twenty-seven or twenty-eight years, had never known of any order for resumption, and that her late husband, who had been unfortunately murdered in the Honourable Company’s service, had never mentioned such an order to her. The council answered that the house did not stand in a proper place and was very prejudicial to the Honourable Company. It would represent her case directly to the Masters, would try to procure her a piece of ground in James Valley fit to build a house and conveniences on, to be settled on her and her heirs for ever, and would also intercede with the Lords Proprietors that the existing house be appraised by two indifferent persons, one for each side, and that the value found be paid to her. Mrs Johnson was well satisfied with the answer, and said she hoped the Lords Proprietors would be kind to her. [246, 247, 259]

A wider title-suspension order considered at the 19 July 1709 consultation, by which the council had at first resolved that no titles to houses or lands be examined or settled until the proprietors had been written to for specific authority, was reversed within the same sitting on second thoughts. The body of the consultation was rased and crossed out by order of the council and a fresh declaration entered at the foot. The council retained the authority and proceeded. The cancellations were left visible in the council book, with a signed declaration explaining the change, so that the proprietors in London should see the full record of how the local body had reasoned its way through the question. [255, 256]

The fencing and planting law of 19 May and the signed law of 25 May 1709 became the principal land instrument of the second half of the period. After fifteen years of decay in the island’s woods, the inhabitants having proposed planting one acre in twenty within three years, the council substituted its own terms of one acre in ten within two years on all freeholders, lessees and inhabitants alike, and on the Company’s own lease lands as well. The trees were to be set at a distance not exceeding seven feet, fenced against all cattle, and maintained as live wood for ever. Failure to plant carried forfeiture of the lands and fruits standing on them. Any planter who afterwards took Company wood became a felon and robber of the Honourable Company’s estate. Where the planter could not obtain seeds or young plants, the deadline was extendable on demonstration that the land had at least been fenced. Slaves could be hired from the Company at one shilling and sixpence the day to assist with the work, with a twenty-shilling-per-day penalty for misemployment. [231, 232, 235]

A small example of the connected reach of the new regime appeared in the case of Ruth Desfontaine, James Draper and Simon Whaley, brought before the council on 6 September 1709. The three held in lieu of ten acres in the hangings of the hills a long slip and a square piece in the midst of the Great Wood, granted by Governor Poirier and measured by Mr Bazett. The council, on examining the title, found no warrant for the exchange to lie in the Great Wood at all, and ordered the three to take their original ten acres back according to the first measure. A plan of the parcels was inserted in the margin of the consultation book. The intent of the earlier exchange, the council recorded, had been to evade the requirement to plant on their own land. The reversal completed the council’s alignment of historic land grants with the present forest preservation policy. [269]

Inhabitants who could not be accommodated on the island left through outbound shipping. On 19 July 1709 Paul Geaton, a free planter without land of his own and without any land that the council could let to him, asked for leave to go off the island with his wife and child in the next outward-bound ship. On 2 August 1709 Joseph Fox petitioned to go to Bombay on the Godolphin with his wife and two children, offering to serve as a soldier for three years. On 10 August Henry Webley made the same petition on the same terms. The Geaton case marked the limit of the island’s settled order: those without land had no place in the regime of fencing, planting and title abstraction, and the council was prepared to release them through emigration. The Fox and Webley cases turned the Godolphin’s presence into a recruitment opportunity for the Bombay garrison. [256, 260, 262]

Supply, provisioning and the Company’s plantations

The Lords Proprietors’ plantations were managed by Captain Edward Mashborne as Chief of the Lords Proprietors’ Plantations, with the chief overseer at the Great Plantation as his on-site officer. Cattle, yams, lemons, wood and lime all flowed through Mashborne’s hands. The pasture problem inherited from the Poirier administration, with above five hundred head of cattle on pasture barely sufficient for two hundred, was eased only slowly across 1708 and 1709 through enclosures such as that at Steep Reek and through restrictions on further purchases of cattle by the Company. By 2 November 1708, with debt-clearance schemes attracting offers in kind, the council judged it in the Masters’ interest to buy in no more than fifty head, with the sellers obliged to feed and keep them on their own pasture until the Governor directed otherwise. [134, 198]

The yam supply was the council’s most carefully monitored agricultural account. By the consultation of 19 May 1709 daily consumption of yams to feed slaves, hogs and fowls had been reckoned at one thousand a day. The plantation stock stood at about six hundred thousand. The annual purchase of yams from the planters cost the Honourable Masters about one hundred and fifty pounds a year, and the council had bought Mr Luskin’s plantation precisely to bring some of that supply in-house. With yams taking at least three years to reach maturity, the council ordered Mashborne to clear ground for a planting of up to twelve hundred thousand yams, with suckers to be bought from the planters where possible. The order recalled the earlier purchase of Mr Sprogers’s thousand yams in November 1708, when Sprogers’s previously desperate debt had been discharged through the supply of crop and propagating material to the new plantation at Plantation House. Mr Daniell Griffith’s offer in March 1709 of twenty thousand yams at thirty-five shillings the thousand, made just after the revaluation of the dollar to five shillings, fixed the first post-revaluation procurement benchmark. [198, 219, 233]

Other plantings were brought forward together with the yam programme. At the same consultation of 19 May 1709 the council ordered fifteen acres of gum wood to be planted in Plantation Valley, both as an example to the inhabitants and as a substantial contribution to the wood supply, with six stout, able slaves under Mashborne’s direction employed on the work and no other. Five hundred lemon trees were ordered to be planted in the more suitable parts of the Great Plantation, on the observation that the trees did not take kindly in James Valley but grew more naturally in the country. The lemon programme served the council’s antiscorbutic supply for the slaves, the garrison and visiting ships, and at the same time reduced the Masters’ charge for buying juice. By the consultation of 28 June 1709 Mashborne could report 5,029 gum wood trees and the full five hundred lemon trees already planted. [233, 251]

A more speculative crop arrived through the consultation of 26 July 1709. Beside the new lime kiln at Sandy Bay there lay a piece of ground that the Governor judged proper for sugar canes. The canes already planted in James Valley had grown well even though the soil there was less favourable. The 17th paragraph of the 26 November 1684 letter from the Lords Proprietors, retrieved by Griffith and Alexander in their abstract project, had carried the proprietors’ historic interest in a sugar plantation, with their Barbados overseer recruited at seventy pounds a year. The overseer had been an idle, drunken fellow who never made the trial, but the council judged that the old failure was no reason to be discouraged. The Governor was given discretion to plant canes at his own discretion wherever he thought fit, with the experiment to be of small charge to the Masters. By 6 September 1709 the canes were over a foot high, producing extraordinarily well, and the dead wood of the surrounding area was reckoned useful for the making of sugar and rum once the canes matured. Thomas Gargen, a free planter living hard by, was appointed at the consultation of 274 to look after and oversee the planting, with a room in his house set aside as a lodging for the Governor when he visited the trial. A bed was bought for the purpose from Captain John Ap Rice on the Company’s account. [257, 269, 274]

On 6 September 1709 Mashborne reported that the Plantation house and the slaves’ house at the Plantation were falling down, that the occupants could not lie warm or dry, that several blacks had died, and that more were sick. Both Mashborne and the council were afraid that the state of the buildings was the occasion of the sickness. The Governor had prepared a plan and draught of a new Plantation house and a new slaves’ house, and judged that the lime already burnt would suffice for both. The council approved the plan and ordered the slaves to be employed on the work at the Governor’s discretion, and to break limestone at Rupert’s Valley in the meantime sufficient to carry on the council’s business until coals could be brought from England. The decision marked a deliberate redirection of the lime supply away from the suspended Mundy’s Point castle and onto the residential buildings of the Company’s own labour force. [270]

Other small experimental trials filled out the council’s production programme. On 26 July 1709 Richard Swallow, a carpenter, was encouraged in a tile trial: one kiln could burn ten thousand tiles at a firing, and if the work could be brought to perfection he was to have a reward of fifty dollars in addition to his daily wages. The business case rested on substitution rather than sale, with imported English tile freight saved on the council’s own houses and on the slaves’ houses. John Orchard, a tanner, was engaged on 19 July 1709 to tan only for the Company at three shillings and sixpence the hide, with calf skins at one shilling and sixpence, sheep and goat skins at sixpence apiece, and to teach a Company slave the trade of tanner and currier over a three-year term. A penalty bond of thirty pounds backed the agreement. The council projected a clearance of seven shillings on each hide and £100 a year overall if shoemakers could be brought into the chain. Gunner French, on 6 September 1709, was offered the use of the garden house rent free for the coming year on condition that he plant the garden with physic nut trees, with the council looking to the production of physic nut oil for lamp use and trade. [253, 254, 258, 273]

Lime production itself was reordered in July 1709 when the Governor and Mashborne discovered, on going to view a fresh deposit, that ebony wood would burn lime, that huge quantities of dead ebony lay on the hills near Sandy Bay, and that mountains of extraordinary limestone stood just beside the wood. The council judged it cheaper for the Masters to bring the lime down already burnt from the kiln site, since burnt lime is light, than to fetch the ebony itself, which was very heavy and ill-suited to be carried to the castle in James Valley. A kiln and slaves were sent up at once. The earlier reward scheme established by Roberts in August 1708, of one hundred pounds for any person who could find lime stones that burnt into lime, had already produced a small discovery by Aaron Johnson, soldier, who received twenty dollars, and a smaller one by Walter Belvard, who received two dollars. The 26 February 1709 limestone declaration in Breakneck Valley, with specks of gold and what the council took to be copper found among the samples, had raised the rewards to two hundred and fifty pounds for the gold mine and one hundred and fifty pounds for the copper mine. [176, 189, 215, 254]

Judiciary and law

The judicial business of the council was transacted in two procedural forms. Routine consultations sat as a bench of council members on petitions from inhabitants and on minor disciplinary cases. More substantial matters were committed to courts of judicature held at the sessions house near Fort James, with a sworn jury of twelve free planters. The jury pool was drawn from the same names that appeared elsewhere in the council’s business, with men like Hugh Bodley, Matthew Bazett, Thomas Gargen, James Greentree, Thomas Cason and John French serving repeatedly. The small size of the resident community made any rigorous segregation of judicial roles impossible. [137, 142, 166]

Probate and conveyancing took up a substantial share of the bench’s time. The deaths of William Duston, Henry Purling, Stephen Poirier, the engineer’s predecessor Desfontaines, William Hague, Ensign Thomas Sanderson, James Easthope and Edward Heath all produced wills that came forward through the consultations of 1707 and 1708, with two free planters sworn in each case to verify the document. The council applied English testamentary doctrine without modification. The will of Mary French, deceased in early 1708, was held a nullity on the ground that as a married woman under coverture she could make no will, and the estate descended to her children under the will of her father Thomas Box. The Sanderson, Hague and Easthope wills proceeded routinely. The Heath inheritance, complicated by remarriages and conveyances across three households, was settled by a declaratory resolution of the council on 22 February 1709 that Mary Foster was the proper heir to all the land bequeathed by Edward Heath’s will of 9 June 1706, with writings to be drawn between the parties to clear the title for sale to Samuel Jeffrey. [132, 145, 151, 212]

A series of more contested probate questions turned on the share allowed to a widow. At the sessions of 23 March 1708 the jury, with Thomas Swallow senior as foreman, decided the action brought by Robert Swallow against Daniell Griffith and Jonathan Duston, executors of William Duston deceased, by ordering an equal division of the deceased’s twenty acres between Mrs Duston and Robert Swallow, plough and smooth land together, with arbitration by two indifferent men and an umpire on failure to agree. The reasoning extended the customary widow’s thirds, but in the modest scale of the holding the planter jury preferred a half. A separate action brought by Griffith and Duston against Robert Swallow over thirty-three pounds and eight pence in debt for goods bought at the deceased Duston’s auctions was deferred to the next quarter sessions for an explicit jury determination of whether the widow was entitled to one third of the personal estate, or whether the will excluded her share. [137, 138, 145]

At the same sessions of 23 March 1708 the case of the three slaves Sambo, Hagar and Sue, accused of having broken into Joseph Parsons’s house and stolen goods to the value of three pounds one shilling and eightpence over a year before, was disposed of by the jury’s finding that all three were guilty under the first head of the law against breaking open houses, dated 28 January 1704. The masters of the slaves bore the civil liability of restitution to Parsons; the slaves themselves received the package of corporal punishment, branding and forced labour for which the statutory head provided. The structured framework gave proportion to penalties that the council had previously imposed by discretion. [137, 139]

Smaller civil suits flowed through the consultations. Jonathan Duston’s complaint of March 1708 against Robert Swallow for entertaining his slaves was dismissed as groundless, the council finding that Duston had himself given his slave leave to help recover a fallen beast from a ditch. George Hoskison’s suit of July 1708 against Thomas Bevean for refusing to make good a sale of land and provisions formerly belonging to Thomas Box was decided for Hoskison, with the jury finding that Bevean had bargained away not only his wife’s present one-sixth share but also any future inheritance rights from her siblings. Charles Steward’s complaint against Thomas Cason and Robert Addis for clandestinely selling a goat of his mark from the Honourable Company’s goat pound was dismissed on conflicting evidence about whether an ear mark had been torn or cut, and Steward was cast in his suit and fined six shillings. [146, 170, 168, 169]

The structure of penalties was scaled by the social status of the offender. The vineyard protection declaration of 22 February 1709 set the pattern most plainly. A white person convicted of robbing or stealing from the Honourable Company’s vineyard was to pay five pounds to the Lords Proprietors and work at the fortifications without pay for six months. A black person was to receive nine lashes on the bare body and work at the fortifications during the General’s pleasure. The same offence produced one penalty for the free and another for the unfree, with the white penalty extracting financial and labour value over a defined term, and the black penalty combining immediate physical punishment with labour of indefinite duration. The reward of five pounds for information leading to apprehension matched the fine extracted from the offender, so that the proprietors took no net loss on the transaction. [213]

The most striking judicial moment of the period concerned the engineer Christian Frederick Vogell. Charged in March 1708 with the rape of Mary, an eleven-year-old slave girl on the Mount, on the consistent testimony of Mary herself, of Meg the slave woman who had seen the act through a window, of Thomas Hoskison aged about eleven who had also seen it, and of Thomas Free to whom Hoskison and Meg had separately reported the same account, Vogell was acquitted by the sessions jury of 1 April 1708. The jury, including Thomas Swallow senior, John French, John Nichols, Hugh Bodley, Thomas Southon, Orlando Bagley, Charles Steward, Henry Francis, Thomas Cason, John Welsh, Robert Bell and Samuel Broom, found him clear of the scandal laid to his charge. The two black girls were left to the law of the island for scandalising Vogell, and Thomas Hoskison was ordered to ask his pardon. Goodwin, on a private declaration by Alexander made after the verdict, ordered Vogell out of his quarters, forbidding him to come there any more until again permitted. Almost a year later, on 8 February 1709, Vogell was dismissed by the council under Roberts as rather a buccaneer than an engineer and no gentleman in his actions and behaviour, wholly unfit to serve the Honourable Company in any capacity. On his refusal to produce an account of his debts on the island, his dismissal was publicised by beat of drum on 22 February 1709, with notice that any person giving him further credit would do so at their own loss, and that all his creditors were to bring in their claims on oath. [141-144, 210, 211, 214]

The Book of Laws and Constitutions, compiled by Mashborne and Griffith between 11 January and 28 March 1709, was the council’s most ambitious institutional product of the period. The volume was put into form and method, methodically and handsomely done, with an alphabetical index. After the second-stage filtering exercise of the daily April sittings, by which the council distinguished laws still in force from those repealed by the proprietors in the meantime, the corpus was read at the country church to thirty-six principal inhabitants on 26 April 1709, deposited with the churchwardens for consultation, and sent home to the Honourable United Company by the next conveyance for further confirmation. The act of publication, the twelve told the council in their grievance submission, had never been done before, and the inhabitants had always been kept in ignorance of the laws. [208, 220, 221, 225, 239]

Trivial causes tried by the council under Roberts began to be entered, by August or September 1709, in a separate book kept for that purpose rather than in the consultation book. The change of practice corresponded to the parallel instruction in the abstract project of 19 July 1709 that suits, quarrels and misdemeanours, save the life and behaviour of George Hoskison, were to be buried in oblivion. The consultation book became increasingly the record of substantive policy decisions; routine judicial business was now collected in its own register. [274]

Economy, store and currency

The Spanish dollar passed on the island at six shillings, against the five shillings at which crown pieces and dollars circulated in England and at which visiting ships valued them. The mismatch had been long-standing, but the proprietors’ general letter of 7 April 1708, arriving on the Fleet frigate in August, ordered an immediate reduction to five shillings. The council resolved on 24 August 1708 that the dollar was to continue at six shillings until further consideration. Several freemen had credit due to them in the store books, and many of their blacks were employed at the fortifications, and a sudden revaluation would have produced both a loss on their existing balances and a flight of cash. The reasons were stated more fully on 27 October 1708 in a detailed schedule of shortages: Batavia arrack wanting one hundred and fifty tons, sugar one hundred tons, bale goods of sundry sorts sixty bales, with wrought silks, spices, tea, sugar candy, coffee, wine, brandy, timber, tools, plain tiles, window glass, train oil, painting oil, yellow paint, white lead and other items either entirely missing or in deficient supply. The store balance of cash had stood at fifty shillings in March 1708 and at no more than five pounds eleven shillings on Roberts’s arrival in August. A revaluation taken when stocks were thin would have raised the real cost of scarce goods at precisely the moment when supply was at its lowest. [178, 179, 195, 196]

The reduction was finally implemented on 22 March 1709, after the cargoes brought by the Despatch Galley from Bengal had replenished the stores. The council judged that no fitter time could be found for the reduction than the present, when money was now passing readily through the stores at the higher rate. From 31 March 1709 crown pieces were to pass at five shillings, as in England, and dollars or Spanish pieces of eight at not more than the same. The storekeeper was to continue to receive coin until 31 March at six shillings for the payment of old debts or for goods, and to pay it out again at six shillings to those to whom money or credit was owed, so that the Honourable Masters might lose nothing by the transition. A Declaration was published by beat of drum the same day, and posted at the usual public places. The same consultation set the prices on the Despatch Galley’s Bengal cargo, with Cossas at seventeen shillings the piece, Ballasore ginghams at ten shillings, neckcloths at one shilling and sixpence, chints at ten shillings the piece, Batavia arrack at six shillings the gallon, and sugar at one shilling and eightpence the pound. [218, 219]

The store operated under fixed Monday serving days, established by the Declaration of 27 October 1708 and continued through 1709. Goods landed on irregular shipping were absorbed into a continuous retail rhythm. Pricing was tariffed by category, with European manufactures advanced by percentage and Indian and other goods quoted in flat sums. The October schedule set ironmongers’ wares at one hundred per cent advance, haberdashery at fifty, tinmen’s wares at one hundred, stationery at fifty, braziers’ wares at fifty, glassware at one hundred, millinery at thirty, turnery at one hundred, hats at fifty, woollen goods at fifty, hosiery at seventy-five, bread and flour at twopence the pound, Goa arrack at seven shillings the gallon, Batavia arrack at five, men’s shoes at five shillings the pair, sugar candy at one shilling and sixpence the pound, Cheshire cheese at ninepence the pound, beef at four shillings the pound, and pewter measures at seventy-five per cent advance. Damaged stock was handled in line with its condition, with three gross of half-broken tobacco pipes priced at sixpence the gross to clear them off the books. [193, 194]

The debt-recovery scheme attached to the October Declaration evolved across the winter. Inhabitants indebted to the Lords Proprietors were initially offered five pounds of fresh store credit for every ten pounds paid in against old debt. The published version raised this to six pounds for ten, equivalent to three-fifths. By an Advertisement of 8 March 1709 the ratio was raised again to two-thirds, with ten pounds of credit for every fifteen pounds paid in, the council having recognised that the existing arrangement might be too hard on some families that wanted several necessaries. Slave labour at the fortifications from 1 September 1708 was treated as cash paid in for the purposes of the scheme, with the credit applicable only to debts exceeding twenty pounds. Plantation holders could carry credit up to seventy pounds against productive ground. By 2 November 1708 several persons whose debts had been thought desperate, including Mr Sprogers, Mr Alexander the clerk, Thomas Swallow senior, John Nicholls, Robert Addis, Leonard Hunt, Francis Wrangham and Lieutenant Goodwin acting for Wrangham’s orphans, had come forward with offers in yams, cattle, slave labour and their own work. [194, 195, 197, 198, 217]

A separate strand of debt control fell on the soldiers. The Declaration of 18 November 1708 forbade any inhabitant from giving credit to a soldier or other Company servant without a note signed by Deputy Governor Captain Goodwin, on pain of the credit being unrecoverable in law. By 22 February 1709 the council had concluded that the credit prohibition alone could not halt the daily demand at the store, and a half-pay scheme was added: any soldier in debt who worked at the fortifications, or had credit due to him by other means, was to receive half of what he earned weekly in cash if he wished, with the other half applied to his old debts. The arrangement converted the soldier’s own labour into a self-acting recovery instrument. [202, 213]

The handling of arriving ships under the new pricing regime tested the council’s purchasing skill. The Blenheim, Captain John Barnes commander, arrived on 3 November 1708 from Bencoolen with a cargo of arrack, coffee and tea, as her captain reported. The bill of lading, demanded by the council, showed a far larger consignment dominated by pepper at 643 peculs, with tea in 561 single tubs and 104 canisters of bohea, camphire, saltpetre, galingar, cubebs, more pepper and forty leaguers of arrack. The council took thirty-four leaguers of Batavia arrack, two canisters of bohea and two tubs of single tea, retaining the arrack for sale at nine shillings the gallon on the island and leaving the tea for forward sale at London where the margin would be greater. The Stringer Galley, arriving on 14 November 1708 with a substantial quantity of sugar candy, was treated differently. The council addressed her supercargoes, Mr Charles Douglas and his colleagues, by letter rather than summoning them ashore, requesting five or six tons of sugar candy at a moment when the store held less than a week’s supply at one shilling and sixpence the pound. [199, 200, 201]

Through 1709 the storekeeper produced monthly returns under the new schedule of 12 July 1709, with sales to the inhabitants, supplies to the general table, to the fortifications, to the garrison and to the Plantation each shown separately under recognised commercial heads. The August return reached three hundred and twenty-three pounds, eleven shillings and elevenpence, against three hundred and thirteen pounds, nineteen shillings and eightpence three farthings in July, with sales to the inhabitants alone reaching two hundred and fifty-nine pounds, two shillings and tenpence on the principal page. The presence of the Godolphin through August accounted for much of the difference, with Batavia arrack alone moving three hundred and two and three-quarter gallons at six shillings the gallon, against one hundred and eighty-two gallons in the previous month. By the consultation of 12 July 1709 the council had also reorganised its provisioning of the inhabitants. After the discharge of slaves from the fortifications on 9 July, with outbound shipping in decline, the Declaration of the same day committed the council to buy provisions of every kind from the planters in reasonable quantities, with rates to be those customarily passed between the planters themselves, the council’s undertaking being that it would not beat down prices nor screw poor men in their necessities. Captain Mashborne, named as Chief of the Lords Proprietors’ Plantations, became the buyer of last resort. [248, 250, 265, 266, 271, 272]

Smaller financial transactions ran continuously alongside the larger schemes. The council served at intervals as a small lending operation: on 20 July 1708 John Bagley received twenty-five pounds on his security with a thirty-pound repayment plus eight per cent interest at one year, and Walter Belvard received thirty pounds on similar terms. Soldier wage-transfer agreements between Thomas Jones and William Slaughter, John Geles and Thomas Southen, and William Williams and Thomas Perkins, executed in April 1708, allowed illiterate junior soldiers to commit their full salaries to a senior non-commissioned officer in exchange for meat, drink, washing, lodging and apparel. The bonds were witnessed and recorded in the council books. The licensing of strong-drink retailers, run on an annual cycle expiring on 25 March, was renewed in April 1709 at thirty pounds the year. On 11 May 1708 John Alexander obtained the licence-granting monopoly, paying thirty pounds annually to the Honourable Company. [149, 150, 153, 174]

Social order, slander and personal conduct

Slander cases occupied a considerable share of the consultations. Personal reputation was treated as actionable, with damages, fines and corporal punishment available to the bench. The standard of remedy was scaled by the social standing of the parties. James Draper’s violent assault on Mrs Clavering in February 1708, in which he had struck her on the head with his cane and called both Claverings by gross and abusive names, was disposed of with only a public apology, a five-shilling fine for being drunk and a two-shilling fine for swearing, the council having recorded explicitly that Clavering and his wife were of ill repute and kept a public house. The same household appeared repeatedly in the consultations across 1707 and 1708, with John Clavering, gunner’s mate, his wife, his daughter Grace, James Draper, John Palin, Walter Belvard, Robert Angus and Edmond Nichols recurring in successive complaints over slander, brawls, the unlicensed sale of punch, and the throwing of stones at the Claverings’ windows at night. By the sessions of 22 June 1708, with Henry Coales as foreman, the jury at last found in favour of Robert Angus on his complaint that Mrs Clavering had scandalised his wife by reporting that he had caught her in bed with the steward of a ship. John Clavering was cast in suit and fined ten pounds, six pounds to the church and four pounds to the Honourable Company’s fortifications, with Mrs Clavering’s personal punishment left to the Governor and Council’s discretion at some other convenient time. [130, 131, 165, 166, 167, 168]

The unwritten character of the dispute that ran across the consultations between Daniell Griffith, Gabriel Powell, Walter Belvard, James Draper and others was sustained by a mixture of factional loyalty among the principal planters and the council’s use of recognisances to bind disputants to the peace. Powell’s erection of cuckold’s horns facing Griffith’s house in early 1708, treated by the council as a deliberate symbolic outrage, drew an initial bond of one hundred pounds and a final fine of twenty pounds, with the remaining eighty pounds deferred to the directors’ decision in London. Richard Swallow and Richard Gurling, both free planters, stood as Powell’s sureties for the second time in eleven days, indicating a settled small group prepared to commit their credit on his behalf. The church-door incident at the country church, where Powell cursed Griffith before service, and the cattle-trespass dispute of 11 May 1708, in which Griffith’s slaves were said to have driven Powell’s cattle through neighbouring lands, ran the quarrel across the spring and summer. [124-129, 154, 155, 139]

The sleeping arrangements at Richard Swallow’s house in early 1708 produced a moral discipline case that illustrates the churchwarden’s reporting duty. Swallow, then churchwarden, complained to the council on his own information that Jonathan Higham’s daughter Mary, about fourteen, had been to his house with her sister Sarah, and after supper had been put to bed with Mrs Conaway’s two sons Thomas and Eben Leech, the same boys whom Sarah said had come down from a nearby hill with a fowl in a bag and confessed they had stolen it. The council, examining each child in turn, found no positive proof that Mary had shared a bed with the boys, and dismissed the case with only a severe check and an admonition to modest carriage for the preservation of all their reputations. The pattern recurs: where the substantive proof was thin, the council preferred admonition to penalty, with the public airing of the matter functioning as the deterrent. [172, 173]

The dispute between Robert Bevean and Humphry Edwards, brought to council in May 1708 on Edwards’s petition on behalf of his daughter-in-law Grace Bryant, illustrates a different boundary. Bevean had repeated to several persons at his wedding that Grace had given him a cowrie shell saying that however many wrinkles or notches it carried, his wife had in her cunt, and that those that had short fingers had a long prick. The council, after hearing Hatton Starling on oath that Bevean had been in a room making punch when the cowrie was first shown to him, ordered that Edwards had no cause of action, Grace Bryant having been a little too free with her tongue in such immodest discourse. Edwards was cast in his suit and ordered to pay council charges; Bevean was forbidden to talk any more of the matter, it being very scandalous to all good people on the island. The council’s reasoning treated the complainant’s prior behaviour as conclusive of her entitlement to protection. [151, 152]

Smaller disorders punctuated the bench’s business across the period. Edward Maidstone, soldier, was ordered on 9 March 1708 to ride the wooden horse with two muskets at each leg for striking down Sergeant Slaughter after tattoo. Samuel Price, soldier, was found in July 1708 to have stolen a dollar from the sleeping Hatton Starling at the guard, and was ordered to ride the wooden horse during the Governor’s pleasure and pay fourfold restitution. Henry Coale’s slander against Mrs Foster involving a dildo, prosecuted in the autumn of 1707, came to fines of seven shillings for swearing in court and a public admonition. Walter Belvard and Robert Angus, on John Clavering’s complaint of 22 June 1708 that they had thrown stones at his window late on the night of 11 June, were fined three shillings each on circumstantial evidence and Belvard fined a further five shillings for his slave cutting wood on the Lord’s Day. The recurrence of these small fines, recognisances and orders to ask pardon shows the bench operating continuously as the routine arbiter of personal conduct on a small island where the same names returned week after week. [130, 165, 173, 67-76]

Religion, education and parish life

Parish life on the island was organised around two churches, one in Fort James Valley and the country church near Plantation House, served alternately by Joshua Thomlinson as minister and by churchwardens and overseers of the highways drawn each year from the principal free planters. By the Warrant of 25 May 1708, Matthew Bazett and Henry Francis were appointed churchwardens for the year ensuing, and Gabriel Powell and Thomas Burnham overseers of the highways, with seven heads of duty: care of the furniture, vestments and utensils of both churches; account of all gifts dedicated to the churches; the reproof and admonition of sabbath-breakers, swearers, drunkards and whoremongers up to the third offence, with referral to the council thereafter; the annual nomination by majority vote of the freeholders of four candidates for each office, the council to choose two from the four for the succeeding year; oversight of the poor and the impotent; and the maintenance of order during divine service through the sexton, whose salary was to be assessed. The instructions formalised the churchwarden as a small-scale moral police, with the third-strike escalation creating a graduated enforcement system reserving council time for the more persistent or serious cases. [158, 159]

The head money due to the churches stood at sixpence per head per year for all whites and blacks in each family. Two years of arrears, for 1706 and 1707, were declared on the same Warrant of 25 May 1708, with collection placed in the hands of Bazett and Francis, who were empowered to seize and sell goods at public auction in the case of refusal. The list of assessable persons covered the entire free population, from the Governor through the deputy and councillors down to the orphans and widows of the small holdings. Special assessments could be added to the head money where the church and poor funds could not bear the accumulated obligations. The annual cycle of nomination and election ran on the Monday next before 25 March, the eve of the new year by the old calendar, the same date used by the council as the cutoff for the store accounts and for the licensing of strong-drink retailers. [158, 160, 161, 220]

The schoolmaster’s post at the country church was approved by Poirier in early 1707 for a three-month trial of Samuel Broom, on whose continued service the records imply by mid-1708 when Broom appears among the twelve free planters jurors at the Vogell trial. The maintenance of the Beale orphans by Henry Francis at fourteen pounds the year, with the explicit obligation to teach them to read and write, brought education into the orphan contract. A pro rata refund of seven pounds the year was provided if the council removed Richard Beale before the year had run. The Mary French orphan contract with George Hoskison, of 1 April 1708, granted Hoskison the use of Mary French’s land and provisions for ten years on a structured rent of slave labour at the fortifications, deliveries of yams every second week at four shillings the hundred, and a residual cash component, with answerability for twenty thousand yams to Box’s estate. The contracts illustrate the bench’s adaptation of trusteeship to the working economy of an island short of currency. [142, 147, 149]

Sabbath-breaking remained a regular offence. Walter Belvard’s five-shilling fine for his slave cutting wood on the Lord’s Day in June 1708 fell on the master rather than the slave, reinforcing that masters bore legal responsibility for their slaves’ conduct. The Joshua Thomlinson ministry attended the principal occasions of the island’s religious life, though it was the churchwardens who carried the daily weight of parish discipline. By the spring of 1709 the country church served also as the deposit point for the new Book of Laws and Constitutions, and as the venue at which thirty-six principal inhabitants assembled on 26 April to hear it read. The church thereby acquired an institutional role in the publication and administration of the island’s legal order, complementing its religious one. [165, 221, 225]

Trade and shipping

Shipping was the lifeline of the island. Each arrival brought stores, news, fresh personnel and the prospect of a sale of the planters’ surplus. The ships of these months whose names recur in the consultations include the Albemarle, the Northumberland, the Rochester, the Hampshire, the Union, the Henry, the Panther, the Westmoreland, the Blenheim, the Stringer Galley, the Despatch Galley, the Fleet frigate, the Windsor, the Aurengzeb and the Godolphin. A Portuguese ship from Bahia bound for Angola called on 22 March 1708 to take on water and provisions, with the council ordering Alexander to board the ship to count men and inspect cargo, the captain to come ashore with his papers, and the ship to be moved closer in under the line of guns before the formalities were completed. The procedural checklist of port reception applied to every visitor, with the council’s authority over the road exercised through the documentary verification of identity, intention and lading. [136]

The summer fleet of 1708 carried home all consultations from 13 January 1707/8 to the date of sailing per Her Majesty’s ship Panther, Captain Trotter commander, and the Albemarle, Captain William Beaw commander, which departed on 6 July 1708. The dispatch on two separate ships reduced the risk of losing the only copy if one vessel foundered. The same fleet carried home Edmond Kempton, who had asked to leave on the completion of his three-year surgeon’s service, until the Honourable Company’s books were consulted and showed his term to be five years. He was ordered to serve two years longer or to find a substitute. John Labour, matross, was permitted to take his passage on the Albemarle, that ship being weakly manned at Captain Beaw’s own request. [152, 153, 164, 170]

The Fleet frigate arriving on 24 August 1708 with Governor Roberts, seventeen soldiers and the new directors’ cargo opened the second phase of the period. The handling of incoming captains under Roberts followed a tighter pattern than under Goodwin. Captain Newton was ordered to deliver one thousand pieces of eight from the treasure chest on his ship as quietly as could be managed, the council moving discreetly to capture available cash before commanders or inhabitants reorganised their accounts. The Blenheim on 3 November 1708 was greeted with a demand for her bill of lading before any negotiation, the captain’s verbal description of his cargo as arrack, coffee and tea proving to omit the large pepper consignment that was its principal item. The Stringer Galley on 14 November received a polite letter to her supercargoes, as the Honoured Masters’ immediate servants, rather than a peremptory summons. The forms of address were calibrated to the legal standing of the addressees. [181, 200, 201]

The Despatch Galley from Bengal arrived in early 1709, bringing the cargo on which the dollar revaluation of 22 March 1709 was finally enabled. Cossas, ginghams, neckcloths, chints, coarse challo shirts, Batavia arrack, sugar and rice were priced under the new regime, with the council using the cargo to fix the working price for the period that followed. The Aurengzeb from Bombay, recorded at the consultation of 28 June 1709, carried sixteen Goa hogsheads of arrack costed at four hundred and forty xerephens, half freight at sixteen shillings the ton on three tons seventeen of some smaller subdivision, and the charge of lading aboard in iron hoops, totalling eighty-eight pounds, six shillings and eightpence landed. Leakage in transit reduced the consignment to five hundred and sixty-two gallons of which most was bad stuff, but the council ordered the lot sold off at four shillings and sixpence the gallon to recover the cost of the full sixteen-hogshead consignment. The half-and-half rule, with Batavia at six shillings and Goa at four and sixpence, prevented inhabitants from buying only the better-tasting stock. [218, 252]

The arrival of the Godolphin on the evening of Sunday 31 July 1709 with a private packet to the Governor and a request from Captain John Ap Rice for fresh provisions and necessaries for his sick men dominated the council’s business through August. The Captain’s relationship to John Ap Rice his second mate and Mr Edward Wikt his fifth mate, both cousins, lay at the heart of the chief mate Jonah Ingram’s petition of 4 and 8 August 1709. Ingram’s ten articles ran from the Captain’s treatment of him at sea through the second and fifth mates’ drunkenness, the second mate’s refusal of his directions in the Captain’s absence, the privileges of a poor mate midshipman at the Captain’s table, the consumption by Madam Ap Rice and her family of the Company’s refreshment stores, the locking of fresh greens away from him in the second mate’s cabin on arrival, the letter-of-attorney requirement at Plymouth before the voyage, and the proposition that Edward Wikt held the real command of the ship through flattering attention to the Captain’s personal comforts. The Captain asked that Ingram be discharged and recommended the second mate as an able man. The Godolphin’s officers, called in as a body, gave a unanimous testimonial that Ingram was an able seaman, careful and sober, and that the second mate was a drunken fellow given to sleeping on his watch. [259, 260, 261]

The Governor’s personal examination of John Ap Rice the second mate at the consultation of 10 August 1709 produced the most carefully documented professional incompetence in the consultations of these years. Set the problem of tacking a ship close on a wind with all sails except the top gallant sails, the may sails and the spritsail, the second mate failed to square the spritsail yard, failed to let go his main top gallant bowline, gave orders for the manoeuvre at the wrong moment, and called for the main topsail to be hauled where the order should have been for the main sails. On wearing the ship from the other tack he forgot to put the helm a-weather. On a question in plain sailing, with the difference of latitude and the departure given, he could not produce the rule. He kept no journal. The log book he produced carried no remarks, no entry of the month, no record of whether the latitude was north or south. His seven-day reckoning since the previous council day produced an error of two days’ worth, with each set out by half the mark, so that in a single day he had been fourteen miles out in latitude and nineteen in his departure. The council ordered, on 16 August 1709, that John Ap Rice the second mate be discharged from the Honourable Company’s service and turned ashore as incapable of that or any other office. [262, 263]

The disposal of the Ingram-Ap Rice file showed the council exercising its supervisory jurisdiction over Company shipping to its fullest extent. Ingram was found able, with the criticism that he might have been saucy and impertinent to the Captain, and was ordered to ask the Captain’s forgiveness on the footing of future conduct that would gain his esteem, with the Captain to restore him to his post. The third mate Norgate, judged a good and sober man, was directed to be promoted to second mate; the gunner to third; and the gunner’s mate, of very good character, to gunner. The council resolved, with a contingent threat of formal protest, to make the promotions itself if the Captain refused. A further discharge requested by the Captain of an officer not specifically charged was conceded, on condition the Captain repay the ship bond, with the council reserving the discharged man for passage to Bombay as the Honourable Company wanted white men at that station. Captain Ap Rice was supplied with bread and provisions sufficient to last him to Bombay, and both his letters and the Governor’s replies were entered in the letter book. By 20 September 1709 John Ap Rice the discharged second mate had himself petitioned for passage to Bombay, the place not agreeing with his constitution or his interest. The petition was granted, with the Captain to supply him with cash for his lodging charges and a bill for the remainder of his wages payable by the General and council at Bombay. [263, 264, 270, 273]

Slavery and coerced labour

Slavery was woven through every aspect of the island’s working economy. The list returned on the highway warrant of 30 August 1709 recorded one hundred and twenty-nine slaves across the free planter households alone, against seventy-three whites. Slaves were held in modest numbers per household: Goodwin returned four blacks, Mashborne one, Marsden two, Griffith four, Alexander one. The largest holdings on the warrant list were those of George Carne with six blacks, George Hoskison with six, James Greentree and apprentice with five, and Daniell Griffith with four. The slave population was concentrated in the country plantations rather than at the Fort, and the Company itself maintained a separate body of slaves at the Plantation and on the fortifications. [267, 268]

The most dramatic slave matter of the period was the conspiracy of late 1706 and early 1707. Domingo or Mingo, slave of Henry Webley, was accused of plotting with several other slaves to seize Fort James, take the powder, kill the white men and women, and seize a Portuguese ship in which to escape. The witnesses were drawn from among the slaves themselves. Toby, slave of Joseph Fox, became the chief witness under threat of burning, retracting and reaffirming his testimony in stages, with Mingo’s threats to haunt him from beyond the grave invoked at one point as the reason for his initial silence. The trial procedure was uncertain: the jury was at first unsworn, the deficit only discovered after the verdict, and the jurors were reconvened and sworn retrospectively to validate their finding. Sey, slave of Leonard Coulson, and many others were examined under whipping. Mingo was executed on 25 February 1707, with Henry Webley compensated twenty-six pounds for the loss. The case ran across films 9 to 39 of the source and gave the new administration of Goodwin, when it succeeded Poirier later that year, a settled view of the dangers of unfree concentration on a small island. [9-39]

The disciplinary regime against runaway slaves tightened across the period. The order of mid-September 1708 required runaways to be reported to the Governor within six days, on pain of the slave working for the Company six months and for the informer three months if the master neglected the report. If the slave was not retaken within one month the slave was to work at the fortifications six months. Where the master refused to bring a recaptured slave to Fort James for condign punishment, the informer was to have one month’s labour of the slave. The arrangement converted enforcement into a self-acting machinery driven by informers’ rewards rather than by direct council inspection. The slave Dennis was sentenced under earlier orders to two hundred lashes plus forty and to be branded with an R for repeated running. Refase, the slave caught running with Dennis, received similar punishment. Roger, taken with them, was added to the labour at the fortifications. [185, 186]

The fourfold restitution law, by which a slave’s offence against another planter required a fourfold satisfaction in money, was felt by the inhabitants as a windfall charge unrelated to actual loss. The twelve’s fourth grievance of June 1709 asked that masters be required to make satisfaction only for the thing stolen, to the person injured. The council’s answer, that the fourfold restitution law was to be set aside and that the proprietors would be asked to repeal it formally, illustrates the division of authority by which the council could suspend a rule locally but only London could change the legal code. The example given by the council in defence of the related hides-and-horns scheme described how a man who killed a beast and stole another from his nearest neighbour could clear himself by showing the mark of his own beast, while one who could not account for beef in his house by reference to substantial men of warranted standing ought to be convicted. The arms warrant, the slaughter records and the search warrant together formed a single mechanism for policing livestock theft. [240, 241, 232]

The Company’s own slaves at the Plantation and on the fortifications occupied the centre of the council’s production programme. The lower table arrangements of 27 April 1709 recorded that two slaves dressed the victuals and one fetched wood, with the daily cost of the slave wood-fetcher running at two shillings. The fortification works under Roberts deployed the inhabitants’ slaves and the Company’s own slaves together, with the eighteen-pence daily rate set in October 1708 as the wage. By the spring and summer of 1709 the council’s own slaves were performing the gum-wood planting at Plantation Valley, the lemon-tree planting in the country, the breaking of limestone at Rupert’s Valley, and the building of the new Plantation house. The vineyard penalty declaration of 22 February 1709 set the differential rates for whites and blacks for theft from the Honourable Company’s vineyard. The arms licensing scheme of late May 1709 was tied throughout to chief of family, not to all male inhabitants. The line between free and unfree ran through every regulatory instrument of the period. [187, 213, 226, 240, 270]

Manumission and free black status did not feature in the consultations, but the labour-credit substitution under the debt-recovery scheme of late 1708 and early 1709 brought slaves into the council’s accounting system as instruments of their masters’ financial recovery. Slave labour at the fortifications from 1 September 1708 was treated as cash paid in for the purposes of debt recovery, with the storekeeper crediting masters according to the days worked. The mechanism converted slaves into a working financial instrument as well as a productive one. [195, 196]

Crime and punishment

The criminal jurisdiction of the council ran from the lightest disorder to the gravest offence. The wooden horse, the pillory, the public apology and the fine were the standard instruments at the lower end; the lash, branding with an R for repeated offences, and execution were reserved for the most serious cases. The structured housebreaking law of 28 January 1704, with its three heads of escalating gravity, illustrates the bench’s readiness to graduate penalty by the seriousness of the offence. Sambo, Hagar and Sue, convicted at the sessions of 23 March 1708 of breaking into Joseph Parsons’s house, came under the first head as first offenders. Dennis, by 1707, had reached the third head, and was branded as well as flogged. [137, 139]

Soldier discipline was managed through a regime of riding the wooden horse with muskets at the legs. Edward Maidstone’s punishment of 9 March 1708, for striking down Sergeant Slaughter after tattoo, was to ride the wooden horse with two muskets at each leg on this day and on two further relief days, remaining a prisoner in the interval. The doubling of the customary weight reflected the gravity of striking a sergeant after the close of the day. Samuel Price’s punishment of July 1708, for the theft of a dollar from the sleeping Hatton Starling at the guard, was to ride the wooden horse during the Governor’s pleasure, an open-ended term. Maidstone’s plea that he had been in drink, and his expression of contrition, saved him from a more severe disposition. [130, 173]

Cattle theft, sabbath-breaking, soldier desertion, the firing of guns at the Company’s cattle, the housebreaking of fellow planters, the entertaining of other masters’ slaves at night, and the unlicensed sale of punch all came before the bench at various points. Robert Nevill, soldier, charged in May 1708 with firing at a heifer that was bloody in two or three places, defended himself with the claim that he had fired only at two partridges and had only three stones in his gun. The case was adjourned for inspection of all the Company’s calves before any decision. William Hewton, servant of Richard Alexander the overseer, was suspected on Alexander’s sworn affidavit of having stolen thirty shillings of overseer money and a pair of breeches from his master’s house in Fort James Valley, having been seen on board the Northumberland the day before sailing with a bundle and money jingling in the boat. Hewton having escaped beyond the council’s reach by the ship’s departure, the case turned on whether Alexander, as the responsible overseer, should personally pay for the loss. Marsden took the strict view that he should; Goodwin and Mashborne held that the sworn account of housebreaking and identification of the absconded servant relieved him. The majority discharged Alexander from the obligation. [147, 163]

Branding and disfigurement appeared in the slave-discipline regime but not in the free-planter regime. The hides-and-horns scheme and the cattle marks register, by their very design, depended on the visible identification of property through alteration. The slave Refase’s branding with an R for repeated running was an extension of the same principle to bodies. The whipping of slave witnesses in the Mingo investigation of 1707, with Toby threatened with burning, Sey examined under whipping and many others examined under similar means, recorded a working investigative regime in which physical coercion was the standard instrument for obtaining slave testimony. [9-39]

The most extreme failure of justice in the consultations was the acquittal of Christian Frederick Vogell of 1 April 1708. The detailed evidence of Mary aged about eleven, of Meg the slave woman who had seen the act through a window, of Thomas Hoskison the eleven-year-old who had also seen it, of Thomas Free to whom both Meg and Hoskison had given the same account, and of Vogell’s own admission to Free that he had run after Mary on the Mount and seized her, was not enough to overcome the social difference between the engineer and his witnesses. The verdict that Vogell was clear of the scandal laid to his charge, with the punishment of the two black girls left to the law of the island for scandalising him and Thomas Hoskison ordered to ask his pardon, illustrates how the legal protection of process and proportion that the bench had built up did not extend across the line of unfreedom when the offence was as grave as this. The council’s subsequent administrative removal of Vogell from his quarters, on Alexander’s later declaration of Vogell’s private approach to him, used the executive authority of the bench to mark the council’s own opposite view of the verdict. The dismissal under Roberts of 8 February 1709, by which Vogell was declared rather a buccaneer than an engineer and no gentleman in his actions, completed the institutional disapproval that the local jury’s verdict had refused to inflict. [141-144, 210]

Personalities

Among the recurring figures of the consultations the most prominent are the council members themselves. Stephen Poirier, Governor through to 8 September 1707, appears mainly through the inheritance of administrative disorder he left to his successors. Thomas Goodwin, Governor from September 1707 until John Roberts’s arrival in August 1708 and thereafter Deputy Governor, is the council member whose hand can be traced most often across the daily business of the period. Edward Mashborne moved up from third in council under Poirier to deputy under Goodwin, back to third under Roberts, and across the same period was named Chief of the Lords Proprietors’ Plantations. He carried the procurement of yams, the management of the cattle commonage, the gum wood and lemon plantings, the compilation of the Book of Laws with Griffith, the receipt of cattle from Sprogers, and the cattle case against Mrs Johnson. William Marsden, the storekeeper, remained third or fourth in council, with his salary continued at fifty pounds the year by ratification of the proprietors. Daniell Griffith, the contentious planter raised to fifth in council on the directors’ own express direction of 7 April 1708, brought his local standing into the formal hierarchy of government and became one of the working drafters of the new corpus. John Alexander, clerk of the council, surgeon’s apprentice turned ensign on the directors’ direction of 1707, holder of the licence-granting monopoly, attestant of innumerable documents, was the steady documentary hand on which the administration depended throughout. [73, 175, 178, 153]

The recurring figures among the inhabitants form a recognisable cast. John Clavering, gunner’s mate, and his wife and daughter Grace appear in the consultations on charges of slander, the unlicensed sale of punch, drunken disorder and reciprocal complaints against neighbours from Henry Coale’s dildo slander case in autumn 1707 through to the Robert Angus prosecution of June 1708. Daniell Griffith, before his elevation to council, was the principal contender in a quarrel with Gabriel Powell that ran across nearly a year of consultations, with Walter Belvard, James Draper, John Long and the Powell-Griffith cuckold horns affair at its centre. James Greentree, John Labouse Montrose, John Long, James Linsole the marshal, Robert Swallow, William Swallow, Mary French, Thomas Burnham, George Hoskison the doctor, William Beale, Hugh Bodley, Henry Coales as foreman of the June 1708 jury, Joseph Trapp, Mary Conaway, John Palin, Edmond Nichols, Richard Swallow the carpenter, James Vesey, Richard Gurling, Charles Steward, Matthew Bazett the storekeeper’s assistant and later churchwarden, Henry Francis the guardian of the Beale orphans, and Thomas Bevean recur across complaint, petition, witness and jury through the consultations. The same names appear over and over again because the resident free population was small and densely interconnected. [67-76, 87-92, 124-129, 132, 145, 147, 150, 152, 158, 166, 170, 220]

Among the slaves named in the consultations the most prominent is Mingo or Domingo, the slave of Henry Webley executed on 25 February 1707 for conspiring to seize Fort James. Toby, slave of Joseph Fox, was the chief witness against him under repeated threat of burning. Sey, slave of Leonard Coulson, gave evidence under whipping. Dennis and Refase, runaways branded for repeat offences, illustrate the standard slave-discipline regime of the period. Sambo, Hagar and Sue, convicted at the sessions of 23 March 1708 of housebreaking, fell under the first head of the housebreaking law of 28 January 1704. Mary, aged about eleven, slave on the Mount, was the victim of Vogell’s alleged rape in early 1708, with Meg the slave woman of the Governor’s house and Anthony, the household black who refused to look through the window when called by Meg, the witnesses through whose intervention the case came to the council. Dick, slave of Jonathan Duston, appears in the cattle case in which Robert Swallow was accused of entertaining him. Tom, described by Mr Bondall as an unlucky rogue, recurs across the cattle and timber cases. [9-39, 137-144, 146]

The principal external figures are the captains and supercargoes of the visiting ships. Captain William Beaw of the Albemarle, Captain John Barnes of the Blenheim, Captain Charles Newton of the Fleet frigate, Captain Trotter of the Panther, Captain John Ap Rice of the Godolphin, Captain Sandys with whom barters of arrack for Bardoma wine were transacted in mid-1709, and Captain Cyke of the Stringer Galley each appear in the consultations through the negotiations over cargo, supply or personnel that their ships occasioned. Mr Charles Douglas, supercargo of the Stringer Galley, received the council’s polite November 1708 letter requesting five or six tons of sugar candy. Mr Jonah Ingram, chief mate of the Godolphin, brought the August 1709 petition against his captain that produced the most carefully documented officer-competence inquiry in the consultations. Christian Frederick Vogell, engineer dismissed in early 1709 as no gentleman, and Hans George Newman, the earlier engineer with whom he had clashed, completed the technical staff. Aaron Johnson, soldier, the first man to find lime stone, received twenty dollars in October 1708; Walter Belvard, who brought a sample from another location, received two dollars. Edmond Kempton, surgeon turned country physician under the order of 20 September 1709, and Doctor Porteous, the senior surgeon then under council review, brought the medical establishment into the period’s closing consultations. [136, 174, 175, 181, 200, 201, 252, 259, 274]

The narrative as set out here is necessarily selective. Almost every consultation contains further matter that could be drawn out, and some of the most striking detail in the source lies in the small turns of phrase by which the council framed its own decisions, or in the names that recur without much explanation across the months. What the consultations as a body convey, even on the partial coverage of the present account, is an island administration tightening its grip across the period: from the disordered final months of Poirier’s rule, through the cautious reformations of Goodwin’s bench, to the systematic regulatory and documentary programme of John Roberts. The Book of Laws and Constitutions, the cattle marks register, the new fort and the United Castle, the planting and fencing law, the sugar trial at Sandy Bay, the new monthly storekeeper’s reports and the careful examination of Captain Ap Rice’s second mate together mark the consolidation of an administrative apparatus that none of the council’s predecessors had achieved. The price of that consolidation, paid by the slaves whose labour underwrote the fortifications and the planting, by the Vogell witnesses whose testimony was held insufficient against an officer of the Company, and by the planters whose tenure was being remade around them, is also legible on every page of the source. [Conclusion drawn across films 9-274]

Film

No

Page

No.

OCR Transcription

Modern Summary with Analysis

1

EAP 1364 St Helena

Document Name and Date
St Helena Records 1706 - 1709

Photographer
Shelley

Date photographed
27.10.2021

2

Book cover

3

Blank page

4

Blank page

5

Blank page

6

Blank page

7

Island St. Helena.

Council Book begun the 5th day
of November 1706

Stepn. Poirier Govr.
Tho: Goodwin dep. Govr.

Island St. Helena.

Council Book begun the 5th of November 1706

Stephen. Poirier Governor
Thomas Goodwin deputy Governor

8

Blank page

9

1

Att a Consultation, held the 5.th of November. 1706. Att fort James.

Pres: Step.n Pourier Govern.r Tho:s Goodwin, Dep.ty Govern.r

Whereas Thomas Hulstone made Complaint to Govern.r & Councell on Sunday last That John Clavering Gunn.rs Mate, abused him very Grossly and Velliffied him on [...] him Theife, Rogue, and Rascall, and Struck him Several blows with his Cane, for which he Desires Sa[t]is= =fee may be done him. And that the following Witness may be [s]worne.

The said John Clavering was Called for, and appeared, and owned he Struck the said Thom.s Hulstone but one blow, which he would not have done had he not been provak'd to it, and had he been at home last Night, would have done the same again. upon abusing his Wife.

William Swallow Corp.ll Saith that on Sunday Evening Last being Going over the Water, and setting at fosters Door, hears M.r Clavering Call the said Thomas Hulstone, Theiving Rogue, and Rascall, and had Stole his hair, but what hair he Cant tell, and saw the said John Clavering Strike him a blow with his Cane, but had no Sword that he Saw. Further the said Thomas Hulstone was with him Last Night from the Dusk of the Evening till. 10. and was not absent. 10. Minutes.

Edmond Kempton Saith that he being Setting at M.r Claverings Door, Saw the said Thomas Hulstone Come from out of M.r Wills house, and com[e]ing to the said Door, some words arose betwixt the said Claverings Wife, and the said Thom.s Hulstone about some hair, and a Porringer, and heard M.r Clavering Call him Sev.l Names, and at length M.r Clavering Strucke him a blow with his Cane.

It is Ordered

That the said John Clavering be fined the Summ of: 5: for breach of the Peace, [&] Strikeing the [Plant]iff against the Law, in such Cases, he keeping a Pullick hou[se] and Not taking a legall Course as he ought to have Done, and pay Councell fees.

[...]b.r the 5.th 1707. Signed [by] me Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:

Tho.s Hulston Comp.t against Clavering His Defence W.m Swallow Evid.ce Ed.d Kempton Clavering Fin'd

At a consultation held at Fort James on 5 November 1706, with Governor Stephen Poirier and Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin present.

On the previous Sunday, Thomas Hulstone had laid a complaint before Pourier and the Council. He alleged that John Clavering, the Gunner's Mate, had grossly abused and vilified him, branding him thief, rogue and rascal, and had struck him with several blows of a cane. Hulstone sought redress and asked that the following witnesses be sworn.

Clavering was summoned and appeared. He admitted hitting Hulstone, but only once, and insisted that the blow would not have been delivered had he not been provoked. He added that, had he been at home the previous night when his wife was abused, the same action would have followed.

Corporal William Swallow gave evidence. On the Sunday evening in question, while crossing the water and seated at Foster's door, he heard Clavering call Hulstone a thieving rogue and rascal, accusing him of having stolen hair, though Swallow could not say what hair was meant. He saw Clavering strike Hulstone with a cane but observed no sword. Swallow further stated that Hulstone had been in his company the previous night from dusk until ten o'clock and had been absent no more than ten minutes.

Edmond Kempton then gave his account. While seated at Clavering's door, he saw Hulstone leave Wills's house and approach. Words then arose between Clavering's wife and Hulstone over some hair and a porringer. Kempton heard Clavering apply several abusive names to Hulstone, after which Clavering dealt him a blow with a cane.

Clavering was ordered to pay a fine of £5 for breach of the peace and for hitting the plaintiff contrary to the law in such matters. As keeper of a public house he had failed to take the lawful course open to him. Council fees were also imposed.

Signed on 5 [...]ber 1707 by Thomas Goodwin.

Interpretations

The Council functioned here as a local court of summary jurisdiction, handling assault and breach of the peace within the small fort community by hearing the complaint, taking sworn testimony, examining the accused and imposing a fine in a single sitting. No formal indictment or jury was needed for such matters; the governing body simply doubled as the magistracy.

Particular weight was placed on Clavering's status as a publican. The order singled out his failure to pursue legal remedy as an aggravating factor, suggesting that those licensed to keep public houses were expected to set an example by recourse to law rather than by personal violence, even when their own household had been provoked.

Provocation was acknowledged but not accepted as exoneration. Clavering's grievances about his wife's mistreatment and the suspected theft of hair and a porringer were entered on record, yet did not reduce the penalty. The Council preserved the principle that private wrongs required redress through formal process, not through the cane.

Speculations

The hair in question was probably a wig or hairpiece of some value, which would account for why its alleged theft was treated as a substantive grievance rather than a trivial domestic quarrel. The accompanying porringer points to small household items going missing, consistent with petty pilfering rather than serious larceny.

The fine of £5 appears calibrated to mark the offence as serious without ruining a serving officer. The sum was substantial enough to deter further violence among the garrison but stopped well short of the harsher penalties commonly imposed for breach of the peace in larger jurisdictions, reflecting the practical need to keep skilled men such as a Gunner's Mate in post.

10

2

Att a Consultation, held the 5.th of November. 1706. Att fort James.

Pres: Step.n Poirier Govern.r Tho:s Goodwin, Dep.ty Govern.r

Whereas Thomas Hulstone made Complaint to Govern.r & Councell on Sunday last That John Clavering Gunn.rs Mate, abused him very Grossly and Velliffied him on Calling him Theife, Rogue, and Rascall, and Struck him Several blows with his Cane, for which he Desires Sa[t]is= =fee may be done him. And that the following Witness may be sworne.

The said John Clavering was Called for, and appeared, and owned he Struck the said Thom.s Hulstone but one blow, which he would not have done had he not been provak'd to it, and had he been at home last Night, would have done the same again. upon abusing his Wife.

William Swallow Corp.ll Saith that on Sunday Evening Last being Going over the Water, and setting at fosters Door, heard M.r Clavering Call the said Thomas Hulstone, Theiving Rogue, and Rascall, and had Stole his hair, but what hair he Cant tell, and saw the said John Clavering Strike him a blow with his Cane, but had no Sword that he Saw. Further the said Thomas Hulstone was with him Last Night from the Dusk of the Evening till. 10. and was not absent. 10. Minutes.

Edmond Kempton Saith that he being Setting at M.r Clavering Door, Saw the said Thomas Hulstone Come from out of M.r Wills house, and com[e]ing to the said Door, some words arose betwixt the said Claverings Wife, and the said Thom.s Hulstone about some hair, and a Porringer, and heard M.r Clavering Call him Sev.l Names, and at length M.r Clavering Strucke him a blow with his Cane.

It is Ordered

That the said John Clavering be fined the Summ of: 5: for breach of the Peace, [&] Strikeing the Plantiff against the Law, in such Cases, he keeping a Pullick hou[se] and Not taking a legall Course as he ought to have Done, and pay Councell fees.

[...]b.r the 5.th 1707. Signed [by] me Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:

Tho.s Hulston Comp.t against Clavering His Defence W.m Swallow Evid.ce Ed.d Kempton Clavering Fin'd

At a consultation held at Fort James on 5 November 1706, with Governor Stephen Poirier and Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin present.

On the previous Sunday, Thomas Hulstone had laid a complaint before Poirier and the Council. He alleged that John Clavering, the Gunner's Mate, had grossly abused and vilified him, calling him thief, rogue and rascal, and had struck him with several blows of a cane. Hulstone sought satisfaction and asked that the following witnesses be sworn.

Clavering was summoned and appeared. He admitted striking Hulstone, but only once, and insisted that the blow would not have been delivered had he not been provoked. He added that, had he been at home the previous night when his wife was abused, the same action would have followed.

Corporal William Swallow gave evidence. On the Sunday evening in question, while crossing the water and seated at Foster's door, he heard Clavering call Hulstone a thieving rogue and rascal, and accuse him of having stolen hair, though Swallow could not say what hair was meant. He saw Clavering strike Hulstone a blow with his cane but observed no sword. Swallow further stated that Hulstone had been in his company the previous night from dusk until ten o'clock and had been absent no more than ten minutes.

Edmond Kempton then gave his account. While seated at Clavering's door, he saw Hulstone leave Wills's house and approach. Words then arose between Clavering's wife and Hulstone over some hair and a porringer. Kempton heard Clavering address Hulstone by several abusive names, and eventually saw Clavering strike him a blow with his cane.

Clavering was ordered to be fined the sum of £5 for breach of the peace and for striking the plaintiff against the law in such cases. As keeper of a public house, he had failed to pursue the lawful course required of him. Council fees were also to be paid.

Signed on 5 [...]ber 1707 by Thomas Goodwin.

Interpretations

The Council functioned as a local court of summary jurisdiction, handling assault and breach of the peace within the small fort community by hearing the complaint, taking sworn testimony, examining the accused and imposing a fine in a single sitting. No formal indictment or jury was required for such matters; the governing body simply doubled as the magistracy.

Particular weight attached to Clavering's status as a publican. The order singled out his failure to pursue legal remedy as an aggravating factor, suggesting that those licensed to keep public houses were expected to set an example by recourse to law rather than by personal violence, even when their own household had been provoked.

Provocation was acknowledged but not accepted as exoneration. Clavering's grievances about his wife's mistreatment and the suspected theft of hair and a porringer were placed on record, yet did not reduce the penalty. The Council preserved the principle that private wrongs required redress through formal process, not through the cane.

Speculations

The hair in question was probably a wig or hairpiece of some value, which would account for why its alleged theft was treated as a substantive grievance rather than a trivial domestic quarrel. The accompanying porringer points to small household items going missing, consistent with petty pilfering rather than serious larceny.

The fine of £5 appears calibrated to mark the offence as serious without ruining a serving officer. The sum was substantial enough to deter further violence among the garrison but stopped well short of the harsher penalties commonly imposed for breach of the peace in larger jurisdictions, reflecting the practical need to retain skilled men such as a Gunner's Mate in post.

11

3

Then the Plantiffs Evidences were Called & Sworne as followeth.

William Beale Sworn Saith, that on last Sunday was. 7. Night, his Wife Desired her Sister Mudge to go out of the house with her [chield], because it Cryed and Disturbed, his [Child] that was a Dying, a little while after his Sister Came up, and said that M.rs Clavering had abus'd her, by Calling her Severall Names, and hearing M.rs Clavering Scold, look'd out at his Window, and heard her Call his Sister Jade, with Severall more abusive words, further that a Sunday Morning about one or. 2. of the Clock he heard Joseph Trapp talk, and Call to M.rs Clavering for a Bowle of punch, who gott Up out of bed Immediately, and Came to his house to gett a Light, In order to See, to make the punch, which he Supposes she did, and a little while after Day, he heard M.rs Clavering, and Joseph Trapp, Discoursing about the Scrypture of Jonas being in the Whales belley, and flying to Nineveh in a very Prophane Laughing Manner.

M.rs Hartwell Sworn Saith that she heard M.rs Clavering, and her Daughter abuse M.rs Mudge very Much, a Sunday Evening to the Effect aforesaid, further that her Husband told her, he was Drinkeing with Joseph Trapp, at the said Clavering House, in time of Divine Service on Sunday.; and that she heard M.rs Clavering call M.rs Mudge ill bread Toad, and [...]ed not Rise to Make a Curtchy, to thank the Gentlemen for the Arrack and Money she begg'd at Batavia. and that John How Souldier Came Drunck out of M.rs Clavering house on Sunday Evening.

Bridgett Smith Saith that she heard M.rs Clavering Call M.rs Mudge Dutch beast, Whore, and Toad, and that she brought up the Dutch fashion here, which the English followed, and was a Companion for None but black Wenches, and Upbraided her for begging Money at Batavia.

Thomas Foster Souldier Sworn Saith that he heard M.rs Clavering Call M.rs Mudge Dutch Strumpett, and Whore with a Great Many more ill Names, whereupon went to M.rs Mudge, and ask't her, Whether M.rs Clavering Called her So, who made Answer Yes, and that M.rs Clavering said She went to the Church Door, and begg'd.

William Gore Sworn Saith, he being in M.rs Clavering house heard M.rs Clavering Call M.rs Mudge Whore, and Strumpett, and told her She begg'd Money and Arrack.

Whereas M.r Sanderson Ensign of the Garrison presented the Govern.r and Councell with a Petition setting forth thereon that M.rs Clavering abused him and his Wife, as well as a great many more People, but She not having timely Notice to Make her Defence.

It is ordered

That the said M.rs Clavering and the Evidences against her be Summoned against her to Appear before Govern.r and Councell, this day fortnight.

Margin Notes:

W.m Beale Witness M.rs Hartwell a Witness Bridget Smith a Witness Tho. Foster Witness W.m Gore Witness [M.r] Sanderson Complains [against] Clavering Clavering Fin[ed?] Fortnight.

The plaintiff's witnesses were then called and sworn.

William Beale, sworn, stated the following. On the Sunday evening in question, his wife had asked her sister Mudge to leave the house and take her child outside because the child was crying and disturbing his own child, who was dying. A little while later, his sister returned and reported that Mrs. Clavering had abused her, calling her by several names. Hearing Mrs. Clavering scolding, Beale looked out his window and heard her call his sister Jade, together with several more abusive words. Further, on the Sunday morning at about one or two o'clock, Beale had heard Joseph Trapp call to Mrs. Clavering for a bowl of punch. She rose immediately from bed and came to his house to obtain a light in order to make the punch, which he supposed she did. A little while after daylight, he heard Mrs. Clavering and Joseph Trapp discussing the scripture of Jonas in the whale's belly and flying to Nineveh in a very profane and laughing manner.

Mrs. Hartwell, sworn, gave her account. She had heard Mrs. Clavering and her daughter abuse Mrs. Mudge very much on the Sunday evening to the effect described above. Further, her husband had told her that he was drinking with Joseph Trapp at the Clavering house during divine service on Sunday. She had also heard Mrs. Clavering call Mrs. Mudge ill - bred Toad and [...ed] did not rise to make a curtsy to thank the gentlemen for the arrack and money she had begged at Batavia. She added that John How, a soldier, came drunk out of Mrs. Clavering's house on the Sunday evening.

Bridget Smith gave evidence. She had heard Mrs. Clavering call Mrs. Mudge Dutch beast, whore, and toad, and accuse her of having brought the Dutch fashion to the settlement, which the English had followed. She said Mrs. Mudge kept company only with black servants and further reproached her for having begged money at Batavia.

Thomas Foster, a soldier, testified. He had heard Mrs. Clavering call Mrs. Mudge Dutch strumpet and whore, with a great many more ill names. He had gone to Mrs. Mudge and asked whether Mrs. Clavering had called her by such terms. She answered yes and added that Mrs. Clavering had said she went to the church door and begged.

William Gore, sworn, deposed. Being in Mrs. Clavering's house, he had heard Mrs. Clavering call Mrs. Mudge whore and strumpet, and tell her she had begged money and arrack.

Mr. Sanderson, Ensign of the Garrison, presented a petition to Lourier and the Council setting forth that Mrs. Clavering had abused him and his wife, as well as a great many other people. However, Mrs. Clavering had not been given timely notice to prepare her defence.

The Council ordered that Mrs. Clavering and the witnesses against her be summoned to appear before Lourier and the Council a fortnight hence.

Interpretations

The Council's insistence that Mrs. Clavering receive notice of the allegations against her before being brought to answer them reflects procedural restraint even in summary matters. Though the weight of witness testimony was substantial, the Council would not proceed without affording her the opportunity to mount a defence. This protected against the appearance of mob justice in a small, fractious community.

The range of accusations - abusive speech, disruption of divine service, drinking and profane mockery of scripture - reveals that the Council viewed disorderly conduct as a threat to the garrison's religious discipline as well as to individual reputation. The Clavering household appeared in these accounts as a site of systemic disorder affecting multiple members of the settlement.

Speculations

Joseph Trapp's summons to Mrs. Clavering for punch at one or two in the morning, and her immediate compliance despite being in bed, suggests a regular trade in drink from the Clavering house. The subsequent profane discussion of scripture between drinking patrons indicates that the public house, far from being a neutral meeting place, had become a venue for the kind of drunken disorderly conduct that posed a standing challenge to the Council's authority.

The accumulation of insults targeting Mrs. Mudge - her foreign origins (Dutch), her poverty (begging at Batavia), her race - and the multiple witnesses willing to testify to them suggests she held a precarious position in the garrison's hierarchy. Her family's deference in removing her and her child when noise threatened to disturb Beale's dying child indicates they lacked the standing to demand quiet from the Claverings or to seek redress themselves.

12

4

It is Ordered

That the said Clavering for his Wifes abuseing the aforesaid M.rs Mudge be fined to her, the Sum of: 5: Dollars, and one Dollar more to the Company; and for Suffering Severall Persons to be Drunk in his house, on the Lords Day, and Cheefly Joseph Trapp Severall Days, for which he forfeit his Liecence having had Severall Complaints on this Nature before, and Cautions given him, but Not taking any Notice thereof [...] goes by such Unlaw[s]ull doings any longer, and to pay Charges of Councell.

A Black Gerle of M.rs Hardings was Summoned for breakeing Open the Hou[se] of Richard Swallow in the fort Valley, and Stealing. 11. Dollars that belonged to Rober[t] Wallington, who gave them as followeth.

To Madam Johnsons Black - - - 4 - - - - - - To William Beals Moll - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - To William Smith Gould - - - - 2 - - - - - - To Chillemoey - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - found in h[er] [C]ustody - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - 11

Upon which a Warrant was Issued out for the Sumoneing the abovesaid Persons wh[o] appeard this Day accordingly and Could not deny the Receipt of said Money.

It is Ordered

That William Smith Souldier pay W.m Beale. 4. fold according to the Law for Bar[t]= =tering with Blacks, for the Money he had of his Black Wench, and pay Councell fees, and all the aforesaid Blacks to be Wept at the Flagg Staff, and Madam Johnson to pay Wallington. 2. Dollars which her Black de[s]ire be received of said Moll, alth[o'] [s]he Confronted him, the said M.r Beals Moll Saith She gave. 2. [Re]cei[v]'d Bottles of Lemon Juice to M.rs French[t] Daughter, for some Rum which she Ow'nd in [Coc]or[a]

It is Ordered

That she pay Beale. 2. Dollars, being. 4. fold. for Bartering with his Black an[d] pay Charges of Councell.

M.r Clavering made Complaint that John How abused her very Grosely on Sunday last was. 7. Night, who appeard this Day and own'd himself in the wrong and said he was Sorry for't, and ask't her pardon, which was ordered to be Accepted of and fined. 2. Dollars, for his abuses, and pay Charges of Councell.

Martha Charles Wedow brought this Day the Last Will and Testament of her deceased Husband Paul Charles, In order of having the same proved, which was Accordingly done by the Oaths of Henry Coales, James Drayper, & Simon Whal[ey]

It is Ordered.

That the said Will now produced be received and Approved of Accordingly, and Coppys given when Demanded.

X.b.r The 6.th 1707 Tho: Goodwin [...]

Margin Notes:

Hardings Black Wench for breaking Open Rich. Swallows hou[se] The Receiv.rs fin'd M.rs Clavering Complains against John How Paul Charles his Will [pr]oved

Clavering was ordered to pay a fine of 5 dollars to Mrs. Mudge for his wife's abuse of her, and 1 dollar more to the Company. For suffering several persons to be drunk in his house on the Lord's Day, particularly Joseph Trapp on several occasions, he was to forfeit his licence. He had received several complaints of such conduct and cautions from the Council, but had not heeded them. The Council would not permit such unlawful conduct to continue. He was also ordered to pay council charges.

A black girl belonging to Mrs. Harding was summoned for breaking open the house of Richard Swallow in the fort valley and stealing 11 dollars that belonged to Robert Wallington. Wallington stated that the money had been distributed as follows: to Madam Johnson's black, 4 dollars; to William Beale's moll, 2 dollars; to William Smith's Gould, 2 dollars; to Chillemoey, 1 dollar; and 2 dollars found in her custody, making 11 dollars in all.

A warrant was issued to summon the abovementioned persons, who appeared this day accordingly and could not deny receipt of the money.

William Smith, a soldier, was ordered to pay William Beale fourfold according to the law for bartering with blacks for the money he had received from his black woman, and to pay council charges. All the black persons involved were to be whipped at the flag staff. Madam Johnson was ordered to pay Wallington 2 dollars, the amount to be recovered from her black woman through the moll, although the moll had disputed the claim. The moll stated that she had given 2 bottles of lemon juice to Mrs. French[...]'s daughter in return for some rum which she owned in [...]

The moll was ordered to pay Beale 2 dollars, being fourfold for bartering with his black, and to pay council charges.

Mrs. Clavering brought a complaint that John How, a soldier, had abused her very greatly on Sunday the 7th. How appeared this day, admitted himself in the wrong, expressed remorse, and asked her pardon, which was ordered to be accepted. He was fined 2 dollars for his abuses and ordered to pay council charges.

Martha Charles, widow, brought the last will and testament of her deceased husband Paul Charles this day in order to have it proved. The will was accordingly proved by the oaths of Henry Coales, James Drayper, and Simon Whaley.

The Council ordered that the said will be received and approved accordingly, and that copies be given when demanded.

Signed on [...]ber the 6th 1707 by Thomas Goodwin.

Interpretations

The system of restitution distinguished between the enslaved and the free even when both had received stolen property. William Smith, a soldier, was ordered to pay fourfold for bartering with an enslaved woman. The moll was ordered to pay fourfold but also faced whipping. The law was ostensibly the same, but its enforcement fell differently on the enslaved and the free.

The orders against "bartering with blacks" show the Council's determination to prevent enslaved people from engaging in independent commerce. Smith's punishment for exchanging money with an enslaved woman was framed as a breach of law, distinct from mere receipt of stolen goods, revealing that the Council viewed such trade as a threat to racial hierarchy as well as to property order.

Speculations

The theft and its recovery demonstrate the tracing mechanism for stolen goods. The 11 dollars passed through multiple hands - Madam Johnson's servant, Beale's moll, Chillemoey, and others - suggesting either deliberate distribution to obscure the path or informal exchanges among associates. The Council recovered the money by summoning each recipient and establishing accountability.

The transaction between the moll and Mrs. French[...]'s daughter - trading lemon juice for rum - reveals that despite official prohibition, enslaved people continued to engage in direct exchange and barter within the fort community. Such commerce was sufficiently common to require legal discipline, yet persisted as a feature of daily life.

13

5

Island St Helena.

At a Consultation, held the. 3. of January 1706/7 Att Fort James.

Pres: Step.n Poirier Govern.r Thom: Goodwin. Dep.ty Govern.r

Whereas the Governour was Informed that Samuell Price, and John Myers, when on Duty last at Ruperts Embarsed some powder, and broake. 2. Spounge Staves, Not= withstanding Severall cautioons Given to all Souldiers, to take care of the Ammu= nition &c.

It is Ordered.

That the said Samuell Price, and John Myers be fined ½ a Crown a piece, But Myers being Sick, theer punnishment to be Reserved till Recovered.

Whereas on Wensday Last William Gore being on Sentry at the Loue[r] Bridge by the Corporalls orders, Benjamin Miller in a Verdent manner Attempted to take that post by force, and having a great many words, and calling Gore Severall ill Names, he Struck the said Miller, and broake his Piece, which being Examined into, to know who was the agressor, it Appears by Evidence that the said Miller was in the wrong wherefore. It is Orde= =red, that he pay for the piece, and in Consideration the Corporall Struck him Severall blows, he is freee from Corporall punnishment.

Whereas the Governour and Councell did agree with the Capt.s and Conclude to Stay in the road of said Island. one whole Month from theer arrivall in Expecta= =tion of Receiving a Shyp here within that time directly from England, and Consequently orders to Direct them how to Direct their Course home for England But before the Experation of said time we the Governour and Councell Saw, & heard of some perticular Differences, between the Commanders, and that Cap.t Heurels, and Cap.t Trant being had firmly Concluded, and agreed to go from hence, without Cap.t Tovey, Whereupon we the said Governour and Councell though[t] it very Necessary, to Enquiere of the said Commanders, what was the Reason of theer being so Devided, and all that Difference. as aforesaid, and then long e'r more Meet, to keep all together; for the Intrest of our Masters, as well as for the Safety of them= selves, and Ships Company, and accordingly Desire the said Commande[r]s to give thee[r] Severall Reasons, and Opincons on the proceed of theer Voyage, and having debated the Matter in some Measure, and the Governour ordering the premisses to be Re= =corded, the said Cap.t Heurels withdrew, and said Behead Nothing to do with the Governour and Councell Since there was no orders Lodged here for them, but to Govern his Ship as he thought best.

Cap.t Toveys Opinieon is that Since there's no orders Lodged here, to direct them in their homeward Bound Voyage, Intended all along to Desire the Governour and Councell, to give their advice how to proceed further. But on the whole [...] [...]

Margin Notes:

Information ag.st Price & Myers for [Em]basleing pou[der] & Reports Hind of [P]ouder [Ben] Miller pays for break[ing] Gores peice Cap.t Toveys Long Conference with Gov.r & Councell [on] increase [...] proceed[ing] of their Voyage

At a consultation held on 3 January 1707 at Fort James, St Helena, with Governor Stephen Poirier and Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin present.

Poirier reported that Samuel Price and John Myers, while on duty at Rupert's, had embezzled some powder and broken two sponge staves, notwithstanding the repeated cautions given to all soldiers about the care of ammunition and equipment. It was ordered that both men be fined half a crown each. However, Myers being sick, his punishment was to be held in reserve until he recovered.

On the previous Wednesday, William Gore was stationed as sentry at the Lower Bridge under orders from the Corporal. Benjamin Miller attempted to seize the post by force, engaging Gore in words and calling him by several ill names. Gore struck Miller and broke his musket. Upon investigation to determine the aggressor, evidence showed that Miller had been in the wrong. It was ordered that Miller pay for the musket. In consideration that the Corporal had already struck Miller several blows, Miller was excused from further corporal punishment.

Poirier and the Council had previously agreed with the ship captains to remain in the road of St Helena for one month from their arrival, in expectation of receiving a ship and orders directly from England to direct their homeward voyage. Before the month expired, however, Poirier and the Council learned that Captains Heurels and Trant had agreed to depart without Captain Tovey. Viewing this division among the commanders as a threat to their masters' interests and the safety of the ships and crews, Poirier and the Council deemed it necessary to inquire into the cause. They requested that each commander state his reasons and opinions concerning the conduct of the voyage.

After some debate on the matter, Captain Heurels withdrew and stated that he had nothing to do with the Governor and Council, as no orders had been lodged with them to govern him. He would govern his ship as he thought best.

Captain Tovey's opinion was that, since no orders had been lodged at the island to direct the homeward voyage, he had intended to ask the Governor and Council for their advice on how to proceed. But the record breaks off at this point.

Interpretations

The captains' refusal to acknowledge the Governor and Council's authority reveals the limits of colonial governance. Heurels insisted he had nothing to do with the magistracy because no orders from the Company in England had been lodged there to bind him. The Governor and Council could control soldiers within the fort but could not command merchant captains, whose authority derived directly from the Company in London.

The Council's concern to keep the three ships together - noted as necessary for "the Interest of our Masters, as well as for the Safety of themselves, and Ships Company" - shows that preserving unity at sea was seen as a matter of both property protection and common security. Fragmentation of the fleet threatened both commercial interests and defensive capability.

Speculations

The decision by Heurels and Trant to leave without Tovey suggests either a disagreement over navigation or a conflict of personality among the commanders. The fact that they needed to justify themselves to the Governor and Council, and that Tovey remained willing to consult local magistracy whilst Heurels rejected such authority, indicates a real schism in how the commanders viewed their accountability.

The month-long pause for orders from England was a standard pattern in colonial commerce. Ships arriving at remote stations were expected to wait for instructions before proceeding home. If a captain departed early or deviated from the expected route, the Company's orders and commercial intelligence would be lost. Heurels's impatience to leave without waiting suggests either conviction that the delay was unnecessary or resistance to being held at the island.

14

6

it [...] properest to go from hence on Comp.a together for Lesbourne.

Cap.tn Franklings Opinieon is Consonant to Cap.tn Toveys Opinieon.

And furthermore the aforesaid Cap.tn Tovey, who Arrived here [Comodore?] of the. 3. Ships, Together with Cap.tn Frankling having had advice of Cap.tn [...]eft, and Cap.tn Blows request, they made to the Govern.r for the Packett left here for the Winter Ships that was here before them, Desired the Governour to Grant them the same favour, The Governo[ur] having a President, and the votes of such wise Gentlemen then in Councell did Comunicate the Last Winter Shyps orders to them according to their desire that they may make Such use of it, as they think most fett.

Upon the whole it is ordered.

That Cap.tn Goodwin Deputy Governeur being at present Indisposed, That the Governeur together with Cap.tn Tovey, and Cap.tn Frankling do Meet in Councell on Monday next, for the advising, and Resolveing on the best Method and Means for the said Ships being Sa= =feed safe home for England to the R.t Hon.ble Company and Owners.

Island St Helena.

Att a Consultation. held on Monday the. 6.th day of January 170 6/7 att Fort James

Pres: Step.n Poirier Governour. Thom: Goodwin Dep.ty Governour.

And us Cap.t Zachary Tovey Commander of the Shyp Hampshere, and Cap.tn John Frankling Comander of the Shyp Union. According to an order of Councell. bea= =ving date the. 3. Instant, Mett this day to Resolve on the best method, and Means, for Carrying the said Shyps Safe home for England, or whether they had best rema[in] here, or proceed in their Voyage.

After Mature Consederations. It is agreed and Concluded.

By the Governour and Councell. That they think it more proper for the Shyps to Continue in the Road and harbour of said Island then to proceed further, on their Voyage, in hopes of Receveing new Orders from the R.t Hon.ble Company in a short time.

Cap.tn Tovey and Cap.tn Frankling is of the same Opinieon But as for Cap.tn Heurel[s?] he persests still, on his Resolution of Sayling, Sayeing that his time of Stayeing in Inde[a] being Expered Cant or won't Stayeng any Longer here.

Wherefore the Governeur and Councell Doth hereby Declare That if the said Cap.tn Heurels will Sayle Contrary to the Opinieon of us all, we do hereby Pro[test]

Margin Notes:

Cap.t [Toveys] [...]ast [...] [Councell] Their Verdict

At a consultation held on Monday the 6th day of January 1707 at Fort James, St Helena.

Present: Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin, Captain Zachary Tovey (Commander of the Ship Hampshire), and Captain John Franklin (Commander of the Ship Union). They met pursuant to the order of Council dated 3 January to resolve on the best method and means for carrying the ships safely home to England, or whether they should remain at the island or proceed on their voyage.

The ships were to proceed from the island together as a company for Lesbourne.

Captain Franklin's opinion concurred with Captain Tovey's.

Furthermore, Captain Tovey, who had arrived as Commodore of the three ships, together with Captain Franklin, having been advised of Captain [...] and Captain Blows's request, made an appeal to the Governor for the packet left at the island for the winter ships that had preceded them. They desired that the Governor grant them the same favour. The Governor, having precedent and the support of the Council, communicated the last winter ships' orders to them accordingly, so that they might make such use of it as they thought most fit.

Upon the whole, the Council ordered that, as Deputy Governor Goodwin was presently indisposed, the Governor should meet in Council on Monday next with Captains Tovey and Franklin to advise and resolve on the best method and means for securing the ships' safe passage home to England for the Right Honourable Company and the owners.

After mature consideration, the Governor and Council agreed and concluded that the ships should remain in the road and harbour of St Helena, in hopes of receiving new orders from the Right Honourable Company within a short time.

Captain Tovey and Captain Franklin concurred with this opinion. However, Captain Heurels persisted in his resolution to sail, stating that his time in India having expired, he could not and would not remain any longer.

Therefore, the Governor and Council hereby declared that they would formally protest if Captain Heurels sailed contrary to the opinion of them all.

Interpretations

The Governor and Council's formal protest against Heurels's sailing reveals the limits of their authority. They could not prevent him from departing - they could only declare on the record their disapproval and objection. The protest served as documentation that the magistracy had objected to the captain's course, protecting them from blame if the voyage met with misfortune or if the Company in England later questioned their governance.

The treatment of the winter packet - the orders left for previous ships - as a resource to be shared with incoming captains shows how colonial administration operated through written instructions. When no direct orders had been lodged at the island for the current voyage, the Governor and Council offered precedent in the form of the previous year's instructions, demonstrating governance by reference to past practice and established custom.

Speculations

Heurels's claim that his "time in India having expired" was his justification for refusing to remain at the island. This phrasing suggests he had been serving under a fixed term - whether as captain, employee, or by other contractual arrangement - and believed that term to be complete. His unwillingness to extend his service by waiting for new orders represented a conflict between personal interests (returning home) and the Company's interests (coordinated fleet movements and receipt of current instructions).

The contrast between Tovey and Franklin, who agreed to remain and consult with the magistracy, and Heurels, who refused consultation and insisted on sailing, reveals different understandings of authority. By consulting willingly and accepting the Governor and Council's counsel, Tovey and Franklin aligned themselves with colonial governance. Heurels's refusal to consult, stated in the previous consultation, and his determination to sail regardless represented not mere independence but a form of insubordination that the magistracy could record but could not compel.

15

7

Cleare our Selves from all Losses whatsoever that may Accrue by the said Cap.tn Heurels Sayling alone, Laying all such Damages on his own Charge.

Cap.tn Goodwin Dep.ty Governour desired the following Bill might be recorded Least it should be Lost.

November y.e 22. 1706. I do Acknowledge to have borrowed and received of M.r Thomas Goodwin Ten pounds Five Shillings, the which I oblidge my Selfe to be Accountable to him for, or his order, on Demand £ s Jn: Lesley 10: 5:

Whereas it haveing been Noised about that James Easthope told the Governour that the Blacks in this Island intended to Kill all the White peeople, and tooke no Notece thereof, which being false desired the said Easthope to give his Declaration of what he knew in the Mattier.

James Easthope doth hereby Declare that he Never Informed the Governeour That the Blacks on this Island designed to Kill all the White People on Musterday Neext, for he was Never told so, by any Person whatsoever, and Imagins this Ru= =mour proceeded from Either some Talking Women, or Children.

X.b.r The 6.th 1707 Tho: Goodwin

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation. held the. 9.th day of Janu.r 1706/7. Att Fort James.

Pres: Step.n Poirier Governour. Thom: Goodwin Dep.ty Govern.r

Whereas M.r Henry, Francis, Joseph Fox, and Henry Webley Free Planters, appearing this day before Govern.r and Councell, do make the followeng Representation

Joseph Fox Saith, that Richard Alexander told him, that the Blacks had a designe to Rise on the next Musterday, and Kill all those in the Countrey, and theer Masters upon their Robinson [upon] which the said Jos: Fox went to Robert Leach, from thence to John Robinson, John Robinson made but Light of it, Robert Leach said he had it from his Wife, his Wife from Mary Gargar[t] a [Por]te, from all which Examinatioons he returned home and Stript his Black threatening him on the most Severe terms, as to burn him if he did not Confess. Upon which he forged and declared to his Master, That Domingoe the black of Stenry Webley belonging to Joseph Fox's plantation, and Called his Black Toby, and Demanded why he worked Bare footed, and if he had a Stout heart might do otherwise, Toby replyed take care what you do. To which other Answered it's not the forst time I have foeght with a Sword, and Showed his Scars upon his Arms, and

Margin Notes:

[Cap.t] [Lesley's] [Bill] [...] [...] Goodwin James Easthopes Decleration concerning the Blacks The [Co]nspiratecon of th[e Blacks] Jos: Fox &c[a] concerneing the Rys[e]ing of the Blacks

The Governor and Council declared that they would clear themselves from all losses whatsoever that might accrue from Captain Heurels sailing alone, laying all such damages to his own account.

Deputy Governor Goodwin desired that the following bill be recorded lest it should be lost.

22 November 1706. I do acknowledge to have borrowed and received from Mr. Thomas Goodwin ten pounds five shillings, which I oblige myself to be accountable for to him or his order on demand. £10 5s. John Lesley.

A rumour had been circulating that James Easthope had told the Governor that the blacks on the island intended to kill all the white people, and that the Governor had taken no notice of it. This being false, the Governor desired Easthope to give his declaration of what he knew in the matter.

James Easthope hereby declared that he had never informed the Governor that the blacks on the island designed to kill all the white people on muster day next, for he had never been told so by any person whatsoever, and imagined this rumour proceeded from either some talkative women or children.

Signed on [...]ber the 6th 1707 by Thomas Goodwin.

At a consultation held on the 9th day of January 1707 at Fort James, St Helena.

Present: Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin.

Whereas Mr. Henry, Francis, Joseph Fox, and Henry Webley, free planters, appearing this day before the Governor and Council, made the following representation.

Joseph Fox stated that Richard Alexander had told him that the blacks had a design to rise on the next muster day and kill all those in the country and their masters. Upon this, Fox went to Robert Leach, and from there to John Robinson. Robinson made light of it. Leach said he had heard it from his wife, his wife from Mary Gargart, a [porter]. From all these examinations Fox returned home and stripped his black, threatening him in the most severe terms, saying he would burn him if he did not confess. Upon this the black forged and declared to his master that Dominoe, the black of Henry Webley belonging to Joseph Fox's plantation, had called his black Toby and demanded why he worked barefoot, and if he had a stout heart might do otherwise. Toby replied, take care what you do. The other answered it is not the first time I have fought with a sword and showed his scars upon his arms, and [the record breaks off].

Interpretations

The dispute over Easthope's alleged warning reveals the mechanisms by which rumours circulated and were either credited or discredited in the small island community. The Governor required a formal declaration denying the report, transforming hearsay into an official record. By doing so, the Council sought to discredit panicked talk that could destabilise the settlement if fear of a slave uprising gained credence.

The investigation into the reported conspiracy demonstrates that fears of slave rebellion were treated as credible threats requiring immediate inquiry. The planters brought evidence of alleged plans to the Governor and Council, who took depositions and examined the chain of rumour. Whether the plot was real or imagined, the magistracy's response shows that colonial authorities viewed the enslaved population as a potential source of organised resistance.

Speculations

Easthope's attribution of the rumour to "talkative women or children" was a dismissal common in colonial contexts - marginalising the testimony of those without formal authority whilst preserving the speaker's own credibility. By blaming gossip rather than acknowledging he had spread the report, Easthope distanced himself from responsibility whilst explaining away the persistent rumour.

Fox's interrogation method - stripping and threatening to burn his enslaved man - was designed to extract a confession of knowledge about the alleged plot. The enslaved man's response about Toby and the mention of sword-fighting and scars suggests either boasting, a reference to past violence, or an attempt to intimidate Fox in return. The fragmented testimony hints at tensions and power plays within the enslaved community itself, with accusations and counter-accusations that the planters recorded as evidence of conspiracy.

16

8

and I can fight with One hand, and fend of a Sword with the other; further on S.t Stephens Day, were all together, Mingo, Toby, and M.rs Frances Caesar, and more when Caesar and Mingo talked Portugeeze together for Some time, and often Pointed towards the Fort, upon which Toby demanded what they talk't of, Mingo bad him Mind his Punch, Moreover Mongo at the Same time told Toby, that he had severall Stout hands, as. 9. or. 11. to his Assistance, and We Warrant, we will go over the Garden Wall, and gett powder from the Magazine, Moreover if you Conceal this I'le give you Money, to buy youer Freedome on the Portugeeze Shyp Return. and if you detover it, I'le Stab you the forst time I Meet you.

Gabriell Powell Planter being Cald, says that yesterday he Examined Daltons black Called Dick, who declared that he heard from Repein Wells black George, that the blacks in Sandy Bay had a Designe to rise, as alfo that the said George heard Robenson tell Repein Wells so.

Toby the black of Joseph Fox Says, that Domingo comeing by his Masters Plantation affit as before on his Masters Declaration to be true with the Words on S.t Stephens Day, when he says Mongo making a Feast had en Comp.a Viz.

5 Mingo Black of Henry Webly 5 Robin the Black of M.rs Mansfield Orphans 5 Caesar the Black of Charles Steward 5 Toby the Black of John Robinson 5 Toby the Black of James Greentree 5 Bracket the Black of James Greentree 5 Simon the Black of Madam Johnson 5 Hemp the Black of Thomas Gargon 5 Peter the Black of Richard Alexander 5 Phill the Black of Thomas Swallow Senior 5 Swift the Black of Henry Francis 2 Caesar & Sampson the Same 5 Teba the Black Wench of James Greentree 5 Moll the Black Wench of Serj.t Cason 5 Greca the Black of Francis Wrangham 5 Sevill the Black of Francis Wrangham 5 Mingo the Black of Charles Steward 5 Peter the Black of Charles Steward 2 Saul and Sampson Blacks of M.r Lufkin 2 Caesar and Bachus Blacks of M.r Griffith 28

And Speake to him alone have youe a good Heart why you all me said the Other, why will you Stand by me, I can get into the Fort and so take Powder out of the Magazene, and that he had. 9. or 11 hands of Ruperts Black already and that he would alfo hide the Powder, till the Return of the Portugeeze, & then would Surprize her, and go to his own Countrey.

Caesar the Black of M.r Francis being Examined says that Mingo told him concerneing the Powder to be taken out of the Fort and Charged him to t[ell] no White Person if he did he would Stab him.

Upon Conclusion of the whole it ordered by the Governour & Councell that Mingo the Black of Henry Webley, be secured Well, further Orders

Margin Notes:

Gab. Powells Evid[ce] concerning the Blacks Blacks Nam[es] in Conspiracy

Toby continued his deposition. He could fight with one hand and fend off a sword with the other. On St Stephen's Day, the conspirators had been gathered together - Mingo, Toby, Mrs. Frances Caesar, and others. Caesar and Mingo talked in Portuguese together for some time and often pointed towards the Fort. Toby asked what they were discussing, but Mingo told him to mind his punch. Mingo further told Toby that he had several stout hands, nine or eleven, to assist him, and that they would go over the garden wall and take powder from the magazine. Mingo offered Toby money to buy his freedom on the return of the Portuguese ship if he concealed the plot, but threatened to stab him the first time they met if he disclosed it.

Gabriel Powell, planter, being called, stated that on the previous day he had examined Dalton's black called Dick, who declared that he had heard from Repein Wells's black George that the blacks in Sandy Bay had a design to rise. George had heard Robinson tell Repein Wells so.

Toby, the black of Joseph Fox, confirmed Domingo's previous declaration to be true. He stated that on St Stephen's Day Mingo had made a feast attended by the following company:

Mingo, black of Henry Webly Robin, black of Mrs. Mansfield's orphans Caesar, black of Charles Steward Toby, black of John Robinson Toby, black of James Greentree Bracket, black of James Greentree Simon, black of Madam Johnson Hemp, black of Thomas Gargon Peter, black of Richard Alexander Phill, black of Thomas Swallow Senior Swift, black of Henry Francis Caesar and Sampson, same owner Teba, black wench of James Greentree Moll, black wench of Sergeant Cason Greca, black of Francis Wrangham Sevill, black of Francis Wrangham Mingo, black of Charles Steward Peter, black of Charles Steward Saul and Sampson, blacks of Mr. Lufkin Caesar and Bachus, blacks of Mr. Griffith

28 persons in all.

Mingo had then spoken to Toby alone, asking whether he had a good heart. Toby answered in the affirmative. Mingo then asked whether Toby would stand by him and stated that he could enter the Fort and take powder from the magazine. He had already secured nine or eleven hands among Rupert's blacks, and would hide the powder until the Portuguese ship returned, then surprise her and return to his own country.

Caesar, the black of Mr. Francis, being examined, stated that Mingo had told him about the plan to take powder from the Fort, and had charged him to tell no white person, threatening to stab him if he did so.

Upon conclusion of the whole, the Governor and Council ordered that Mingo, the black of Henry Webley, be secured pending further orders.

Interpretations

The depositions reveal the structure of a planned uprising: a coordinated theft of powder from the Fort magazine, a network of confederates drawn from across the island's plantations, and a planned escape on a Portuguese vessel. The Council took the matter sufficiently seriously to record each name and ownership, building a map of the conspiracy that crossed the boundaries of individual estates.

The use of Portuguese as a private language between Mingo and Caesar, and Mingo's plan to escape on the Portuguese ship and return to his own country, points to the origins of many slaves on the island. The Portuguese slave trade had moved many Africans and others through Portuguese-controlled ports, and the language and the ships represented both a remembered past and a possible route to freedom.

Speculations

Toby's detailed account, particularly the alleged threats to stab him for disclosure and the offer of money for his freedom, may reflect what was actually said, what was extracted under threat from his master Fox (who had stripped him and threatened to burn him), or some combination of both. Slave testimony obtained under duress was a feature of such investigations, and the precision of the recorded threats suggests either careful coaching or genuine memory of dangerous words.

The list of 20 named persons drawn from at least 14 different households reveals how widely enslaved people on the island moved between plantations and how easily networks formed across ownership lines. Whether Mingo's feast was an actual planning session or a customary social gathering reinterpreted under interrogation, it demonstrates that masters could not fully control where their slaves went or whom they met, even on so small and exposed an island as St Helena.

17

9

Memorandum

That M.r Clavering may say something pertenent to this Matter

The Same Day in the afternoon.

Sey the Black Wench of Leonard Collson being brought down by her Master to be Punnished, upon being Calld before the Governour says. that the. 23. and. 24. December she was at M.r Charles house in Company within the Night time with 5 Jack the Black of Richard Alexander 3 Phill, Andrew, and Bess, the Blacks of Thomas Swallow Senior 2 Mingo and Meg M.r Pezeys Blacks 5 Toby M.r Roberson Black 5 Robin M.r Mansfield Black 5 Hemp M.r Gargon Black 5 Clause Henry Webley Black 5 Toby Joseph Fox Black 5 Rufase Richard Swallow Black 5 Mingo Ditto 5 Roger Orlando Bagley Black 2 Jack and Meg M.r Charles Black 55

Memorandum To aske M.r Swallow and his Wife whether they were Absent on the Days Specified.

In the Kitchen at. 9. at Night, a Monday she says that. 3. Blacks Viz. clause, Phill, and Tobey, went out and Talk't Portugeeze together, she ask't the Wench of the house Meg. what their discourse was, she replyed, she knew not, but soon after called her out again, and told her the blacks designed to Rise, and she meght be One if she would, Then Come up. 4. Blacks Viz. Hem[p?] Tobey, Mingo, and Meg. and Hemp desired to know what the houl to do= =theire, The Wench of M.r Charles made answer, why not she as well as the Rest, then M.r Charles two Blacks, and Fox's Black, Tobey ask't her to go with them, she demanding whether or no to run away with the Boate they answered no, to do some thing Else, what Else says she, Hemp answe= =red don't you know what we were about Once before, What before says s[he] to rise, he answered yes, She ask't what Company and he replyed all theer concerned, and on Tuesday Night at M.r Swallows Coming from M.r Charles where they had stayed some time they all told the same theing only More that they agreed that three of them were to Kill the two Guard at Prosperous Bay and then become down the Back way to the Fort, and to the Kitchen, so through the Hall, having forst promist [...] to gain the blacks at the Fort, and Surprize it, Phill M.r Swallow Black assureing if he could he would gain it all, Moreover after they had taken the Fort to take the Store House of the R.t Hon.ble Companys, Hemp declared himself Comodore, but the Rest would not agree till they had Accomplisht the Feat.

M.r Leefskin came to the Governour and Councell, and Declared that Caesar the Black of M.r Francis, since his forst Examination, told her, Mingo the Black of Henry Webley had now Actually Powder hid in the Rocks of the Island, but denys that Mingo told him on what Certain place.

M.r Graton

The Governor and Council recorded this note during the consultation. It directs that Clavering's testimony on the conspiracy should be taken and entered into the record, likely because his household or property featured prominently in the slaves' accounts.

Later that same afternoon, Sey, a black woman enslaved to Leonard Collson, was brought before the Governor to be punished. She stated that on 23 and 24 December she had spent the night at Mr. Charles's house with fifty - five other enslaved people drawn from plantations across the island.

The Governor and Council noted that Mr. Swallow and his wife should be asked whether they were away on those dates.

In the kitchen at nine o'clock on Monday night, Sey said that three men - Clause, Phill, and Toby - left the room to speak in Portuguese. She asked Meg, a servant in the house, what they were discussing. Meg claimed not to know, but soon after pulled Sey outside and told her the men were planning an uprising. She asked if Sey wanted to join.

Four more men then appeared: Hemp, Toby, Mingo, and Meg. Hemp asked what they were meant to do. Mr. Charles's servant replied that there was no reason Sey should not take part like the others. Two of Mr. Charles's enslaved workers and Toby from Joseph Fox then urged Sey to come with them. She asked whether they intended to steal the boat. They said no and spoke of doing something else instead. When she pressed for details, Hemp asked if she remembered what they had attempted before. She asked what he meant. He said to rise in rebellion. She wanted to know who was involved, and he answered that everyone who needed to be was included.

On Tuesday night at Mr. Swallow's house, after returning from Mr. Charles's gathering, they repeated the same account with further details. They had resolved that three of them would kill the sentries at Prosperous Bay, then make their way down the rear path to the Fort, enter through the kitchen and main hall, and seize control of the building after having secured the cooperation of enslaved workers stationed there. Phill assured them he could manage this. Once they held the Fort, they would take possession of the Company's storehouse. Hemp declared himself commander, though the others would not accept this until they had successfully completed the main objective.

Mr. Leefskin reported to the Governor and Council that Caesar, enslaved to Mr. Francis, had told someone after his previous examination that Mingo from Henry Webley's household had hidden gunpowder in the island's rocks. Caesar refused to say which location Mingo had named.

Mr. Graton [the record breaks off].

Interpretations

Sey's testimony reveals how enslaved people maintained networks crossing plantation boundaries. They gathered at night, exchanged information, and coordinated resistance despite the restrictions governing their movement. The conspiracy extended across numerous estates rather than emerging from a single household or workplace.

The conspirators' approach to recruitment shows enslaved people evaluating one another's commitment and trustworthiness. By questioning Sey about previous uprisings and explicitly naming the stakes of participation, they demonstrated awareness that successful rebellion required willing cooperation rather than coercion.

Speculations

Sey's account was likely obtained through threat of punishment, making it impossible to determine whether her reported dialogue reflects actual conversation, enforced fabrication, or some combination. The specific details she provided - names, locations, sequence of events - could be accurate memory or reconstruction shaped by interrogation.

The conspirators' knowledge of the Fort's interior and the guard positions at Prosperous Bay indicates sustained observation. Their consistent reference to Portuguese ships as means of escape shows they understood that sea departure represented their only viable route to freedom. Hemp's claim to rank and their organisational structure suggest they were attempting to establish genuine military command rather than simply reacting to immediate grievance.

18

10

M.r Graton Serjeant Appeared before Governour and Councill, that Dust[on?] Deek came One Night, and Endeavored to lye in the Gallery Near the Re[...] closett, and when the said Serj.t Demanded his reason therefore, he Answered he did not dare to goe up the Valley, the Blacks meght doe Some Mischeefe, as alfo that Jacob a Black Boy had ask't him to lye with him there.

It is ordered

That the aforesaid Blacks be fetched down to Fort James's. and be kept in Prison till Examined. X.b.r D.e 6.th 1707 Tho: Goodwin

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation. held on Friday the. 10. Janu.ry 1706/7 att Fort James

Pres: Step.n Poirier Governour Thom: Goodwin Dep.ty Governour

Whereas M.r John Lufskin free Planter being Resolved to go of the said Island, and proposeing to sell his Land which Consists of. 80. Acres with the Pro= =visions, and a House, Belongeing thereunto, adjoyneing to the R.t Hon.ble Comp.a Maes Pasture; In that Respect the Governour thought fitt, with the Consent of Cap.tn Goodwin to purchase the said House, Land. &c.a for the use of the said Right Hon.ble Company for the Sum of: 350: upon which a Bill of Sale was made and presented to the said Cap.tn Goodwin who being now present refused to Agree to the said Bargaen for the rasens followeing.

Forst that our Hon.ble Masters had given no Orders for Buying Plantatcions.

Secondly, He is not Sattisfied with the Price thinking it two Meech.

Thirdly does not think that our Hon.ble Masters wants Land. Since theer Pasture Containes at least. 200. Acres, and that if they want more, they may have as much more about the High Peak, and Swanly Valley head, besides what they have att the Butts plantation, and that he can Make it Appear, that all the Companys Plantta= tions, Lands, Negroes, Stock of Cattles &c.a has not Raised the Charge defrayed thereof to the Companys £ in. 15. years Last past, Six Hundred pounds, But notwithstanding he well Segne for the payment of said Sum amongst other Accounts, That the R.t Hon.ble Company according to the Letter of the Bill of Sale May Either take or Leave the said Premises to the Governour, who then is Accomptable for the Same.

M.rs Mudge came yesterday in the Afternoon and declared that her Black, Limbreck told her, something about the Blacks Riseing &c.a who was Ordered to App[ear] this Day who accordingly did, and Declared as followeth.

M.rs Mudge Saith that on Tuesday Last her said Black Limbreck stayd Longe[r] then a feaul, ask't him why he stayed so long, who Answered he mett with Maverro, who told him that the Blacks Intended to kill all the White People on Master day Neext, and that Maverro bid him say Nothing of it, and should hear more of it a Tuesday

Margin Notes:

John Lufskins proposes to Sell his House &ca to the Company Cap.t Goodwin against the Bargaen for[...] His Reasons M.rs Mudges Decleration concerning the said Blacks [...]

Sergeant Graton appeared before the Governor and Council. He stated that Duston Deek had come one night and attempted to sleep in the gallery near the [...] closet. When Graton asked why, Deek answered that he was afraid to go up the valley because the blacks might commit some violent act. He also said that Jacob, a black boy, had invited him to sleep there.

The Governor and Council ordered that these blacks be brought down to Fort James and held in prison pending examination.

Signed on [...]ber 6th 1707 by Thomas Goodwin.

At a consultation held on Friday the 10th day of January 1707 at Fort James, St Helena.

Present: Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin.

John Lufskin, a free planter, had decided to leave the island and proposed to sell his land, which consisted of eighty acres with provisions and a house adjoining the Right Honourable Company's main pasture. Considering this, the Governor thought it appropriate, with Captain Goodwin's consent, to purchase the house, land and appurtenances for the use of the Right Honourable Company for the sum of £350. A bill of sale was drawn up and presented to Captain Goodwin, who now refused to agree to the bargain for the following reasons.

First, the Company had given no orders to purchase plantations.

Second, he was not satisfied with the price, thinking it excessive.

Third, he did not believe the Company wanted additional land. The Company's pasture already contained at least two hundred acres, and if more were needed, further land was available around the High Peak and Swanley Valley head, besides holdings at the Butts plantation. Goodwin stated he could demonstrate that all the Company's plantations, lands, slaves, cattle stock and other assets had not repaid the costs incurred over the past fifteen years by even six hundred pounds. Nevertheless, he would sign for payment of the sum among other accounts, so that the Right Honourable Company, according to the bill of sale, might either accept or decline the premises, leaving the Governor accountable for the transaction.

Mrs. Mudge came the previous afternoon and reported that her black man Limbreck had told her something about the blacks rising in rebellion. He was ordered to appear, which he did, and made the following statement.

Mrs. Mudge stated that on Tuesday her black Limbreck had stayed away longer than proper. When she asked why, he answered that he had met Maverro, who told him the blacks intended to kill all the white people on the next muster day. Maverro told him to say nothing of it and promised he would hear more on Tuesday.

Interpretations

Goodwin's refusal to approve the land purchase reveals tension between the Governor's local discretion and the Deputy Governor's concern for proper authorization from London. Goodwin's detailed objection - that Company holdings already exceeded returns by substantial margins - shows he was tracking profitability and resisting expansion that might worsen losses. His compromise, allowing the Governor to proceed at personal risk, preserved Poirier's authority while protecting the Company from liability.

The continuing reports of conspiracy, now from additional witnesses including Mrs. Mudge and her slave Limbreck, show the investigation widening. The Governor and Council were receiving information from multiple independent sources, each naming different participants and adding details. Whether this reflected an actual widespread plot or mounting panic fed by coerced testimony and rumour cannot be determined from the consultation records alone.

Speculations

Lufskin's sudden decision to leave the island and sell his plantation may have been prompted by the conspiracy investigation itself. As a free planter living among enslaved workers rumoured to be planning mass violence, he may have decided the risk was no longer acceptable. His willingness to sell at £350 suggests urgency rather than careful negotiation.

Limbreck's report about Maverro's warning - that more information would come on Tuesday - indicates the conspiracy had a timetable and that information was being shared in stages. Whether Limbreck disclosed this voluntarily to protect his owner or was pressured into revealing it remains unclear. The pattern of slaves warning their masters suggests either genuine loyalty, fear of collective punishment, or strategic positioning to avoid suspicion.

19

11

The said black Saith he comeing out of the Countrey mett Mavarro, in the way goeing up at the. 2. Gun hill, who ask't him whether he heard any News, who replyed No, Mavarro Answered, I hear the Blacks on the other side the Countrey designed to Kill all the White People, and would Kill all the Blacks on the other Side if they would not joyn with them, and that Mingo Henry Webley Black, was to be Governour, and Dustons Deck Captain, and that they would Kill all the Women, and the Men as they came up from the Fort on Musterday Night, where upon came down and told his Mistress.

Mavarro was Called and being ask't the Question what he told to Limbrick says he Never told him so, But Lembrickk ask't him what he alledges against him, and One Morning going for Wood Duston Deck told him he heard the Blacks Intended to Kill all the White people, for the Governour falls the Blacks Over Every Night to see if none be wanting, and it came from Sandy Bay Blacks.

See Leonard Coulsons Black Saith, that on Monday was. 7. Night, before X.t [mas?] She Mett with Richard Alexander Black Jack, on the Main Reely who said he had binn at Repein Wells, and ask't her to come to his Masters that Night, which she did, and went away from thence with Jack, about. 9. a Clock to M.r Charles, and Jack ask't her Blacks if no body was come but them, they answered No, but presently After came those Blacks She Named yesterday, Then went to Thomas Swallow about. 10. were they talked aboult the Business, and ask'd Each other if they were welling to stand to their Bargaen, M.r Swallow Phill Replyed, if all war welling he was, and if he was but at the fort, would speak with one of the Comp.a Blacks, and did not Question but to get all the Rests Consent, To which all Consented; and that Phill said when you hear I am gone out, then do you follow me.

Toby Joseph Foxes Black Declares as in his former Declaration but since that, it has been said that he said his Masters Life lay in his hands.

Hemp denys what he is Accused of Saying he was at home both Monda[y] and Tuesday before Chrest mas at which his Master knows, on Christmas day, went to Henry Webleys House where was Severall Blacks Viz Charles Steward 2. Blacks, and Robinson. 1. Madam Johnson. 2. M.r Griffiths. 3. M.r Lick. 5. Jack. Where Mingo Henry Webleys Black gave them. 3. Bowls of Rum Punch, and denys that Ever he was in Comp.a at M.r Swallows with the said Sew, and the Rest, Toby says the same and that they have not seen her in Severall Months.

Refase denys that he knows any thing of the Matter, Saying he was not at old M.r Swallows as See says he was.

John Robinson Tobey says that he was not at Thomas Swallows house the Monday, and Tuesday Aforen.d says he was, nor at no other time, with any Black[s]

M.r Charles Black Jack Saith that Richard Alexander black nor See did no[t] come to his Mistris house, neether did he go Thomas Swallow or any other place on Comp.a with any black, and that See has belyed them all.

Robin, Maxwells Orphans black denys what is Laid to his Charge, and that he lay at Robinsons all Night, which referrs to Charles Steward and Robinson. who says that they comeing from Henry Francis house that Night, as is said the Blacks were at Swallows, Halloued as they came down the Hill to bring a Light, but not comeing found him at Robinsons about. 12. a Clock, and beat him for not Coming.

Robin further says that on Wensday Morning last, Joseph Foxes Tobey came to him, as he was planting Tacker, and ask't him if he had heard any News, who answered No, and asking him what was the Matter; told him that he heard some of the Black would [...]

Limbreck stated that while coming from the country he encountered Maverro on the path going up at Two Gun Hill. Maverro asked whether he had heard any news. Limbreck said no. Maverro then told him that the blacks on the other side of the country planned to kill all the white people and would kill any blacks on this side who refused to join them. Mingo, Henry Webley's black, was to become Governor, and Duston Deck would be Captain. They would kill all the women and the men as they came up from the Fort on muster day night. Limbreck then came down and told his mistress.

Maverro was called and questioned about what he had told Limbreck. He denied saying any such thing. Instead, Limbreck had questioned him, and one morning while collecting wood, Duston Deck had told him he had heard the blacks intended to kill all the white people. Deck said the Governor sent men to check on the blacks every night to see if any were missing, and that this information came from the blacks at Sandy Bay.

Sey, Leonard Coulson's black woman, stated that on Monday evening a week before Christmas she met Richard Alexander's black Jack on the main ridge. He said he had been at Repein Wells and asked her to come to his master's house that night. She went, and around nine o'clock left with Jack for Mr. Charles's place. Jack asked her blacks whether anyone else had arrived yet. They said no, but shortly after, those blacks she had named the previous day appeared. They then went to Thomas Swallow's around ten o'clock and discussed the plan. They asked one another whether they were willing to keep their word. Phill, Mr. Swallow's black, replied that if everyone else agreed, so did he. If he could reach the Fort, he would speak with one of the Company's blacks and was confident he could gain their support. All agreed to this. Phill told them that when they heard he had left, they should follow.

Toby, Joseph Fox's black, repeated his earlier statement but had since said that his master's life lay in his hands.

Hemp denied the accusations. He said he was at home both Monday and Tuesday before Christmas, which his master could confirm. On Christmas Day he went to Henry Webley's house where several blacks were present: two of Charles Steward's, one of Robinson's, two of Madam Johnson's, three of Mr. Griffith's, five of Mr. Lick's, and Jack. Mingo, Henry Webley's black, gave them three bowls of rum punch. Hemp denied that he was ever in company with Sey and the others at Mr. Swallow's. Toby confirmed this and said they had not seen Sey for several months.

Rufase denied knowing anything about the matter, saying he was not at old Mr. Swallow's as Sey claimed.

Toby, John Robinson's black, said he was not at Thomas Swallow's house on Monday and Tuesday as Sey stated, nor at any other time with any blacks.

Jack, Mr. Charles's black, stated that neither Richard Alexander's black nor Sey came to his mistress's house, nor did he go to Thomas Swallow's or anywhere else in company with any black. He said Sey had lied about them all.

Robin, the black of Maxwell's orphans, denied the charges. He said he slept at Robinson's all night. This was confirmed by Charles Steward and Robinson, who stated that while coming from Henry Francis's house on the night Sey claimed the blacks were at Swallow's, they called down the hill for someone to bring a light. When no one came, they found Robin at Robinson's around midnight and beat him for not responding.

Robin added that on Wednesday morning, Joseph Fox's Toby came to him while he was planting tobacco and asked if he had heard any news. Robin said no and asked what the matter was. Toby told him he had heard that some of the blacks would [the record breaks off].

Interpretations

The testimony now splits sharply between accusers and accused. Sey and Limbreck provided detailed accounts of conspiracy, naming specific participants, locations, and plans. The accused blacks countered with alibis, denials, and accusations that Sey had fabricated the entire account. This pattern mirrors interrogations under threat where some enslaved people attempted to deflect suspicion by implicating others, while those accused sought to discredit their accusers.

The beating of Robin for failing to bring a light when called reveals the mechanisms of control within enslaved communities themselves. Senior or more trusted slaves could enforce discipline on others, and physical punishment was not reserved exclusively for masters. This internal hierarchy complicated the question of solidarity and made conspiracy more difficult to organize and conceal.

Speculations

The contradiction between Sey's detailed narrative and the wholesale denials from the accused suggests either that Sey was coerced into inventing names and events, or that the accused were lying to save themselves. The specificity of Sey's account - times, locations, dialogue - weighs in favour of some truth, but her position as someone brought in for punishment gave her strong incentive to satisfy her interrogators by naming others.

Toby's statement that his master's life lay in his hands indicates either a threat or a claim of protective knowledge. If Toby knew of genuine danger and warned his master, this would confirm at least some conspiracy existed. If the statement was meant as leverage or intimidation, it shows an enslaved person attempting to assert power over his owner through fear. Either way, it reveals the psychological warfare between master and slave in a community gripped by panic.

20

12

People, who told his Mistress the same when he went home.

Civell, Confesses he was at play with the other Blacks, but never heard any Descoors[e] about Killing the People.

John Clavering telling the Governeur his Wife could Say Something to the Matter was ordered to Appear this Day who did and declares as followeth.

That on Tuesday Last the Portugeeze Cap.tn and. 2. Gentlemen more dined at their House, about an hour after Mingo came and ask't for a Dram, and some punch, but would not gave him any, where upon he made Answer and said, if you wont, you may let it alone, it's better you did, and said you Shall Never be the better for it, So went away saying he did Saver something.

Tobey says his Master gave him Leave to go and play that holly day, So went to Henry Webleys house, where Mingo ask't him to come. 2. or 3. days before Christmas but never had any Descourse about any reseing and Killing the Whyte people.

Phill says that See, nor none of the Rest was at theer House as she says they were Neither did he go down to Charles Steward with Sue &c.a and denys all the Rest.

Seeing that the Aforesaid blacks wont Confess any thing materiall.

It is Ordered.

That they all Return into Prison, till to Morrow in the Afternoon, and then to be Severely whipt, to try, whether they, or any of them will Make any Ingenicous Confession.

M.r Charles Jack would Confess Nothing at all, saying he is Innocent.

Tobley Confesses Nothing

Hemp says Mingo Invited him to Dinner Thursday after Christmas but heard Nothing talked of about the Blacks Riseing

Phill says as the former.

Rufase Says he knows Nothing of the Business his Master Richard Swallow says he was at home that Night as See says he was with her and other Blacks at Thomas Swallows.

Civell Says he knows nothing of the Blacks Intending to Kill the White People.

Tobey Justefied by his Master, who says he was not Absent from home that time as See Says he was.

Robin says, Tobey, Joseph Fox black told him about. 2. Months ago that his Master went out One Moon Shiney Night, about. 3. Months ago, and ask't him if he knew where Charles Stewards fatt heifer was, the Black said No, he could not, his Master Swore Dam it, If I did I would have a Round with her, where upon went both into Powells Valley, and Mett with the Comp.a Sheep and sett on his Dogg and catch One, which was very poor, Then went after the Sheep round the High Nowle and Mett them again, and sett the Dogg at One, which Ran together down Powells Valley Water Land about an hour after the Dog came back again to him at Richard Alexanders house, where Lumber, and Mercer, were playeing at Nine Pins, by Moon Light, and when the Dogg came on, they ask't what made him blow so, to which Joseph Fox made Answer, it was a feauld for him to do so, when he wont catch, and that he sent his Black home, and if he mett any body to Challenge them, and fire the Gun, and he would bear him harmless, and another time went after Doctor

Robin added that Toby told his mistress the same when he returned home.

Civell admitted he had been at play with other blacks but denied hearing any talk of killing white people.

John Clavering informed the Governor that his wife had something relevant to say on the matter. She was ordered to appear and gave the following account. On the previous Tuesday, a Portuguese captain and two other gentlemen had dined at the Clavering house. About an hour after, Mingo arrived and asked for spirits and punch. Mrs. Clavering refused to serve him. Mingo replied that she could please herself, but it would have been better for her had she obliged, and she would never benefit from the refusal. He departed, muttering that he [...] something as he left.

Toby stated that his master had given him leave to play on the holiday, so he went to Henry Webley's house. Mingo had asked him to come two or three days before Christmas, but no discussion of rising up or killing white people ever took place.

Phill denied that Sey or any of the others were at the Swallow house as she claimed, denied going to Charles Steward's with Sey, and denied everything else.

As none of the accused blacks would confess anything of substance, the Governor and Council ordered that they all be returned to prison until the following afternoon and then severely whipped to determine whether any would make an honest confession.

Mr. Charles's Jack refused to confess anything, maintaining his innocence.

Toby likewise confessed nothing.

Hemp stated that Mingo had invited him to dinner on the Thursday after Christmas but that he heard nothing about an uprising.

Phill repeated his earlier denial.

Rufase stated he knew nothing of the matter. His master Richard Swallow confirmed that Rufase was at home on the night Sey claimed he was with her and others at Thomas Swallow's house.

Civell stated he knew nothing of any plan to kill white people.

Toby was supported by his master, who confirmed he had not been absent from home at the times Sey named.

Robin then made a separate disclosure. He stated that Toby, Joseph Fox's black, had told him roughly two months earlier about an incident some three months before. Fox had gone out on a moonlit night and asked Toby whether he knew where Charles Steward's fat heifer was. The black said he did not. Fox swore and said that if he found the animal he would take it. The two went into Powell's Valley and came upon the Company's sheep. Fox set his dog on the flock and caught one, which proved very thin. They then followed the sheep around the High Knoll and came upon them again. Fox loosed the dog at another, which ran down through Powell's Valley. About an hour later the dog returned to Richard Alexander's house, where Lumber and Mercer were playing ninepins by moonlight. When the dog came back panting, they asked what had tired it out. Fox replied that it served the dog right for failing to catch. Fox then sent his black home with instructions to challenge anyone he met on the way and fire his gun, promising to shield him from any consequences. On another occasion Fox went after Doctor [the record breaks off].

Interpretations

The order to whip the prisoners until they produced honest confessions marks a shift from voluntary testimony to judicial torture. Having collected detailed accusations from Sey but received uniform denials from the accused, the Governor and Council resorted to coercion. The explicit reasoning - that physical pain might yield what questioning had not - reveals how summary colonial justice treated enslaved people's silence as obstruction rather than as a possible indication of innocence.

The wholesale denial by every accused person created a direct contest of credibility between Sey's account and the collective testimony of the accused. Several presented alibis corroborated by their masters, yet the Council chose to proceed with punishment rather than weigh this conflicting evidence. The masters' readiness to vouch for their slaves' whereabouts may reflect genuine knowledge or a desire to protect valuable property from collective punishment.

Speculations

Robin's sudden testimony about Fox's sheep stealing - apparently unprompted and unrelated to the conspiracy - may have been a calculated move. By offering information about a free planter stealing Company livestock, Robin could demonstrate his own value as an informant and potentially bargain for lenient treatment. Alternatively, the Council may have been questioning broadly about conditions on the plantations, and Robin seized the chance to redirect attention towards his master's misdeeds.

Mingo's visit to the Clavering house - arriving shortly after Portuguese guests had dined there and making veiled threats when refused drink - fits the broader pattern of his alleged planning. If Mingo was genuinely organising an uprising timed to the return of the Portuguese ship, his appearance at the Claverings' table while Portuguese officers were present may not have been coincidental. His parting threat, though opaque in the record, alarmed Mrs. Clavering enough that her husband brought it to the Governor's attention.

21

13

Hoskinsons Sheep, but did not Kill any; Further that Tobey told him he and his Master went Another time, and Killed a great Barrow of Richard Alecander and Carreed it home where they Singed it, of all which he says he told his Master who bid him say Nothing of it.

Charles Steward Says Robin did tell him as abovesaid, where upon bid him say No More of it, Least he should come to the Whiping Post.

Joseph Foxes Tobey Declares that Mingo told him that after he had gott the pou= =der he would blow Up the fort when the People was drunk on Musterday Night, and that he would come to ask him a Question or Two, on Satturday Night last before and thought it was time Enough, on Sunday followeng to Discover the whole Intrea= =gue.

Further says at a time when he was workeing in the Ground, Mingo came to him, and ask't him what made him work without Shoes, Stockeings, Good Cloaths, and Money, how can I help it, Mingo say I, why says he, go along with me, and you shall have better, Cant you fight with Sword and Pistolls, I can sleep of a Sword with One hand, and feght with the other hand, and shewed me some Scars on his Arm, No replyed S, I had better work here, why had you, said Mingo again there are about. 9. or. 11. Strong hearted fellows, at Ruperts, but Named None Except M.r Sfields Fedo, the Companys Little George, and John Greca, and Nicholls Jack, would gett Threescore or. 100. More, and as maney as he could, and asked me again if I would Consent to go with him, I told him No, and after som Discourse said he would come another time, Accordingly did, on a Sunday when I was Meneleing my Cloaths, and ask't me, what made me take so much trouble and Paens, to mend an Old Shirt, if I would go with him he would gett me better, have a good heart, and you Need not feard any thing, No says I, I had rather ware this then a better, and to be worse for it, oh says he, dont be affraid, but say Nothing if you do, I will Stab you, the forst time I meet you, and ask't when Muster day was, I made Answer about. 3. Weeks, or a Month hence, he made Answer Dam Blood I must gett the Powder, and blow all the People to the Devell, when they were Dronkeing, how will you Gett it says I, he answered I will go Over the Garden Walk, and so gett into the Fort, and if he could not Gett Enough, of any there, he would gett some on the Line, I made Answer you cant gett in the Main powder Room for people was always watcheing there, then said as abovesaid, and as for all Yoeung Women that he liked he would Keep them, and Carry them in the Portugeeze Shyp, which he would take, when She came here, and would Kill all Men, Women, and Children, as well as Blacks that would not be of his party, and put the Governour into a Caske, and bury him alive under Ground, for he did not Some that Monsfeerd Governour for he was not good, and being ask't if the Governour knew he feeld Attempt any such thing of Killing the White people &c.a made Answer he thought these Shyps in the Road [...]oue, would begone before Musterday, and would gett all the Portugeeze Blacks he Could, to be of his party.

Another time Mingo, Robin and himselfe was at Veseys house a Dronkeing, at which time he made Motcons and Wonk't to Robin but would not let him hear any thing of what they said, and that while he was in the Prison all the Blacks blamed him saying it was through his Lies, and Storys they were put there, which Tom Webster a White Man heard as he says pases.

That after Mingo &c.a had done what Mischeefe they intended at the Fort, would go into the Countrey to his party placed there, and Appointed to Kill the Whites, which they would do, with what Arms, and Weapons they Could gett, as Knives Pistoll &c.a X.b.r The 6.th 1707 Tho: Goodwin [I]sland

Fox went after Hoskinson's sheep on another occasion but did not kill any. Toby also told Robin that he and his master went out yet again and killed a large pig belonging to Richard Alexander, carried it home and singed off the bristles. Robin said he reported all this to his master, who told him to say nothing of it.

Charles Steward confirmed that Robin had told him what he described above, whereupon Steward told him to say no more of it lest he end up at the whipping post.

Toby, Joseph Fox's black, stated that Mingo had told him that once he obtained the powder, he would blow up the Fort when the people were drunk on muster day night. Mingo said he would come to ask Toby a question or two on the previous Saturday night and thought it would be time enough to reveal the whole plot on the following Sunday.

Toby added that once when he was working in the fields, Mingo approached and asked why he worked without shoes, stockings, good clothes or money. Toby answered that he could not help it. Mingo said that if Toby came with him, he would have better. He asked whether Toby could fight with sword and pistols, saying he himself could parry a sword with one hand and fight with the other, and showed scars on his arm. Toby said no, he would rather work where he was. Mingo pressed him, saying there were nine or eleven stout men at Rupert's already committed - though he named only Sfield's Fedo, the Company's Little George, John Greca and Nicholas's Jack - and that he would recruit sixty or a hundred more, as many as he could. He again asked Toby to join. Toby refused.

After further conversation, Mingo said he would return another time. He did so on a Sunday when Toby was mending his clothes. Mingo asked why Toby took so much trouble to repair an old shirt when, if he came with Mingo, he could obtain better. He urged Toby to have courage and said there was nothing to fear. Toby replied that he would rather wear his old clothes than have better and suffer for it. Mingo told him not to be afraid but to say nothing, threatening to stab him the first time they met if he disclosed anything. He asked when muster day fell. Toby answered in about three weeks or a month. Mingo swore he had to get the powder and blow all the people to the devil whilst they were drinking. When Toby asked how he would obtain it, Mingo said he would climb over the garden wall into the Fort. If he could not get enough there, he would take some from the line. Toby pointed out that the main powder room was always watched. Mingo repeated his earlier plan. He said he would keep for himself any young women he fancied and carry them away on the Portuguese ship, which he would seize when it arrived. He would kill all men, women and children, as well as any blacks who refused to join him. He would put the Governor in a cask and bury him alive underground because he did not respect that Governor, who was no good. When asked whether the Governor knew Mingo planned to kill the white people, Mingo replied that he thought the ships presently in the road [...] would be gone before muster day, and that he would recruit as many Portuguese blacks as he could for his cause.

On another occasion, Mingo, Robin and Toby were drinking at Vesey's house. Mingo made signs and winked at Robin but would not let Toby hear what they discussed. Whilst in prison, all the blacks blamed Toby, saying it was through his lies and stories that they had been imprisoned. Tom Webster, a white man, heard them making these accusations.

Toby added that after Mingo and his followers had accomplished their intended destruction at the Fort, they would proceed into the country to join confederates already positioned there and appointed to kill the whites. They would use whatever arms and weapons they could obtain - knives, pistols and so forth.

Signed on [...]ber 6th 1707 by Thomas Goodwin.

Interpretations

Toby's detailed testimony about his repeated conversations with Mingo stands in stark contrast to the wholesale denials from other accused conspirators. His account moves from general recruitment attempts to specific operational details: the timing linked to muster day drunkenness, the method of entering the Fort over the garden wall, the plan to seize the Portuguese ship, and the division of forces between those attacking the Fort and those positioned in the country to kill planters. Whether this reflects genuine conspiracy or calculated invention to satisfy his interrogators cannot be determined from the record alone.

The testimony about Robin informing his master Charles Steward of Joseph Fox's livestock theft, and Steward's instruction to keep silent "lest he end up at the whipping post," reveals how masters managed information about one another's illegal activities. Rather than report Fox to the authorities for stealing Company sheep and Alexander's pig, Steward protected a fellow planter whilst threatening his own slave with punishment for further disclosure. This solidarity among free planters operated independently of the law they ostensibly upheld.

Speculations

Toby's emergence as the conspiracy's principal informant - after initially denying knowledge - suggests either that the threat of whipping accomplished its purpose, or that Toby calculated he could gain protection by providing the detailed account the Council sought. His testimony implicates Mingo as the conspiracy's architect whilst positioning himself as someone who refused repeated recruitment attempts and eventually disclosed the plot to save lives. This narrative serves Toby's interests perfectly.

Mingo's alleged plan to bury the Governor alive in a cask represents either genuine murderous intent or Toby's embellishment designed to demonstrate the plot's seriousness. The detail about killing any blacks who refused to participate indicates the conspirators understood that solidarity was not universal and that some enslaved people would side with their masters rather than join an uprising. The threat against Toby himself - that Mingo would stab him if he talked - conveniently explains why Toby initially remained silent before becoming the investigation's most forthcoming witness.

22

14

Island St Helena.

Att a Consultation. held on Tuesday the. 14.th Day of January 170 6/7 Att Fort James.

Pres: Step.n Poirier Governour. Thom: Goodwin, Dep.ty Governour

Whereas William Marsh free planter Complaints against John Clave= =ring Gunners Mate, for Calling him all Fower, as he was passing the Street, and turneing about, ask't him who he Called So, Clavering made Answer I call you So.

The said Clavering says that as the said Marsh, was passing by his door, and being talkeing to Morris Griffon said Heghest, Lowest, Jack, and the Game, who the said Marsh hareing turned about, and said do you Speak to me, yes replyed Clavering as soon to ofve as any body.

Morris Griffon Sworn Saith that he being Setting at M.r Claverings door, heard him say, highest, Lowest, Jack, and the Game, and M.r Marsh going by the Door, Made a Stop, and said, who do you call So, Clavering Made Answer you.

Findeing No Cause of Acteon against the said Clavering.

It is Ordered.

That the said Marsh pay Councell Charges.

The aforesaid William Marsh made Complaint against William Swallow Corporall, for Assaulting him by force and Strength of Arms, without any provacation of which he has Languished Ever Since, being Much bruised Inwardly, wherefore Desires Justice may be done him.

Gilbert Cotgrave says that some time ago, being Setting at his door in the Night, heard William Swallow ask M.r Marsh for his fane, M.r Marsh Replyed I have a fane in my house, but don't know whether it's yours or Not, and asking him whether there was any Mark upon it, Immediately M.r Marsh went Into his house & brought a fane out, which he held by both Ends, William Swallow Laid hands on it, Wrench't it out of M.r Marshes hands, and Threw him down upon the Ground, and bruised M.r Marshes face, Then he gott up, and called William Swallow severall Names as Son of a Whore, and said his Mother was a Whore, and would prove her So, William Swal= low Replyed you are an Old Rogue, and I'le prove you So, for being Naeght with Sus Dufston.

Morris Griffon Souldieer Sworn Saith that on the Night aforesaid he saw M.r Marsh Coming out of his house with a Cane in her hand, and ask't William Swallow whether it was his, whereeupon William Swallow Wrencht it away from him and threw him down against the Ground, and heard a great many words pass.

Thomas Burnham Saith to the same Effect.

Findeing by the Evidences aforesaid, they gave Each other provokeing Language.

It is

Margin Notes:

Marshes Complaint against Clavering Marsh pays Costs Marshes Complaint against W.m Swallow

At a consultation held on Tuesday the 14th day of January 1707 at Fort James, St Helena.

Present: Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin.

William Marsh, a free planter, brought a complaint against John Clavering, Gunner's Mate, alleging that Clavering had called him "all four" as he passed in the street. Marsh turned around and asked whom Clavering was addressing. Clavering answered that he meant Marsh.

Clavering stated that as Marsh passed his door whilst he was conversing with Morris Griffon, he had said "highest, lowest, Jack, and the game." Marsh overheard this, turned around and asked whether Clavering was speaking to him. Clavering replied yes, as readily to him as to anybody else.

Morris Griffon, sworn, stated that whilst sitting at Clavering's door he heard Clavering say "highest, lowest, Jack, and the game." Marsh, passing by, stopped and asked whom Clavering was addressing. Clavering answered that he meant Marsh.

Finding no cause of action against Clavering, the Council ordered Marsh to pay council charges.

Marsh then complained against William Swallow, Corporal, for assaulting him by force without provocation. Marsh stated he had been unwell ever since, being much bruised internally, and requested justice.

Gilbert Cotgrave testified that some time previously, whilst sitting at his door at night, he heard Swallow ask Marsh for his cane. Marsh replied that he had a cane indoors but did not know whether it belonged to Swallow. When Marsh asked whether there was any identifying mark on it, he went inside and brought out a cane, which he held by both ends. Swallow seized it, wrenched it from Marsh's hands, threw Marsh to the ground and bruised his face. Marsh rose and called Swallow several names including "son of a whore," declared his mother was a whore and said he would prove it. Swallow replied that Marsh was an old rogue and that he would prove it by Marsh's sexual misconduct with Sus Dufston.

Morris Griffon, soldier, sworn, stated that on the night in question he saw Marsh emerge from his house with a cane in his hand and ask Swallow whether it belonged to him. Swallow wrenched it away and threw Marsh down. Many heated words were exchanged.

Thomas Burnham gave testimony to the same effect.

Finding from the evidence that both parties had used provoking language [the record breaks off].

Interpretations

The first complaint shows how readily misunderstanding could escalate into formal grievance in the confined fort community. Marsh interpreted Clavering's card game vocabulary as personal insult directed at him, but the Council dismissed the case and penalized Marsh for wasting time. This demonstrates the Council's impatience with trivial disputes amongst free residents whilst occupied with investigating a conspiracy threatening the entire settlement.

The second complaint demonstrates that disputes over minor property could rapidly turn violent. Swallow's response to Marsh's attack on his mother's reputation - a sexual accusation referencing Sus Dufston - reveals how personal honor functioned in this small community. Both men traded insults about sexual propriety and legitimacy, suggesting these were the most damaging charges available in their arsenal of abuse.

Speculations

Marsh may have genuinely misheard Clavering's card terminology as directed insult, or he may have sought a pretext to bring Clavering before the Council. Given that Clavering had recently been fined for striking Thomas Hulstone and his wife investigated for abusing Mrs. Mudge, Marsh might have seen an opportunity to embarrass someone already in poor standing. The Council's decision to fine Marsh for bringing the complaint suggests they recognized this.

The cane dispute between Marsh and Swallow may have concerned an item of genuine value - walking sticks could be expensive and socially significant - or represented a proxy for deeper hostility. Swallow's immediate resort to sexual slander when his parentage was insulted suggests this was practiced rhetoric in the fort's verbal combat. The specific reference to Sus Dufston indicates that in so small a community, everyone's private conduct was known and could be weaponized in personal conflicts.

23

15

It is Ordered.

That they pay Councell Charges Equally betwixt them and so Dismist.

Whereas Mary the Wife of William ffrench made Complaint against her husband, for Selling a bull to Richard Alexander which belonged to her chieldren Given them by their Grand Father her, by his last Will and Testament.

Mary French made Complaint to the Governour some time ago, that Richard Alexander had fetcht a bull of her chieldrens from the place where he used to Range, which he bought of her Husband.

The said Richard Alexander says he bought the beast fairely of William French, and Impoowered Leonard Hunt to Deliver him which he Accordingly did, and drove it home into his pasture, and thought it was his Own, having sold other things.

It is Ordered

Upon M.rs French Offering to pay the Money back agaen they Agree, she paying him Eight Dollars, and the said Alexander to Deliver the beast.

Whereas John Clavering was Accused for keeping a Disorderly house, and Selling Strong Drink by Retayle, without a Licence, Notwithstand= =ing having been forfeeted as may Appear by a Consultation held the. 5. day of December. 1706.

The said Clavering Owns he hath sold Victualls Severall times, and has taken Money for it, but did not Sell any peunch.

John Twaights Corporall Sworne Saith that the Monday Morning before Christmas Day he and Bell, came down to the Fort, and went Into Claverings, who had a bowle of peunch, but paid for None, further that on the Holy days, Daniel Stone with some others, called him in, and did Drinke with them but cant tell whose Lequouer it was.

Daniel Stone says, the Liquour and Sugar was his own which he gott out of the Store, and being ask't whether they would Eat Victualls said yes, Cheese and Bread, without paying any Money for'et.

John Sumersby Says, that when he, and Richard Dearing came down out of the Countrey, a day, or Two After New years day, Rich. Dearing and he had some Rum, of M.r Clavering which they borrowed, but in the After= =noon paid One Dollar, in part of payment for. 3. Bowls of Rum peunch.

John Jessey says, John Merrett told him he bought One bowle of Peunch of M.r Clavering.

John Merritt Saith that the Day after the Shyps came in the Road he went to M.r Clavering and Desired her to make him a bowle of peunch, which she did, and he promesed her payment Next Serving day, but has not paid as yet.

It is Ordered.

That for the said Claverings Obstinance against our former Orders, of Councell, be fined, Fourty Shillings, to the Farmer of the Licences, and it to pay

Margin Notes:

They pay'd Charges betwixt them Mary ffrench Complaines against her Husband Clavering Accused for keeping a Disord. House [Fin]'d

The Council ordered that Marsh and Swallow pay council charges equally between them and dismissed the matter.

Mary, wife of William French, brought a complaint against her husband for selling a bull to Richard Alexander. The bull belonged to her children, having been given to them by their grandfather in his last will and testament.

Mary French had complained to the Governor some time earlier that Richard Alexander had taken one of her children's bulls from the place where it usually ranged, having purchased it from her husband.

Richard Alexander stated he had bought the animal fairly from William French and empowered Leonard Hunt to deliver it. Hunt did so, and Alexander drove it home to his pasture, believing it to be his own property, having purchased other items from French as well.

The Council ordered that upon Mrs. French offering to repay the money, they should settle the matter. She would pay Alexander eight dollars, and Alexander would return the animal.

John Clavering was accused of keeping a disorderly house and selling strong drink retail without a licence, notwithstanding having forfeited his licence, as appeared from the consultation held on 5 December 1706.

Clavering admitted he had sold food on several occasions and taken money for it, but denied selling any punch.

Corporal John Twaights, sworn, stated that on the Monday morning before Christmas Day, he and Bell came down to the Fort and went into Clavering's establishment, where there was a bowl of punch, though they paid for none. Further, on the holidays, Daniel Stone and some others invited him in and he drank with them, but could not say whose liquor it was.

Daniel Stone stated that the liquor and sugar were his own, obtained from the store. When asked whether they ate any food, he said yes, cheese and bread, without paying money for it.

John Sumersby stated that when he and Richard Dearing came down from the country a day or two after New Year's Day, Dearing and he obtained some rum from Clavering, which they borrowed. However, in the afternoon they paid one dollar as partial payment for three bowls of rum punch.

John Jessey stated that John Merrett told him he had bought one bowl of punch from Clavering.

John Merritt stated that the day after the ships arrived in the road, he went to Clavering and asked her to make him a bowl of punch, which she did. He promised her payment on the next serving day but had not yet paid.

The Council ordered that for Clavering's obstinacy in defying their earlier orders, he be fined forty shillings to the farmer of licences, together with council charges.

Interpretations

The French family dispute reveals tensions between marital property rights and children's inheritance. William French apparently sold property that belonged to his children through their grandfather's bequest, prompting his wife to seek the Council's intervention. The resolution - allowing the purchaser to be reimbursed and the property restored - protected the children's inheritance whilst not penalizing Alexander for what appeared to be a legitimate purchase. This shows the Council mediating between competing legal claims within families.

The renewed prosecution of Clavering for operating without a licence demonstrates the Council's determination to enforce its earlier ruling. Despite having forfeited his licence in December, Clavering continued trading, though he attempted the technical defence that he sold food rather than drink. The witnesses' testimony - describing punch consumed on multiple occasions, payments made in dollars, and promises of future payment - made clear that the Clavering household was operating as an unlicensed public house. The fine of forty shillings was substantial enough to signal serious disapproval.

Speculations

Mary French's intervention to protect her children's inheritance from her husband's sale suggests either that William French was in financial difficulty and selling assets to raise cash, or that he disregarded his stepchildren's property rights. The specific bequest of a bull from their grandfather indicates this was valuable livestock, and Mary's vigilance in tracking its whereabouts shows she was actively monitoring her children's inheritance against her husband's decisions.

The witnesses' careful distinctions about payment - some claiming they borrowed rum but later paid, others saying the liquor was their own but they ate food there, still others promising future payment - suggest coaching or prior coordination. Everyone attempted to help Clavering by denying straightforward purchase of drink, but collectively their testimony proved the opposite. The fact that Mrs. Clavering, not John, was described as making punch and receiving promises of payment indicates she may have been the actual operator of the establishment whilst her husband maintained deniability.

24

16

Pay Councill Charges.

Gunner French makes Complaint that he had a Bed Quilt and Sheet, took out of the Armery, and Not knowing what is become of it, Desires that his Crew may be Examined.

John Clavering says he Delivered the Bed to Isaack Leach.

Isaack Leach says Tom Hays told him that he sent his Brother Gyles to fetch his Mothers bed from off the Guard, and by Mistake brought up the Gunners bed to his Mothers house.

It is Ordered.

That Thomas Hays for Denyeing he had the bed, and for not Appearing according to a Summons Make good the said bed to Gunner French, and fined: 5:

Arthur Bradley made Complaint, that Charles William ffrench black Phill, Robert Gurling black, broake open his house, and stoale some Meat, Butter, Yams, and a Knife.

Charles says that Phell broake open the House and stole the Veiteualls.

Phell says Charles broake Open the House, and told him to take the Meat, Butter, and Yams from him at the out side of the Wendow.

It is Ordered

That Charles for breaking open the house, and Phell for helping him be whept on theer Naked bodys dureing Pleasure, and William ffrench to pay the full Vallue of the Goods Stollen.

Whereas Corporall Gellion and Serj.t Cason has made Complaint to the Governour, that in Obeying his Orders in Clearing all Common Sea Men out of the Fort Valley, and publick houses, at. 6. a Clock in the Evening, Accordingly Going into William Bealls house, the door was Shutt against them, and very abusive words given them, Which can't but be a great Motive of his Tursulent humour, as well as undetestfull and Refractory Deportment to his Parents, and others, as may Appear by the Records of Councell broake.

It is Ordered.

That the said Beal for his Obstinacy and Turbulent humour, as well as standing in Contempt of the Governours Orders, be Summoned against Next Councell. day, to Answer the said Corporall & Serj.t Casons Complaints.

Christopher Harlings declaration

That as my Land Lord Stewards Black Robin and I, being at Work in his Plantateon, last Wensday Morning, Joseph Foxes Tobey a Black, came to the Plantateon Wall and called Robin, and ask't him for a Pipe of Tobacco, Robin bid him come there, and he would give it him, and as Tobey was felling his pype he ask't Robin if he heard the News, No says Robin what is it, Tobey replyed I dont dare to tell, because Kitt is here, for he would tell it further, No says Robin Kitt wont tell, Tell it on, No says I, if it No harm, it Shall go No further, for me, says Tobey the blacks west be said of, for says he there is. 11. Island Blacks besides the New fellows at the Fort. Designs a Musterday for to Kill the white Women and

Margin Notes:

Gunner French Complaint for his Bed Art Mers Bradley Complains of Haveing his hou[se] broke o[pen] by 2 Blacks Casons and Gellions Complaint against W.m Beale Harlings Declaration ag[ainst] the Blacks

Clavering was also ordered to pay council charges.

Gunner French complained that he had a bed quilt and sheet taken from the armoury. Not knowing what had become of them, he requested that his crew be examined.

John Clavering stated he had delivered the bed to Isaac Leach.

Isaac Leach stated that Tom Hays told him he had sent his brother Giles to fetch his mother's bed from the guard post, and by mistake Giles had brought the Gunner's bed to his mother's house.

The Council ordered that Thomas Hays, for denying he had the bed and for not appearing in response to a summons, make good the bed to Gunner French and pay a fine of five shillings.

Arthur Bradley complained that Charles, William French's black Phill, and Robert Gurling's black had broken open his house and stolen some meat, butter, yams and a knife.

Charles stated that Phill had broken open the house and stolen the food.

Phill stated that Charles had broken open the house and told him to take the meat, butter and yams from him at the outside of the window.

The Council ordered that Charles for breaking open the house, and Phill for assisting him, be whipped on their naked bodies at the Council's pleasure, and that William French pay the full value of the goods stolen.

Corporal Gellion and Sergeant Cason had complained to the Governor that whilst obeying his orders to clear all common seamen out of the Fort valley and public houses by six o'clock in the evening, they went to William Beale's house where the door was shut against them and very abusive words were directed at them. This demonstrated his turbulent temperament as well as his undutiful and refractory conduct toward his parents and others, as appeared from earlier council records.

The Council ordered that Beale, for his obstinacy and turbulent temper as well as his contempt for the Governor's orders, be summoned to appear at the next council day to answer the complaints made by Corporal Gellion and Sergeant Cason.

Christopher Harling gave the following statement. Whilst he and his landlord Steward's black Robin were working on Steward's plantation the previous Wednesday morning, Joseph Fox's black Toby came to the plantation wall and called to Robin, asking for a pipe of tobacco. Robin told him to come over and he would give it to him. Whilst Toby was filling his pipe, he asked Robin whether he had heard the news. Robin said no and asked what it was. Toby replied that he dared not tell because Kitt was present and would repeat it. Robin said Kitt would not tell and urged him to speak. Harling said that if it was no harm, it would go no further from him. Toby stated that the blacks were the subject of discussion, for there were eleven island blacks besides the new arrivals at the Fort. They planned on muster day to kill the white women and [the record breaks off].

Interpretations

The bed dispute reveals how easily goods circulated and were confused in the cramped fort community. What began as a complaint about theft from the armoury resolved into an innocent mistake involving multiple parties and borrowed property. The fine against Thomas Hays for denying possession and ignoring a summons suggests the Council's frustration with evasion rather than with the original error.

The theft complaint demonstrates hierarchy among the enslaved. Charles and Phill each blamed the other for breaking into Bradley's house, suggesting they hoped to deflect punishment onto a confederate. The Council's response - whipping both slaves and requiring their owner to compensate the victim - followed the standard pattern of physical punishment for slaves and financial liability for masters.

Beale's confrontation with military authority escalated a routine enforcement matter into a formal proceeding. The reference to his "undutiful and refractory conduct toward his parents" alongside his resistance to the Corporal and Sergeant suggests Beale had an established reputation for defiance. The Council treated his refusal to admit soldiers enforcing curfew as contempt for the Governor's orders rather than as a householder's right to refuse entry.

Speculations

The accidental exchange of beds - Giles Hays taking the Gunner's bed instead of his mother's from the guard post - suggests that military equipment and personal property were stored together in ways that facilitated confusion. Thomas Hays's denial despite his brother's involvement indicates either ignorance of his sibling's actions or an attempt to avoid the compensation he would owe if he admitted possession.

Beale's refusal to admit soldiers clearing seamen from public houses at six o'clock suggests either that he was harbouring prohibited guests or that he resented military intrusion into civilian space. The soldiers' complaint that abusive words accompanied the closed door indicates a heated confrontation, and the Council's reference to Beale's broader pattern of disobedience suggests this was not an isolated incident but part of ongoing conflict between civilian residents and military authority.

Toby's latest disclosure to Robin - overheard by Christopher Harling - adds another layer to the conspiracy investigation. Toby's reluctance to speak in Harling's presence, followed by his agreement to disclose once Harling promised silence, suggests that information about the plot continued to circulate even after multiple arrests and interrogations. Whether Toby was genuinely warning confederates or performing loyalty to the authorities by appearing to reluctantly divulge information remains ambiguous.

25

17

and children, while the Men were a Mustering, and as the Men come up One by One, or faulted to knock them on the head, Robin made Answer what is that to me, why do you tell me of it, Tobey answered I came to tell you, that you might take fare to keep your Selfe out of all bad Company, and I would have you tell Robensons Toby of it alfo, No says Robin if you'll have him to know of it Tell him your Selfe what's to me.

John Palin made Complaint that he being at John Nicholls house some time ago, he was told by Francis Jeack, that Sue Leonard Coulsons black Wench said that he had laen with Marry Nicholls, and Turned the Chieldren out of Doors, Except. Edmond Nicholls, and William Nichols, who were in the House all the time.

It is Ordered.

That the said Edmond Nichols, and William Nichols, with the black Wench, be Summoned to Appear Next Councill, Day.

X.b.r The 6.th 1707 Tho: Goodwin

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation. held on, Tuesday the. 21.st Day of January. 170 6/7. Att Fort James.

Pres: Step.n Poirier Governour. Thom: Goodwin Dep.ty Governor

The Examination of Mingo, and other Blacks, about their Plotting and Contriveing to kill all, or most part of the white People on the Island.

Mingo Henry Webleys black being Examined about Riseing to kill the white people on this Island, Saith, That he is falsely accused by Tobey it Never haveing Entered his thoughts to kill the white people, although Tobey Confronted him to his face, and gave him severall Instances, times and places, where discoursed about his bloody Intentions.

Caesar Henry Francis's black, says he was at M.r Welleys where Mingo said in Portugeeze, he would break open the Powder Room, and did him say Nothing of it, Neether to White nor Black, and that he had Some Powder already hid amongst the Rockes.

M.rs Leefskin says that Caesar told her that Mingo told him he had some Powder that was hid in the Rocks, and talk't some theing about the powder Room.

Caesar says Tobey told him so, Tobey says he Never did, and that Caesar and Mingo takk't Portugeeze about half an hour Together.

Dufton Dick being Suspected of knowing of the blacks riseing, was Examined, and says he knows Nothing, but that he had from Repein Wells George, who told him that Robinson tell his Master, some of the Sandy Bay Blacks did Intend to Rise, and Named the aforesaid Two Tobeys. besides Robin and Phill.

John

Margin Notes:

[Pa]lins Compt against [Nicho]lls Blacks Examined

Toby added that whilst the men were mustering, the plan was to kill the women and children, and as the men came up one by one or in small groups, to knock them on the head. Robin asked why Toby was telling him this and what it had to do with him. Toby answered that he came to warn Robin to take care to keep out of bad company, and that he should also tell Robinson's Toby of it. Robin refused, saying that if Toby wanted Robinson's Toby to know, he should tell him himself - it was nothing to do with Robin.

John Palin complained that some time previously, whilst at John Nichols's house, he was told by Francis Jeack that Sey, Leonard Coulson's black woman, had said that Palin had lain with Mary Nichols and turned the children out of doors, except for Edmond Nichols and William Nichols, who were in the house the whole time.

The Council ordered that Edmond Nichols, William Nichols and the black woman be summoned to appear on the next council day.

Signed on [...]ber 6th 1707 by Thomas Goodwin.

At a consultation held on Tuesday the 21st day of January 1707 at Fort James, St Helena.

Present: Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin.

The examination of Mingo and other blacks concerning their plotting and planning to kill all or most of the white people on the island.

Mingo, Henry Webley's black, being examined about rising to kill the white people on the island, stated that he was falsely accused by Toby and that it had never entered his thoughts to kill white people. Toby confronted him face to face and gave several instances, times and places where they had supposedly discussed his murderous intentions.

Caesar, Henry Francis's black, stated that he was at Webley's house where Mingo said in Portuguese that he would break open the powder room. Mingo told him to say nothing of it to white or black, and that he already had some powder hidden amongst the rocks.

Mrs. Leefskin stated that Caesar told her that Mingo had told him he had powder hidden in the rocks and talked about the powder room.

Caesar then claimed that Toby had told him this. Toby denied ever doing so and stated that Caesar and Mingo talked in Portuguese together for about half an hour.

Dufton Dick, being suspected of knowledge about the uprising, was examined. He stated he knew nothing except what he had heard from Repein Wells's George, who told him that Robinson had informed his master that some of the Sandy Bay blacks intended to rise. George had named the two Tobys, besides Robin and Phill.

[The record continues but the margin note indicates this is where "Blacks Examined" as a section].

Interpretations

Toby's conversation with Robin - overheard by Christopher Harling - shows an enslaved man attempting to position himself as informant and protector rather than conspirator. By urging Robin to stay clear of bad company and suggesting he warn Robinson's Toby, Toby presented himself as someone concerned for others' safety. Robin's refusal to pass on the warning and his questioning of why Toby told him at all suggests suspicion that Toby might be testing loyalty or deliberately spreading information that would eventually reach white ears.

The formal examination of Mingo on 21 January reveals complete breakdown of the prosecution's narrative. Mingo flatly denied everything despite Toby confronting him face to face with specific times and places. Caesar's testimony shifted multiple times - first claiming Mingo spoke to him in Portuguese about breaking into the powder room, then saying Toby had told him this, creating a chain of accusation that dissolved into mutual contradiction. The Council faced the recurring problem of slave testimony: witnesses recanted, blamed one another, and left investigators unable to determine truth from coerced invention.

Speculations

Robin's cold response to Toby's warning - asking what it had to do with him and refusing to pass the message to Robinson's Toby - may reflect either genuine indifference to the conspiracy or calculated distance from someone he suspected of being an informant. If Toby was genuinely warning friends to stay clear, Robin's refusal was callous. If Toby was testing who would spread the information or trying to create evidence of others' knowledge, Robin correctly identified the trap.

The confusion in Caesar's testimony about whether Mingo or Toby told him about the hidden powder suggests either that Caesar was being pressed to provide evidence he did not actually possess, or that he was attempting to deflect blame from himself onto others. His shift from direct accusation of Mingo to claiming Toby had told him shows someone trying multiple strategies to satisfy interrogators whilst avoiding commitment to a single story that could be disproven.

26

18

John Myers Confesses he bought a pownd a pound of S.t Helena Tobacco of Veseys Mingo, and that Neel Smith told him. 2. or. 3. Months ago that the Blackes Intended to Rise.

George Repein Wells black saith that he heard the Work Men talk about the blacks Riseing, and John Robinson told his Master, that which he told Duftons Deck which is all, that he knows of the Business.

M.r Feeld Fedo says he knows Nothing of the Matter aforesaid, and that if Mingo told Tobey he knew of it, he told him a Lie.

Robin says Mingo ask't him how the blackes Intended formerly to kill the Whyte people, Robin answered he did not know, for he was but a Boy then, and that Mingo ask't him to go and drinke part of a bowle of peunch with him at Veseys. which he did, but did not discourse any thing about the Plott.

Jenny ffurront says that she Never heard any thing of the Blacks Riseing till they were in Prison.

Hugh Bodley declares that about a Month ago having some dea= =lings with the Portugeeze Captain, and some words a riseing, Mingo gave him very Saucy Language, and said hands on him in a furicous Manner.

Robert Leach says that he heard M.rs Bostock say that Jenny had said, she would not trust a black any More for Mingo Sake.

Jenny says she did say that she would Never have a Black again for her Husband, because she thought her Husband. Mingo would be hang'd, as well as her former Sosam, Ergo she must know some thing of the Plott, although she wont Confess any thing Mingo being very Famelliar with her.

Little George, and John Greea the Company Blacks say they know Nothing of the Business, and that Mingo told Tobey Nothing but Stories and Lees about them.

The Governour and Councell by all what has been said against Henry Webleys Mingo, and Strong Circumstances against him, thinks him guelty, of Intending a Massacrey on this Island, with the Asistance of his bloody minded Associates, Therefore

It is Ordered.

That a Jurry be Impannelled against Wensday Some Sennight being the. 29.th of this Instant, for the tryall of the said Mingo.

Caesar M.r Francis blacke says that Mingo told him in Portugeeze at M.r Webley's House, that he had (he would gett some Powder) hid in the Rocks, and would blow up the Fort, and would gett the fort New Blacks to help him kill the White people on this Island.

Paul Graton Serj.t humbly Petitioned that we would be pleased to Permitt and Grant him Liberty to Desmiss himselfe of the Companys Ser= =vice the Garelen he hires daily Requier ing his attendance to Manure it.

It is Ordered

That his Request be Granted paying. 30. Shillings for the Remainder of his time. And

Margin Notes:

Graton petition to be Discharg[ed]

John Myers admitted he bought a pound of St Helena tobacco from Vesey's Mingo, and that Neil Smith told him two or three months earlier that the blacks intended to rise.

George, Repein Wells's black, stated that he heard the workmen talking about the uprising, and that John Robinson told his master what he had told Dufton's Deck. This was all he knew of the matter.

Fedo, enslaved to Mr. Field, stated he knew nothing of the matter and that if Mingo told Toby he knew of it, Mingo was lying.

Robin stated that Mingo asked him how the blacks had formerly intended to kill the white people. Robin answered that he did not know, as he was only a boy at that time. Mingo invited him to drink part of a bowl of punch at Vesey's, which he did, but they did not discuss any plot.

Jenny Furront stated that she never heard anything about the uprising until the blacks were already in prison.

Hugh Bodley declared that about a month earlier, whilst having dealings with the Portuguese captain and some argument arising, Mingo gave him very insolent language and laid hands on him in a furious manner.

Robert Leach stated that he heard Mrs. Bostock say that Jenny had said she would not trust a black any more for Mingo's sake.

Jenny stated that she had said she would never have a black husband again because she believed her husband Mingo would be hanged, as had been her previous husband Sosam. Therefore she must know something of the plot, though she would not confess anything, Mingo being very familiar with her.

Little George and John Greca, the Company's blacks, stated they knew nothing of the business and that Mingo had told Toby nothing but stories and lies about them.

The Governor and Council, based on all that had been said against Henry Webley's Mingo and the strong circumstances against him, believed him guilty of intending a massacre on the island with the assistance of his murderous confederates.

The Council therefore ordered that a jury be impanelled for Wednesday week, being the 29th of that month, for the trial of Mingo.

Caesar, Mr. Francis's black, stated that Mingo told him in Portuguese at Mr. Webley's house that he had powder hidden in the rocks - or would obtain some - and would blow up the Fort. He would enlist the help of the Fort's newly arrived blacks to kill the white people on the island.

Sergeant Paul Graton humbly petitioned that he be permitted and granted liberty to resign from the Company's service, as the garden he rented daily required his attention to cultivate it.

The Council ordered that his request be granted upon payment of thirty shillings for the remainder of his term of service.

Interpretations

The evidence against Mingo accumulated through multiple witnesses but remained fundamentally contradictory. Some testified that Mingo had discussed plans directly with them; others reported hearing of plans second or third hand; still others, like Little George and John Greca, flatly denied involvement and accused Mingo of inventing stories about them. Despite these contradictions, the Council concluded that strong circumstances justified proceeding to jury trial rather than summary punishment, indicating they treated this as an extraordinary case requiring more formal process than typical slave discipline.

Jenny Furront's situation reveals how association with an accused conspirator created guilt by proximity. Her statement that she would never marry another black man because both her husbands - Sosam previously and now Mingo - faced hanging was interpreted as evidence of guilty knowledge rather than as the despair of someone whose intimate relationships repeatedly ended in judicial execution. The Council's reasoning that her familiarity with Mingo meant she must know of the plot demonstrates how enslaved people's personal lives became evidence against them.

Speculations

The decision to impanel a jury for Mingo's trial rather than proceeding with immediate punishment suggests the Council recognised the gravity of executing someone on testimony this confused and contradictory. A jury trial offered procedural legitimacy that might justify capital punishment to the Company in London, particularly if the execution of a planter's valuable property prompted complaint. The week's delay until 29 January also allowed time for further investigation or for Mingo to confess.

Jenny's despairing observation about her two husbands both facing execution raises questions about Sosam's earlier fate. If an earlier conspiracy or uprising had occurred on the island - which Mingo's questions to Robin about "how the blacks intended formerly to kill the white people" also suggest - then the current investigation may have been shaped by memories of previous plots, real or imagined. The Council's willingness to see conspiracy in 1707 may have been heightened by earlier experience of slave resistance.

27

19

And whereas being in want of Another Serjeant, to fill up the place of Serjeant, and William Swallow being Eldest Corporall.

It is Ordered.

That the said William Swallow be Serjeant in his Stead his Sallary Com= =menceing from the. 24.th Instant.

And that William Slaughter Souldier, be Appoented Corporall, in the Room, and Stead of William Swallow.

X.b.r The 6.th 1707 Tho: Goodwin

Island St Helena.

Att a Consultation, held on. Tuesday the. 28.th Day of January. 170 6/7. Att Fort James

Pres: Step.n Poirier Governour. Thom: Goodwin Dep.ty Governour.

Whereas George Dwight Free Planter made Complaint against John Mudge free planter, for Comitting a Trespasst upon his Land, and Throwing down his Doeable Wall.

The said Mudge Appeared, and says that the said Dwight Stoping up his Drift, and foot way, which caused him to throw it down.

After Severall Debates. It is Ordered.

That the said George Dwight Leave the said Mudge both a Drift, and Foot way as he has had for negh thirty years past, and to pay Charges of Counsell.

John Palin Souldieer made Complaint That a black Wench of Leonard Coulson, had Reported, that he did Carnally Lye with Mary the Daughter of John Nicholls, aged. 17. or. 18. years old.

The said Wench says the said Mary Nichols told her, that the said Palin had Layn with her, when She, and he, went up Stairs together.

Edmund aged about. 19. years of Age, and W.m Nicholls Says they were at home, about. 4. Months ago, when John Palin came to their house, who stayeed about halfe an hour, and they were in Company with him all the time below Stairs, and declare that he did not in any Manner, Meddle with their Sisters.

It is Ordered.

That the said Sue for Slandering the said Palin, and Mary Nicholls be Severely whipt, at Governour, and Councell, pleasure, knowing her to be Qualified to Make Mischeef, and Guelty of telling Lies & Storres.

Whereas this day. 14. Night It was ordered That William Beale free planter Should be Summons to Appear this day for Standeing in

Margin Notes:

W.m Swallow Made Serj.t Dwights Comple ag.t Mudge Palins Complaint

As the garrison was in want of another sergeant to fill the vacancy, and William Swallow being the eldest corporal, the Council ordered that Swallow be appointed sergeant in his place, with his salary commencing from the 24th of that month. William Slaughter, soldier, was appointed corporal in Swallow's room and stead.

Signed on [...]ber 6th 1707 by Thomas Goodwin.

At a consultation held on Tuesday the 28th day of January 1707 at Fort James, St Helena.

Present: Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin.

George Dwight, free planter, complained against John Mudge, free planter, for committing a trespass on his land and throwing down his double wall.

Mudge appeared and stated that Dwight had blocked his drift and footpath, which caused him to throw down the wall.

After considerable debate, the Council ordered that Dwight leave Mudge both a drift and footpath as he had enjoyed for nearly thirty years past, and pay council charges.

Soldier John Palin complained that Leonard Coulson's black woman had reported that he had carnally lain with Mary, daughter of John Nichols, aged seventeen or eighteen years.

The woman stated that Mary Nichols told her that Palin had lain with her when she and Palin went upstairs together.

Edmund, aged about nineteen years, and William Nichols stated they were at home about four months earlier when John Palin came to their house. He stayed about half an hour, and they were in his company the whole time downstairs. They declared that he did not in any manner interfere with their sister.

The Council ordered that Sey, for slandering Palin and Mary Nichols, be severely whipped at the Governor and Council's pleasure, she being known to be capable of making mischief and guilty of telling lies and stories.

On the 14th of that month, William Beale, free planter, had been ordered summoned to appear this day for standing in [the record breaks off].

Interpretations

The property dispute between Dwight and Mudge turned on competing claims about customary rights of way. Mudge asserted he had used a drift and footpath across Dwight's land for nearly thirty years - a claim to easement by prescription that the Council accepted despite Dwight's complaint about trespass. The ruling to restore Mudge's access and fine Dwight for blocking it demonstrates that the Council enforced customary usage rights even when they conflicted with a landowner's desires to control his property.

Sey's punishment for spreading allegations of sexual misconduct shows how enslaved people's speech was policed when it threatened free residents' reputations. The Council accepted the testimony of Mary Nichols's brothers over both Sey's report and Mary's alleged statement to Sey, concluding that Sey had either invented the story or deliberately misrepresented what Mary told her. The characterisation of Sey as "qualified to make mischief" and "guilty of telling lies and stories" echoes the earlier investigation where Sey provided detailed testimony about the conspiracy that multiple accused parties denied.

Speculations

Dwight's attempt to block Mudge's drift and footpath may have been motivated by a broader property dispute or personal animosity. The fact that Mudge had used the route for three decades suggests it predated current boundaries or that Dwight recently acquired land that had always been subject to Mudge's right of way. Dwight's willingness to destroy the double wall indicates the dispute had escalated beyond mere disagreement over access rights into active hostility between neighbours.

Sey's credibility had already been severely damaged by the conspiracy investigation, where she provided extensive testimony that most accused parties flatly denied. Her punishment for spreading sexual allegations against Palin - whether those allegations originated with Mary Nichols or represented Sey's invention - may reflect the Council's accumulated frustration with her as a source of accusation. The brothers' testimony that Palin never went upstairs contradicts the specific detail in Sey's account, suggesting either that the encounter never occurred or that the brothers were protecting their sister's reputation by lying about Palin's movements in their house.

28

20

In Contempt of the Governours order, and Affronting and Abuseing his Off[i]= =cers in the due Execution of their duty, and alfo the Evidences again[st] hem who all appeared.

Serj.t Cason Refers himselfe to his Declaration dated. y.e 14. January

Nathaneell Gellion Corp.ll Sworn Saith, that going up the Valley with a Gueard, to clear it of the Sailors, According to his Worships Orders, lest in a perticular House for Resistance comeing to the Door of William Beale, Demanded who was there, the said Beale comeing to his door, with his Arms Spread before it, The said Beale Replyed twice, May with that Resistance, I pushed him S way, with a rash Oath, then the said Beale Replyed if I had been a ware of your Coming I would prevented it, with many other Rash words, which I nor the Gueard tooke any Notece of accordingly I desiered the Gueard, to Carry the Men down to The Fort in a Cevell Manner, with that the said Beale replyed then rush words, seeing we had taken the Men out of her house, so I seeing the house clear sent out the Gueard before me, I Immediately, followeing them, the said Beale comeing to the Door, and takeing hold of it, with a Designe as I could Suppose by his Motions, to clap it against my heell, John Bagley being in the house take in held of him, replyed to the said Beale you are in the wrong of it, Although the said Beale casts reflecti= =ons upon me, before your Worship, telling to your Worship that I was Strecter upon him then the rest of her Neegbour which I can testefee, I toeke a Man out of the House of William Marsh with the same Gueard, upon the same time.

Thomas Foster Souldieer Sworn Saith, that going up the Valley with the Corporall, and comeing to M.r Bealeshouse the said Beale Standeing at the Door, the Corporall demanded if there were any Company there, the said Beale Replyed what is that to you, the Corporall answered again it is to me, and I will see, the said Beale Standeing before the Door, with Spreadeing out Arms Replyed if he had been aware of the Corporalls Coming he should not Come in, neether should he Carreed the Men away out of his house, for he would prevented it.

Matthew Ball Sworn Saith the same as Foster Saith.

Thomas Dutch Sworn Saith, that going up in the Valley with the Corporal[l] to Clear the Valley of all Common Saylors, went to Severall houses, and among them went to William Beale the Door being Shutt they Knocked at the Door, and ask't if any Saylors were there, the said Beale made Answer what is it to you, and said he would talk with the Corporall, when he came of the Gueard.

After Serious Consideration It is Ordered.

That the Governour being the most Affronted in the Matter aforesaid and being welling to shew his Lewnity, and Consedering the Matter to be of No. high Consequence its thought fitt that there be no further proceedings on the said Business, and the said Beale to pay Councill Charges; With a Caution to be more Civell to the Officers, when sent to Suppress Vice and Imorality another time.

Whereas Complaint was made against John Clavering for Selling Peunch with out Licence, by William Beale, the said Clavering Appeared and says it's true he did fell peunch, but it was with M.r Alecaneer Leave, who fairmes the Licences, M.r Alecander says by Vertue of the Governours Or= =ders, and Leave, did Grant the Liberty, and Leave to him, as well as other persons, but it Appearing that Thomas Allis, and Joseph Trapp, were Drunk, and Swearing in his House.

It

Margin Notes:

Cap.t Gillion's Declaration Tho. Fosters Declaration Beals Complaints again[st] Clavering

Beale now appeared to answer charges of contempt for the Governor's orders, affronting and abusing officers in the execution of their duty. All witnesses attended.

Sergeant Cason referred to his declaration dated 14 January.

Corporal Nathaniel Gellion, sworn, gave the following account. He had gone up the valley with a guard to clear it of sailors under the Governor's orders, stopping at various houses to check for resistance. Arriving at William Beale's door, Gellion asked who was inside. Beale came to the door and stood with his arms spread across the entrance. Beale resisted twice. Gellion pushed him aside with a sharp oath. Beale said that had he known they were coming, he would have stopped them. Many other angry words followed, which neither Gellion nor the guard acknowledged. Gellion then told the guard to escort the men down to the Fort in a civil manner. Beale responded with more abusive language, having seen them remove the men from his house. Once the house was clear, Gellion sent the guard ahead. As he followed, Beale returned to the door and grabbed hold of it in what appeared, from his movements, to be an attempt to slam it against Gellion's heel. John Bagley, who was in the house, took hold of Beale and told him he was wrong to do this. Beale had complained to the Governor that Gellion treated him more harshly than his neighbours. Gellion testified that he had removed a man from William Marsh's house using the same guard at the same time.

Soldier Thomas Foster, sworn, gave his account. Going up the valley with the corporal and arriving at Beale's house, they found Beale standing at the door. The corporal asked whether any company was inside. Beale asked what business it was of his. The corporal replied that it was his business and he would see for himself. Beale stood blocking the doorway with arms spread and said that had he known the corporal was coming, the corporal would not have entered, nor would he have taken the men from the house - Beale would have prevented it.

Matthew Ball, sworn, confirmed Foster's account.

Thomas Dutch, sworn, stated that whilst going up the valley with the corporal to clear it of common sailors, they visited several houses including William Beale's. The door being shut, they knocked and asked whether any sailors were inside. Beale demanded what concern it was of theirs and said he would speak with the corporal once he was off guard duty.

After serious consideration, the Council made the following order. The Governor, being the person most affronted in this matter yet willing to show clemency, and considering the offence to be of no great consequence, the Council judged it appropriate that no further proceedings be taken. Beale was to pay council charges and receive a caution to behave more civilly towards officers sent to suppress vice and immorality in future.

William Beale had complained against John Clavering for selling punch without licence. Clavering appeared and admitted he had sold punch, but with Mr. Alexander's permission - Alexander being the man who farmed the licences. Alexander confirmed that by virtue of the Governor's orders and leave, he had granted Clavering this liberty, as he had to others. However, Thomas Allis and Joseph Trapp had been found drunk and swearing in Clavering's house [the record breaks off].

Interpretations

Beale's physical obstruction of the patrol - blocking his doorway with spread arms and attempting to slam the door on Gellion's heel - represented direct resistance to military authority enforcing the Governor's curfew orders. Yet the Council's dismissal of the case with only a warning and costs suggests ambivalence about how far military patrols could intrude into the homes of free planters. The Governor's willingness to show clemency may have reflected concern that prosecuting Beale would set a precedent undermining civilian autonomy within the fort community.

Clavering's defence that he sold punch with Alexander's permission exposed how the licence system operated in practice. Alexander, who paid the Company for the right to collect licence fees, appears to have granted informal permissions to multiple sellers. The prosecution turned not on whether Clavering had Alexander's leave but on whether his house harboured the disorder - drunkenness and profanity - that forfeiture of his original licence was meant to prevent.

Speculations

Beale's confrontational language - repeatedly asking what business it was of the soldiers' and announcing he would discuss it with the corporal later on his own terms - suggests someone accustomed to asserting authority rather than deferring to it. His willingness to physically resist and risk prosecution indicates either that he felt strongly about protecting whoever was in his house, or that he believed free planters should not be subject to military searches. The Council's light punishment may have validated his gamble.

The drunk and swearing men found in Clavering's establishment despite Alexander's permission gave the Council grounds to move against him regardless of any licensing arrangement. Alexander's dual role - authorising Clavering to sell whilst also profiting from enforcement of order - created a conflict of interest. He could collect fees from sellers like Clavering whilst the Council retained power to punish disorder, allowing both parties to extract value from the same trade.

29

21

It is Ordered.

That the said Thomas Allis for being Drunk, and Sweareing pay. 50. Verg.tt Five Shellings to the Church, and. Five Shellings more to the Company.

And Joseph Trapp Ten Shellings more for the Said Crime and in like Maner and to pay charge of Councell equally between them.

Whereas M.r Clavering Informed the Governour upon Oath, that William Beale sold peunch on Sunday last was Forthnight, and Sufferred. Allis, and Trapp to Dronk. Swear, and Curse at an abominable rate.

The said Beale appeared, and said he is not prepared for to make his De= =fence.

It is therefore Ordered.

That this Matter be Referred till this Day Forthnight, and that the said Beales Evidences be Summoned against that time.

Whereas Priscilla Grandy humbly Petitioned that she being in a very poor, and Deplorable Condetion, and Nothing to Subsist on, besides being almost blind and very Ancient.

It is Ordered.

That the Church Wardens allow her. Five pounds a year, charging the Same accordingly.

John Palin made Complaint against John Clavering for Strikeing, and abuseing him, throwing a peipe in his Face, and Suffering his black to lay violent hands on him, which he referrs to the Wittnesses followeing who are to be Summoned against next Councell Day.

Lumber, M.r Foster, M.r Marsh, M.r Lefskin, against Clavering.

X.b.r The 6.th 1707 Tho: Goodwin

Island St Helena

Att a Court of Judicature held on Wensday the. 29.th January 170 6/7. Att the Sessions House Near Fort James. for the tryall of Mingo, a Slave of Henry Webleys for Intending a Massacree, on this Island, and Thomas Webster Souldieer, for Comitting Beurglary, and Felloney, In Breakeing open the House of Ann Harding Wedow. Pres: Step.n Poirier Govern.r Thom: Goodwin Dep.ty Govern.r

Then the Court was Opened according to the Accustomed Manner, and those Persons appointed for Jurors are as followeth.

Margin Notes:

Priscilla Grandys Petition Webley's Black tryed

The Council ordered that Thomas Allis, for being drunk and swearing, pay five shillings to the church and five shillings more to the Company. Joseph Trapp was to pay ten shillings for the same offence in like manner. Both were to pay council charges equally between them.

Clavering had informed the Governor upon oath that William Beale sold punch on the Sunday a fortnight past and allowed Allis and Trapp to drink, swear and curse at an abominable rate.

Beale appeared but stated he was not prepared to make his defence.

The Council therefore ordered that this matter be deferred until a fortnight hence, and that Beale's witnesses be summoned for that time.

Priscilla Grandy humbly petitioned that she was in a very poor and deplorable condition with nothing to subsist on, being almost blind and very aged.

The Council ordered that the churchwardens allow her five pounds a year, charging the same accordingly.

John Palin complained against John Clavering for striking and abusing him, throwing a pipe in his face, and allowing his black to lay violent hands on him. He referred to the following witnesses, who were to be summoned for the next council day: Lumber, Mr. Foster, Mr. Marsh and Mr. Leefskin, against Clavering.

Signed on [...]ber 6th 1707 by Thomas Goodwin.

At a court of judicature held on Wednesday the 29th January 1707 at the Sessions House near Fort James for the trial of Mingo, a slave of Henry Webley's, for intending a massacre on this island, and Thomas Webster, soldier, for committing burglary and felony in breaking open the house of Ann Harding, widow.

Present: Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin.

The court was opened according to the customary manner, and those persons appointed as jurors were as follows [the record breaks off].

Interpretations

The mutual accusations between Clavering and Beale reveal how rivalry between competing public-house keepers manifested as formal prosecution. Each accused the other of selling punch without proper authority and harbouring drunken, profane customers. The Council's willingness to entertain both complaints suggests these establishments were persistent sources of disorder, yet the deferral of Beale's case - allowing him time to prepare his defence - indicates procedural fairness even in disputes over illegal trading.

Priscilla Grandy's petition demonstrates the parish relief system operating within the small colonial settlement. Her description of herself as almost blind and very aged, with nothing to subsist on, established her claim on community support. The award of five pounds annually, charged to the churchwardens, created a permanent obligation rather than temporary charity, recognising that her condition would not improve.

The establishment of a formal court of judicature for Mingo's trial - held at the Sessions House rather than at Fort James, with juries impanelled - marks the transition from summary investigation to capital prosecution. Mingo's trial was paired with that of Thomas Webster, a soldier accused of burglary, indicating that the court handled both slave rebellion and common felonies requiring jury trial and potential execution.

Speculations

The escalating conflict between Clavering and Beale may have been driven by competition for the same customers in a small market. Both operated establishments where men gathered to drink, and each appears to have sought to eliminate the other through legal prosecution. Clavering's oath that Beale sold punch and harboured profane drunks exactly mirrored the accusations that had cost Clavering his own licence, suggesting deliberate retaliation rather than spontaneous complaint.

The timing of Mingo's trial - 29 January, exactly a fortnight after the Council concluded he was guilty based on contradictory testimony - gave time for a jury to be summoned and for any final evidence to be gathered. The pairing of his trial with Webster's burglary case suggests the Council treated slave conspiracy as felony requiring the same formal procedures as theft, not as summary discipline appropriate to ordinary slave misconduct. This procedural elevation indicates how seriously the Council viewed the alleged plot, despite the evidentiary problems that had plagued the investigation.

30

22

  1. Thomas Swallow Sen.r
  2. John Mudge.
  3. Henry Francis
  4. Repein Wells
  5. Thomas Gargen
  6. Mathew Barett
  7. Orlando Bagley
  8. John Coles
  9. James Greentree
  10. Samuell Des Fountaines
  11. John Claverring
  12. Joseph Parsons

Who were are called and Sworn.

Then Mingo. Henry Webleys black was Sett to the Barr, and his Charge read against him for Endeavouring, Intending, and fully Designing to Murder the Inhabitants of said Island.

Whereas. Thomas Webster Souldieer Stands charged with Beur= =larey &c.a by Breakeing Into the House of Ann Hardeing, But Almighty God having Visited him, with a fitt of Sickness Sent, and is not able to make his Appearance, Therefore the Governour Laid the Case before the Jury, and it's Thought fitt that the Tryall be Referred till such time as we know whether he shall Live or Dye.

Doctor Needham Cheirurgeon Declares that the said Thomas Webster is a dyeing Man, and not in a Condetion to Make his Appearance.

Then all the Evedences against Mingo were Called, and appeared, and Delivered their Evidence as formerly to which Refers for proofe.

Then the Jury withdrew and Stayed about an hour, Then Returned and Delivered their Veredict as followeth.

That Mingo the prisoner at the Barr is Guilty. of Designing a Masacre by Murderring all the Whete Inhabitants of this Island.

It is Ordered By the Bench.

That the said Mingo Return to the place from whence he came there to Remain till sentence is pronouncced against him.

Then the Court was adjourned as Usuall.

X.b.r The 6.th 1707 Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:

His Charge Websters Charge The Jury's Verdict on Mingo Webley's Black

The twelve jurors were:

Thomas Swallow Senior John Mudge Henry Francis Repein Wells Thomas Gargen Mathew Barett Orlando Bagley John Coles James Greentree Samuel Des Fountaines John Clavering Joseph Parsons

All were called and sworn.

Mingo, Henry Webley's black, was brought to the bar and charged with endeavouring, intending and fully designing to murder the inhabitants of the island.

Thomas Webster, soldier, stood charged with burglary for breaking into the house of Ann Harding, widow. However, God having visited him with severe illness, he was unable to appear. The Governor laid the case before the jury, and it was judged appropriate that the trial be deferred until it was known whether Webster would live or die.

Dr. Needham, surgeon, declared that Webster was dying and not in condition to appear.

All the evidence against Mingo was then called. The witnesses appeared and delivered their testimony as previously recorded.

The jury withdrew and deliberated for about an hour before returning with their verdict.

Mingo, the prisoner at the bar, was guilty of designing a massacre by murdering all the white inhabitants of the island.

The Bench ordered that Mingo return to prison and remain there until sentence was pronounced against him.

The court was then adjourned in the usual manner.

Signed on [...]ber 6th 1707 by Thomas Goodwin.

Interpretations

The jury's composition reveals how the small settlement's tight networks complicated impartial judgment. John Clavering served despite his own repeated prosecutions for keeping a disorderly house and assault. Thomas Swallow Senior sat in judgment whilst his son William had just been promoted to sergeant and involved in multiple disputes. The settlement's size meant jurors necessarily had relationships with both accused and witnesses.

The deferral of Thomas Webster's trial demonstrates procedural respect for an accused person's right to be present, even when charged with felony. Dr. Needham's declaration that Webster was dying justified postponement rather than proceeding in his absence. This contrasts with summary proceedings against slaves for routine offences, where the accused's presence and testimony were often perfunctory.

The verdict convicted Mingo of intention rather than completed act. English law recognised conspiracy and attempt as punishable, but the specific framing as "designing" emphasised the planning and premeditation the Council believed proven. The emphasis on "all the white inhabitants" made clear that the threat was understood as collective racial violence rather than personal grievance.

Speculations

The hour spent deliberating suggests either genuine disagreement or careful review of contradictory testimony. Most accused conspirators had denied involvement, and the principal evidence came from Toby, whose motives and credibility were questionable. The jury may have debated whether proof met the standard for execution. Their guilty verdict indicates they either found Toby credible or believed the circumstantial evidence and multiple witnesses, despite contradictions, established guilt.

Deferring sentence rather than pronouncing it immediately may reflect the Council's desire for guidance from London before executing valuable property belonging to Henry Webley. Capital punishment for conspiracy was legally justifiable but economically consequential. Deferring sentence also allowed time for Mingo to confess or provide information about confederates, potentially yielding intelligence that immediate execution would foreclose.

31

23

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation, held on. Friday the 31. January 170 6/7 Att Fort James

Pres: Step.n Poirier Governour. Thom: Goodwin Dep.ty Governour

Whereas, the Governour and Councell Mett this Day to Consider, of the Sentence against Mingo, the Slave of Henry Webley, who was brought in Guilty by a Jury of Twelve Men, on Wensday. the. 19.th Instant, for designong a Masacre on this Island, But haveing taken Into Consideration, that the Jury was not Sworn, and that we deed not Expect their Veredict to be So Severe, Although he deserve Death.

It is therefore Ordered.

That the Said Jury be Summoned again, Against Next Councell Day to be Sworn, to Said Veredict. X.b.r 6.th 1707 Tho: Goodwin

Island St Helena.

Att a consultation. held on Tuesday the 11.th Day of February 170 6/7 att Fort James

Pres: Step.n Poirier Governour. Thom: Goodwin. Dep.ty Govern.r

Whereas on the. 29.th of January Last, Mingo the Slave of Henry Webley free planter, was by a perticular favour tryed by a Jury of. 12. Men, and brought in Guilty of the Crime Laid to his Charge, which Veredict Doubtless is Grounded on Justice and Equity; Neverthelefs the Bench thought fitt to allow them time, to Consider before the pronouncceing a finall Sentence, whereeupon the. 31. of the Last Month, for a Totall, Decision But after Severall Considerations, The Case being so haineous, that Nothing but Death Can Sattisfie the Worled in Generall, and the Inhabitants of this Island in Perte= =cullar; But however in the End we meght have our Consciences Reproachless Consedering the forst tryall, as is Usually done in Triall of Slaves, Not to take the Oaths of Jurors, was however agreed, to have the said Jury Sworned this Day that no Sercumstances may be wanted, To the End they meght be putt on their Oaths, and whether. or No, they Stand Still to their former Veredict, (Not Intending however

At a consultation held on Friday the 31st January 1707 at Fort James, St Helena.

Present: Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin.

The Governor and Council met to consider the sentence against Mingo, the slave of Henry Webley. A jury of twelve men had found him guilty on Wednesday the 29th instant of designing a massacre on the island. However, having taken into consideration that the jury was not sworn, and that the Council had not expected their verdict to be so severe, although Mingo deserved death, the Council ordered that the jury be summoned again for the next council day to be sworn to their verdict.

Signed on [...]ber 6th 1707 by Thomas Goodwin.

At a consultation held on Tuesday the 11th day of February 1707 at Fort James, St Helena.

Present: Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin.

On the 29th of January last, Mingo, the slave of Henry Webley, free planter, was by particular favour tried by a jury of twelve men and found guilty of the crime laid to his charge. The verdict was doubtless grounded on justice and equity. Nevertheless, the Bench thought it appropriate to allow time for consideration before pronouncing final sentence. On the 31st of the previous month they reconvened for a complete decision. After several considerations, the case being so heinous that nothing but death could satisfy the world in general and the inhabitants of this island in particular, they determined how they might proceed with clear consciences. Considering that the first trial, as was usual in trials of slaves, had not taken the oaths of jurors, it was agreed to have the jury sworn this day so that no circumstance might be wanting. They would be put on their oaths and asked whether or not they stood by their former verdict (not intending however [the record breaks off].

Interpretations

The Council's sudden recognition that the jury had not been sworn reveals procedural irregularity in a capital case. Their admission that they "did not expect their verdict to be so severe, although he deserve death" suggests the Council had anticipated either acquittal or a lesser finding that would justify transportation or sale rather than execution. The decision to recall the jury and have them sworn retroactively demonstrates concern about legal propriety, particularly when Company property was at stake and the owner might protest the loss.

The acknowledgment that taking oaths from jurors was not usual in trials of slaves reveals a double standard in colonial justice. Free men accused of felonies received jury trials with sworn jurors; slaves received proceedings with the appearance of jury deliberation but without the solemnity of sworn testimony. The Council's willingness to correct this irregularity for Mingo suggests either that the case had drawn unusual attention or that they anticipated scrutiny from London and wanted their procedures above reproach.

Speculations

The Council's statement that they did not expect such a severe verdict indicates they may have shaped the charges or presented the evidence with the expectation that the jury would find mitigating circumstances. Perhaps they hoped the jury would conclude that Mingo had engaged in talk and planning but had not progressed far enough toward execution to warrant death. The jury's unequivocal guilty verdict on the charge of designing massacre forced the Council to confront a sentence they had not prepared to impose.

The delay between verdict and sentence - from 29 January to 11 February, with an intermediate meeting on 31 January - suggests the Council was seeking either legal advice, political cover, or the owner's consent before proceeding to execution. Henry Webley stood to lose valuable property, and executing a slave based on an unsworn jury's verdict risked creating a precedent that would alarm other planters. By reconvening the jury under oath, the Council created a second, more legally defensible verdict that could withstand scrutiny.

32

24

however, that that Nice Corcumstance be a presedent for the future) which Veredict the said Jury have Confirmed on their Oaths, and Says they Acted the Same, According to their Conscicences, as though they had been Sworn.

Then the Judge pronounced Sentence.

You shall Return from hence to the place from whence you came, there to Remain till. this Day Forthnight Next, and then to be Carreed to the place of Execution, and there to be hanged by the Neck, till you be dead, and the Lord, have Mercy upon thy Soule.

James Greentree free planter made Complaint against. John Labouse Montrose, for Scandalegeing and Defameing him on sayeng he Mark't a Heefer of the Comp.a and sell the Tayle of, and Marckt Steel of Joshua Johnsons.

It is Ordered

That the said Labouse, and Evidences against him be Summoned against Next Councell Day, to Answer the said Greentree Complaint.

Charles Steward, free Planter Desired to Rent. 3. or. 4. Acres of the Companys Wast Land, Lyeing at the Lower End of his Geumwood Land in Sandey Bay Valley which is Granted him According to his Desire, and ordered to be Measured.

Whereas M.r Clavering Informed the Governour upon Oath, that Thomas Allis, and Joseph Trapp, free Planters, were drenkeing peunch on Sunday last at William Beale house. and were Cursing and Swearing at a Most abominable and Wicked Manner, Upon which the said Beale was Summoned to Appear Last Councell Day but haveing not his Wittnesses Summoned.

It was Ordered That the said Beale and Evidences be Summoned to Appear this day who accordingly did, and being Examined, Saith as followeth.

William Beale Denys Posetively, that he sold any Punch on the day aforesaid, and Desires his Evidences may be Sworne.

Mary, the Wife of William Hartwell Souldieer Sworn Saith, that on the day aforesaid, M.r Beale Inveted her to Dinner, who Acceptred of her Offer, and having been in the house about halfe an hour, Thomas Allis came in, and after some Discours at Dinner, Desired the said Beale to Make him a bowle of Punch, The said Beale told him he could Not, for he had not a Drop of Liqcouer, whereeupon Desired this Deponent to Make him a bowle of peunch, but She could not, having No Liqcouer Neether.

William Swallow Serjeant Saith, that he was at the said Beales house on a Friday, with James Drayper, who lent the said Beale a quart Bottle of Arrack, and said he was to have some come a shoard the Thursday followeng, and would Repay him again.

Bridgett Smith Saith her Father in Law William Beale made no Punch on the Sunday as M.r Clavering says she did.

Margin Notes:

Mingo Condemd to Execucion J. Greentree Complains against [...] Labouse for Defameing him Ch.s Steward petions to hire about [3?] or 4 Acres land M.rs Claverings Information against Beale [...]

The Council clarified, however, that this particular circumstance should not become a precedent for the future. The jury confirmed their verdict on oath and stated they had acted according to their consciences as though they had been sworn from the first.

The judge then pronounced sentence.

Mingo was to return to prison and remain there until a fortnight hence, then be carried to the place of execution and there hanged by the neck until dead. May the Lord have mercy upon his soul.

James Greentree, free planter, complained against John Labouse Montrose for scandalising and defaming him by saying he had marked a heifer belonging to the Company and sold the tail, and had marked a steer of Joshua Johnson's.

The Council ordered that Labouse and the witnesses against him be summoned for the next council day to answer Greentree's complaint.

Charles Steward, free planter, requested to rent three or four acres of the Company's waste land lying at the lower end of his gumwood land in Sandy Bay valley. This was granted according to his desire and ordered to be measured.

Clavering had informed the Governor upon oath that Thomas Allis and Joseph Trapp, free planters, had been drinking punch on the previous Sunday at William Beale's house and were cursing and swearing in a most abominable and wicked manner. Beale had been summoned to appear at the last council day but, not having his witnesses summoned, the matter was deferred. Beale and his witnesses were now summoned and appeared. Being examined, they stated as follows.

William Beale denied categorically that he sold any punch on that day and requested that his witnesses be sworn.

Mary, wife of soldier William Hartwell, sworn, stated that on the day in question Beale invited her to dinner, which she accepted. Having been in the house about half an hour, Thomas Allis came in and after some conversation at dinner asked Beale to make him a bowl of punch. Beale told him he could not, as he had not a drop of liquor. Allis then asked this witness to make him a bowl of punch, but she could not either, having no liquor.

Sergeant William Swallow stated that he was at Beale's house on a Friday with James Drayper, who lent Beale a quart bottle of arrack and said he was to have some come ashore the following Thursday and would repay him then.

Bridget Smith stated that her father-in-law William Beale made no punch on the Sunday as Clavering claimed.

Interpretations

The Council's explicit statement that swearing the jury retroactively should not set a precedent reveals their awareness of having bent procedure. They wanted Mingo's execution to rest on proper legal foundation whilst simultaneously protecting the customary practice of trying slaves without sworn juries. This tension between securing legitimacy for one particular case and preserving established practice for routine slave discipline shows the Council navigating between competing imperatives of justice and efficiency.

The mutual accusations between Clavering and Beale continued their ongoing rivalry. Each swore oaths accusing the other of selling punch and harbouring profane drunks. The pattern - Clavering providing sworn information, Beale producing witnesses who categorically denied the allegations - mirrors their earlier exchanges. Mary Hartwell's testimony that Allis requested punch but Beale had none to sell provided Beale with a defence that acknowledged Allis's presence whilst denying any transaction occurred.

Speculations

The judge's formal pronouncement of sentence - with its archaic phrasing about returning "from whence you came" and the prayer for God's mercy - invoked English legal tradition to lend solemnity to what was essentially a colonial execution for conspiracy. The two-week delay between sentence and execution allowed time for appeals, confessions, or divine intervention through illness or escape. It also gave the settlement time to prepare for a public execution that would serve as spectacle and warning.

The detail that James Drayper lent Beale a quart bottle of arrack on Friday, with repayment expected when more came ashore Thursday, suggests Beale was indeed engaged in liquor trade but may not have had stock available on Sunday when Allis arrived. Beale's defence thus rested on a technicality: Allis sought punch at his house and Allis was a known drunk, but at that particular moment Beale had no liquor to sell. This fine distinction between habitually selling drink and selling drink on one specific Sunday shows how defendants navigated between general reputation and particular proof.

33

25

Grace Clavering Saith that some time before M.r Belvard Died She Saw Thomas Allis come out of Beals house, ralong to and fro, and heard him Call Bitch and whore, and Swore Severall Oaths.

To End all Debate the said Beale Voluntairely, Offered, and tooke his Oath that he made no peunch that day. M.r Clavering says he did.

It is Ordered

That the Bussiness between the said Beale, and M.r Clavering be Referred to the Jury, at the next Sessions, being that M.r Clavering Cant make good her Oath.

Whereas John Palin made Complaint against John Clavering for Grosly, abuseing him, Strikeing him, throwing a peipe in his face, and Suffering his Black Man to Lay Violent hands on him upon their haveing some Words, about Changing a Dollar, and called him Jewefh Dogg, and heathenly Dogg, and Severall other Names, Upon what he called Clavering Pimp, his Wife Old Beaud, and Whore, and such like Names through their provocateons.

The said Clavering Denys that he Struck the said Palin, and says that as he was Comeing out of the Garden, the said Palin Came and told him, he and his Wife had had some Words, about a Dollar, that she had of M.rs Bradley, who said she had it of Palin, the said Clavering said if you promesed to Change it, you ought to be as good as your Word, Upon which the said Palin Called him Old Pimp, where upon threw his pype at him, Upon that Palin Strack him, with his head in the face, and Threw him down.

The said Palin desered his Evedences might be Sworn.

Mary the Wife of Thomas ffoster Sworn Saith, that she and M.rs Lefskin being Setting together, heard the said Clavering and Palin have some words, abou[t] Changing a Dollar, and Something about a peipe, and at Length came to Blows, &.t in the Peasle Saw Clavering black hold Palin, about the Middle, and Hatton Starling parted them, where upon Clavering Wife and Daughter went into the house, and the Dond being Shutt, Palin Endeavoured to gett it Open, and said Come out you Old Pimp, and called his Wife Old Baeud, and Daughter a Young Whore, and Run after the Black to beat him.

John Lumber Sworn Saith that he was at the said Clavering hous[e] and heard. them have severall words, about Changing a Dollar, and heard them give Each other very Scurrelous Language.

John Marsh, being Sworn Saith, that he was at the said Clavering house, and heard the said Claverring and Palin have some hegh words, and at Length Same to Blows, but who Struck first. he dont know, and saw the black take hold of Palin.

Thomas Burnham Saith as he was going up to Belvards heard M.r Clave= =ring and Palin have some Words, about a Dollar, and litle after heard some Blows, and Lookeing out, Saw the said Palin, and Clavering a fighting together, whereeupon Hatton Starling went and parted them, and Saw the Black take hold of Palin, and heard Clavering call him heathen, and he Called Clavering Pimp, his Wife Old Baeud, and Daughter a Whore.

John Jones Saith to the Same Effect as the aforesaid Evidences.

Hatton Starling Saith Seeing them fighting went and parted them.

Margin Notes:

Palins Complaint ag.t M.r Clav.

Grace Clavering stated that some time before Mr. Belvard died she saw Thomas Allis come out of Beale's house, reeling to and fro, and heard him call out "bitch" and "whore" and swear several oaths.

To end all debate, Beale voluntarily offered and took his oath that he made no punch that day. Clavering maintained that he had.

The Council ordered that the business between Beale and Clavering be referred to the jury at the next sessions, Clavering being unable to substantiate his oath.

John Palin complained against John Clavering for grossly abusing him, striking him, throwing a pipe in his face, and allowing his black man to lay violent hands on him after they had words about changing a dollar. Clavering called him "Jewish dog" and "heathenish dog" along with several other names. In response, Palin called Clavering a pimp, his wife an old bawd and whore, and such like names through their provocations.

Clavering denied that he struck Palin. He stated that as he was coming out of the garden, Palin approached and told him that he and Mrs. Clavering had had words about a dollar that she had received from Mrs. Bradley, who said she had it from Palin. Clavering said that if Palin promised to change it, he ought to be as good as his word. Palin called him an old pimp, whereupon Clavering threw his pipe at him. Palin then struck Clavering with his head in the face and threw him down.

Palin requested that his witnesses be sworn.

Mary, wife of Thomas Foster, sworn, stated that she and Mrs. Leefskin were sitting together and heard Clavering and Palin have words about changing a dollar and something about a pipe. At length they came to blows. She saw Clavering's black hold Palin around the middle, and Hatton Starling parted them. Clavering's wife and daughter then went into the house and shut the door. Palin tried to force it open, calling out "Come out you old pimp," and called Mrs. Clavering an old bawd and the daughter a young whore. He then ran after the black to beat him.

John Lumber, sworn, stated that he was at Clavering's house and heard them have several words about changing a dollar and exchange very scurrilous language.

John Marsh, sworn, stated that he was at Clavering's house and heard Clavering and Palin have heated words and eventually come to blows, but he did not know who struck first. He saw the black take hold of Palin.

Thomas Burnham stated that as he was going up to Belvard's he heard Clavering and Palin have words about a dollar, and shortly after heard blows. Looking out, he saw Palin and Clavering fighting together, whereupon Hatton Starling went and parted them. He saw the black take hold of Palin and heard Clavering call him heathen, whilst Palin called Clavering a pimp, his wife an old bawd, and his daughter a whore.

John Jones gave testimony to the same effect as the previous witnesses.

Hatton Starling stated that seeing them fighting he went and parted them.

Interpretations

The Beale-Clavering dispute reached stalemate when both men swore contradictory oaths. Beale swore he made no punch that day; Clavering swore he had. With witnesses supporting Beale's denial and Clavering unable to produce proof beyond his oath, the Council referred the matter to a jury rather than attempting to resolve which man was forsworn. This demonstrates the limits of summary justice when disputes between free men rested on oath against oath with no conclusive evidence.

The Palin-Clavering brawl reveals how quickly commercial disputes escalated into physical violence and ritual insult. What began as disagreement over changing a dollar - apparently Mrs. Clavering had received a dollar from Mrs. Bradley claiming it came from Palin, and Palin refused to honour some promise to exchange it - devolved into pipe-throwing, headbutting, and reciprocal accusations about sexual morality. The pattern of insults was standardised: "pimp," "bawd," and "whore" for the Claverings; "Jewish dog" and "heathenish dog" for Palin.

Speculations

Grace Clavering's testimony about seeing Thomas Allis emerge drunk from Beale's house "some time before Mr. Belvard died" was temporally vague but suggested a pattern of behaviour at Beale's establishment. By anchoring the memory to Belvard's death rather than to a specific date, Grace avoided the precision that might make her testimony vulnerable to contradiction. This suggests either genuine difficulty remembering exact timing or deliberate vagueness to make the testimony harder to disprove.

The witnesses' accounts of the Palin-Clavering fight emphasised the black servant's restraint of Palin whilst avoiding clear statement about who struck first. This suggests either genuine confusion in a chaotic brawl or reluctance to definitively blame either party. Palin's pursuit of the black "to beat him" after the fight indicates he viewed the servant's intervention as actionable offence rather than as legitimate assistance to his master. The black's physical restraint of a white man was dangerous ground, acceptable only because Clavering himself was white and apparently losing the fight.

34

26

John. Leach Sworn Saith that M.r Clavering, and Palin had some words about Changing a Dollar, and Palin called M.r Clavering Old Fol. he Called him Rogee, for Calling her So, addeing further as the foregoing Evidences, but more Particularly, that he knews Grace Clavering to be a Whore.

John Twaights Saith to the Effect aforesaid

It is Ordered.

That the said John Palin be fined the Sum of One Dollar for Abuseing the said Claverring and Wife, and to pay Councell charges.

X.b.r The 6.th 1707 Tho: Goodwin

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation. held on Monday the . 24.th Day February 170 6/7 Att Fort James.

Pres: Step.n Poirier Governour. Thom: Goodwin Dep.ty Governour.

Whereas To Morrow being the. 25.th Instant was the day Appointed for the Execution of Domingo Henry Webleys Black, for Intendeing to Murder the Whyle Inhabitants of this Island, But the Cheifand Maih Evedence Named Tobey, having Retracted what he Evidenced against the said Mingo, and the same being Noised about the Island, and Comeing to the Governour Knowe= =ledge, Ordered the said Tobey to be Secured in Irons till this day, and being Examined again Declares as followeth.

That what he has already Declared against the said Domingo is Nothing but the Truth, and that the Reason why he has Since denyed the Same to be true, is, because. Robin, Maxwells Orphans Black, on last Saturday Night was Sennit told him he had such a great Love for Domingo, that he Desired him to deny what he had Declared, against him, and that would be a Means to bring him cleare and honestte too.

Joseph Fox who's sent for, who denyed what Tobey said in Relation to him in telling him so, what he feeled to hang the said Mingo, says that's a Gross Lye as well as other things he has told of him, and that Mingo never told him any thing of what he has Declared against him, but what he had Declared against him, but what he has Declared of Mingo, being Innocent, was through the perswasions & Instigation of Robin.

Robin Denys that Ever he said any thing to Tobey of Domingo Since his former Declaration. and Demandeed of Toby, whether he did, or not, to which Tobey Replyed No, he ded Not, and being Disturbed in his conscience was the Reason he has Denyed, what he formerly Evedenced against him the said Mingo.

Margin Notes:

Palin fin'd

John Leach, sworn, stated that Clavering and Palin had words about changing a dollar, and Palin called Clavering an old fool. Clavering called him a rogue for saying so, adding further as the foregoing witnesses described, but more particularly that Palin claimed to know Grace Clavering to be a whore.

John Twaights gave testimony to the same effect.

The Council ordered that John Palin be fined the sum of one dollar for abusing Clavering and his wife, and pay council charges.

Signed on [...]ber 6th 1707 by Thomas Goodwin.

At a consultation held on Monday the 24th day of February 1707 at Fort James, St Helena.

Present: Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin.

The following day, 25th instant, was appointed for the execution of Domingo, Henry Webley's black, for intending to murder the white inhabitants of the island. However, Toby, the chief and main witness, had retracted what he testified against Mingo, and this being rumoured about the island and coming to the Governor's knowledge, he ordered Toby secured in irons until this day. Being examined again, Toby declared as follows.

What he had already declared against Domingo was nothing but the truth. The reason he had since denied it was because Robin, the black of Maxwell's orphans, had told him on Saturday night that he had such great love for Domingo that he wanted Toby to deny what he had declared against him, and that this would be a means to bring him clear and honest too.

Joseph Fox, who was sent for, denied what Toby said in relation to him about telling him that what he did to hang Mingo was a gross lie, as were other things Toby had said of him. Fox stated that Mingo never told him anything Toby claimed he had, and that Toby's accusations against Mingo, being false, came through the persuasions and instigation of Robin.

Robin denied that he ever said anything to Toby about Domingo since Toby's former declaration. He asked Toby directly whether he had or not, to which Toby replied no, he had not. Toby stated that being disturbed in his conscience was the reason he had denied what he formerly testified against Mingo.

Interpretations

The dispute over the dollar and the brawl it provoked received relatively light punishment - Palin was fined just one dollar for abusing Clavering and his wife despite the fight, pipe-throwing, and sustained verbal assault on the family's honour. This suggests the Council viewed such confrontations as routine and best resolved with token penalties rather than harsh sanctions that might escalate ongoing feuds between neighbours.

Toby's retraction of his testimony against Mingo on the eve of execution created a crisis of legitimacy for the entire prosecution. As the chief witness whose detailed accounts had convinced the jury of Mingo's guilt, his reversal threatened to expose the conviction as based on false testimony. The Governor's immediate order to secure Toby in irons and examine him reveals alarm that the execution might proceed based on perjured evidence, creating legal liability and moral culpability for all involved.

Toby's shifting explanations for his retraction - first blaming Robin's persuasion, then claiming conscience troubled him - demonstrate someone trapped between competing pressures. His ultimate reaffirmation that his original testimony was true came whilst he was in irons facing punishment for recantation, making it impossible to determine whether this represented genuine testimony or coerced return to the prosecution's narrative.

Speculations

Robin's alleged attempt to persuade Toby to recant - motivated by "great love for Domingo" - suggests either genuine friendship between enslaved men crossing plantation lines, or a calculated effort to save Mingo from execution by undermining the case's weakest link. If Robin did make such an approach, his timing was strategic: the night before execution, when panic and guilt might make Toby vulnerable to persuasion and when reversal would create maximum disruption.

Joseph Fox's furious denial that he had encouraged Toby's accusations against Mingo reveals Fox's recognition that he was implicated in a potential judicial murder. If Toby's testimony was fabricated at Fox's urging, then Fox bore responsibility for Mingo's impending execution. His insistence that Mingo never told him what Toby claimed suggests Fox feared he might face prosecution himself if Mingo's conviction unravelled. The fact that Toby ultimately reaffirmed his testimony whilst denying that Robin had influenced him - despite initially blaming Robin - suggests Toby was trying to satisfy his interrogators whilst protecting Robin from punishment for attempted interference with justice.

35

27

John Alexander Declares that on Satturday Last being the. 22. Instant in the afternoon, about. 4. of the clock, Ensgn Sanderson by the Governours order Caused Tobey, Charles Steward Black to be put in Irons, it being Noised about, That he had Denyed what he had formerly Declared against Domingo Henry Webley Black at which time S the Declarant was present, and heard the said Tobey say That what he had said, against the said Mingo was false, and that Robin Maxwells Orphans black Desired him to Deny what he said against Mingo, and that would be a Means to save his Life, and being himself Clear. Too, But afterwards some Quefti= =ons being putt to him he said his Evellence against Mingo was true, This is the Sub[s]= =stance of what I Can Remember.

Ensign Sanderson Saith to the same Effect, as the said John Alexander hath, addeing further that when the said Tobey was in Prison he told him again That what he had said, against the said Mingo was true, and that Maxwells Robin was the Cause of his denyeing what he did declare against him.

W.m Marsden declares the same as y.e said Alexander Saith.

It is Ordered.

That Seeing the said Tobey varies So Much in his Declarations, against Mingo, That the last Jury be Summoned again, To Appear To Morrow Mor= =ning, To give their Sentements and Opinions whether the said Tobeys Retraction is good, or Not, That we may proceed Accordingly.

X.b.r The 6.th 1707 Tho: Goodwin

Island St Helena.

Att a Consultation. held on Tuesday the. 25.th Day of February 170 6/7 Att Fort James.

Pres: Step.n Poirier Governour. Thom: Goodwin Dep.ty Governour.

According to a Warrant Issued Yesterday the Jury appeared, and heard the said Tobey Examined again, who says.

That what he formerly Declared against Mingo, is all true, and the Reason why he denyed it, was through Mingo perswasions, for he desired him voice to Deny what he had said Against him, since he had been in Prison.

Doctor Vellano Declares that Yesterday about One of the clock, he went to Tobey, who was in Prison, and ask't him the Reason, why he had denyed what he hass Declared against Mingo, who Replyed that Mingo threatned to haunt him, after he was dead, and should not Rest, which is the Reason he denyed what he had formerly Declared.

The Jury findeing Nothing that Contradicts theer former Veredict The said Tobey Confermeing what he formerly Declared besides other Evedences, and Strong Circumstances, and to Detter others from the Like Designed Masacre.

It is Ordered

That Mingo be Executed accordingly. this day. Whereas

Margin Notes:

Mingo Executed

John Alexander declared that on Saturday last, the 22nd instant in the afternoon around four o'clock, Ensign Sanderson by the Governor's order caused Toby, Charles Steward's black, to be put in irons. It had been rumoured about that he had denied what he formerly declared against Domingo, Henry Webley's black. Alexander was present and heard Toby say that what he had said against Mingo was false, and that Robin, Maxwell's orphans' black, had asked him to deny what he said against Mingo, saying that this would be a means to save Mingo's life and clear Toby too. But afterwards, some questions being put to him, he said his evidence against Mingo was true. This was the substance of what Alexander could remember.

Ensign Sanderson gave testimony to the same effect as Alexander, adding further that when Toby was in prison he told him again that what he had said against Mingo was true, and that Maxwell's Robin was the cause of his denying what he had declared against him.

William Marsden declared the same as Alexander stated.

The Council ordered that, seeing Toby varied so much in his declarations against Mingo, the last jury be summoned again to appear tomorrow morning to give their sentiments and opinions whether Toby's retraction was valid or not, so that they might proceed accordingly.

Signed on [...]ber 6th 1707 by Thomas Goodwin.

At a consultation held on Tuesday the 25th day of February 1707 at Fort James, St Helena.

Present: Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin.

According to a warrant issued the previous day, the jury appeared and heard Toby examined again. He stated that what he formerly declared against Mingo was all true, and the reason he denied it was through Mingo's persuasions, for Mingo had asked him twice to deny what he had said against him since Mingo had been in prison.

Dr. Vellano declared that the previous day around one o'clock he went to Toby, who was in prison, and asked him the reason why he had denied what he had declared against Mingo. Toby replied that Mingo threatened to haunt him after he was dead and that he should not rest, which was the reason he denied what he formerly declared.

The jury, finding nothing that contradicted their former verdict - Toby confirming what he formerly declared besides other evidence and strong circumstances - and to deter others from the like designed massacre, confirmed their verdict.

The Council ordered that Mingo be executed accordingly this day.

Interpretations

Toby's multiple explanations for his retraction - Robin's persuasion, his own troubled conscience, Mingo's threats to haunt him after death - reveal someone caught between irreconcilable pressures. Each explanation served different needs: blaming Robin deflected responsibility whilst maintaining the truth of his original testimony; claiming conscience suggested moral struggle; invoking supernatural threats from the condemned man played to widely held beliefs about the power of the dying to curse the living. The jury's determination that none of these retractions invalidated the original testimony shows their commitment to the guilty verdict despite obvious doubts about the star witness's reliability.

Dr. Vellano's visit to Toby in prison and his report of Mingo's supernatural threats added a new dimension to the case. Mingo's alleged warning that he would haunt Toby after death drew on African spiritual beliefs about ancestors and the wronged dead that would have been familiar to enslaved people on the island. Whether Mingo actually made such threats or Toby invented them to explain his retraction, the invocation of supernatural vengeance demonstrates how enslaved people understood power operating beyond the physical realm of masters and gallows.

Speculations

The jury's rapid reassembly and their decision to proceed with execution despite Toby's vacillations suggests they were determined not to let procedural difficulties derail a verdict they believed correct. Their reference to deterring "others from the like designed massacre" indicates they viewed the execution as serving purposes beyond punishing Mingo individually - it was meant to send a message to any enslaved people contemplating resistance that conspiracy, even if not carried to completion, would be met with death.

Mingo's alleged threats to haunt Toby may represent a final assertion of power by someone facing execution. Unable to escape the gallows, Mingo could still deploy supernatural threats to unsettle his accuser. If the threats occurred, they worked: Toby retracted his testimony on the eve of execution, creating chaos in the prosecution's case and forcing the Council to reconvene the jury. That Toby ultimately reaffirmed his testimony under pressure whilst in irons and facing his own potential punishment does not erase the fact that Mingo's alleged curse temporarily succeeded in disrupting the judicial process and forcing authorities to confront the fragility of their case.

36

28

Whereas Grace Clavering Spinster, and Daughter of John Clavering Presented her Petition Setting forth thereon that William Swallow Serjeant and John Palin Souldieer did, in a most Grose and Reproachfull Manner Call her Whore, and said they would prove her So, which words Tenden, Much to her Despreditt good Name and forteune, Heumily desired some Sattisfaction might be allowed her, and the Wittnesses followeng to be Examined.

William Swallow says he did call her Whore, but did not say he would prove her One.

John Clark belongeing to the Ship Union being Sworn Saith, that he beeing at the House of John Clavering Sometime Since In Company with M.r Bagell and the said Swallow, who haveing some Words, and blows, about Gameing, this Deponent peirted them, and the said Swallow being out of Doors, called to him and Thomas Cason, his Comrade, and called them Buellies, and that M.rs Clavering was an Old Baeud, and her Daughter Grace was a Whore, and he could prove her So.

Thomas Cason Sworn Saith the same as John Clark, Christopher Kelley Saith to the same Purpose.

William Swallow says he was so much in Dronk he did not know what he did, Neether did he Remember it Next Morneing, and if he did call M.rs Grace Whore, as the Evedences had Deposed, he is Sorry for it, Acknowledgeing he knows No harm, or Dishonesty by her.

Then the said John Palin was called, who denys what is alledged against him.

Morris Greffon Sworn Saith, that he heard the said Palin Call Grace Clavering Whore, and would prove her So,

Whereas it being plainly made Appear by. 3. Sufficient Evidences That William Swallow called the said Grace Claverring Whore, and would prove her So, But Consedering him the said Claverr Exposes his Family, after a Scandalous Manner, as may Appear by the Records &c.a

It is Ordered.

That the said Swallow be fined the Sum of. Two Dollars to the said Grace Clavering, and Five Shellings for being Drunk, and pay Councell Charges.

And John Palin be fined One Dollar, and pay Councell fees, and beg the said Grace Claverings Pardon.

Whereas Cap.tn Tovey Commander of the Ship Hampshere made Complaint against John Clavering for Detaineing his Men Selling Punch on Sunday Last.

It is Ordered

That the said Clavering, and the said Cap.tn Toveys Men then at his house be Summoned, on Oath, against Next Councell Day.

Whereas Robert Leach was Summoned to Appear this Day for hendering John Palin, and the Companys Blacks, from driveing their Catle in the Maih Drest way, betwixt the Land he hires formerly Smouls and his own Land. The

Margin Notes:

Grace Claverings Comp.t [against] Calling [her a wh]ore &c[a] W.m Swallow Fined Palin Fined Cap.t Tovey Complains aga.t Clavering Rob.t Leach Defends himselfe for Driving the Comp.s Cattle

Grace Clavering, spinster and daughter of John Clavering, presented her petition. She stated that Sergeant William Swallow and Soldier John Palin had, in a most gross and reproachful manner, called her a whore and said they would prove her so. These words tended much to her discredit, good name and fortune. She humbly requested some satisfaction and that the following witnesses be examined.

William Swallow admitted he called her a whore but denied saying he would prove her one.

John Clark, belonging to the ship Union, sworn, stated that he had been at John Clavering's house some time since in company with Mr. Bagell and Swallow. They had words and blows about gaming. This witness parted them. Swallow, being outside, called to Clark and Thomas Cason, his comrade, and called them bullies, saying that Mrs. Clavering was an old bawd and her daughter Grace was a whore, and he could prove her so.

Thomas Cason, sworn, gave the same account as John Clark. Christopher Kelley testified to the same purpose.

William Swallow stated he was so drunk he did not know what he did, nor did he remember it the next morning. If he did call Grace a whore, as the witnesses testified, he was sorry for it, acknowledging he knew no harm or dishonesty by her.

John Palin was then called and denied what was alleged against him.

Morris Greffon, sworn, stated that he heard Palin call Grace Clavering a whore and say he would prove her so.

It being plainly shown by three sufficient witnesses that William Swallow called Grace Clavering a whore and said he would prove her so, but considering that Clavering exposed his family in a scandalous manner, as appeared from the council records, the Council ordered that Swallow be fined the sum of two dollars to Grace Clavering and five shillings for being drunk, and pay council charges. John Palin was fined one dollar, ordered to pay council fees, and to beg Grace Clavering's pardon.

Captain Tovey, Commander of the ship Hampshire, complained against John Clavering for detaining his men and selling punch on Sunday last.

The Council ordered that Clavering and Captain Tovey's men who were then at his house be summoned on oath for the next council day.

Robert Leach was summoned to appear this day for hindering John Palin and the Company's blacks from driving their cattle on the main drift way between the land he rented, formerly Smoul's, and his own land [the record breaks off].

Interpretations

Grace Clavering's petition for redress demonstrates how even women from disreputable families could invoke the Council's protection of their sexual honour. Despite her father's repeated prosecutions for keeping a disorderly house and her mother's involvement in multiple disputes, Grace had standing to demand satisfaction for being publicly called a whore. The Council's acknowledgment that Clavering "exposed his family in a scandalous manner" whilst still fining Swallow and Palin shows they distinguished between the family's general reputation and specific unprovable accusations against an unmarried daughter whose honour affected her marriage prospects.

Swallow's defence of drunkenness - claiming he was so intoxicated he did not know what he did or remember it the next morning - invoked a recognised if not entirely exculpatory justification for offensive behaviour. The Council's acceptance that his words stemmed from drink rather than knowledge of actual misconduct is reflected in the moderate fine and his statement that he knew no dishonesty by her. This created a face-saving resolution: Swallow paid for his drunken slander whilst avoiding the more serious consequences of having to prove his accusation true or be punished for malicious falsehood.

Speculations

The three witnesses who testified that Swallow called Grace a whore and said he could prove it - all associated with the ship Union rather than fort residents - suggests this incident occurred when sailors were drinking at Clavering's establishment. Their willingness to testify against a sergeant on behalf of a publican's daughter may reflect either genuine sympathy for Grace or calculation that they could safely testify against someone with whom they had no ongoing relationship, unlike fort residents who had to live with the consequences of taking sides in local disputes.

Captain Tovey's complaint about Clavering detaining his men and selling punch reveals continuing tension between ship captains trying to control their crews and establishments ashore that profited from sailors' custom. Clavering's alleged detention of the men - whether through providing drink, entertainment, or deliberate obstruction - interfered with Tovey's authority over his crew and the ship's readiness to sail. This mirrors the broader conflict between naval discipline and the fort community's economic dependence on serving sailors, a dependence that the Governor's curfew orders attempted to regulate but could not eliminate.

37

29

The said Robert Leach says he haveing some Calves tyed just by the Drest way side, told Palin if he drove the Cattle that way they would Damnefee said Calves, and for that Reason told him he Should not Drove that way. But Never hendered him any other time before or since.

William Duston made Complaint That George Hoskison denyed to Raise his chimney According to the former Orders, abou.t chimneys, it being very Dan= =gereeals as it is Now, and may if not Raised hegher be very Detrimentall to the Neegh= bours.

The said Hoskison Says he offered to bueld the said Chimney all a Long, and says so still, but cant Conveincentty do it Now, this being Seasonable time for planting.

It is therefore Ordered.

That Two Men Viz Cap.tn Goodwin, and James Greentree Veew the said Chimney to see how hegh it must be bueilt, and that it be done in Two Months time.

James Greentree free Planter made Complaint against John Labouse Montrose for Spreadeing abroad that he has Mark't, a Heifer of the Right Hon.ble Companys, and a Steel of Joshua Johnsons.

The said Labouse says That a Gerle Named Mary Hegham told him what he told Lumber.

William Sempson Souldieer declares as followeth; That John Labouse Montrose Sometime Since at M.r Greentrees house in the Countrey told this Deponent. that the said M.r Greentree their Land lord had Marked a Heifer of the Right Hon.ble Companys, and a Steel of Joshua Johnsons, and said Mary Hegham, and Labour the Black Wench had told him, and Thereeupon. the said Labouse Called the said Mary Hegham and Black Wench to Justefye the Same before him, where eupon they said the Same. But the said Mary Hegham said She knew Nothing. But that the black Wench told her after, Whereeupon. the said Labouse Said he beleeved it was true Enough, by what he heard, from the Black Wench, That after= wards often among themselves, the said Labouse, and this Deponent had discourse about it, at which the said Labouse Seemed Glad, and Joyfull, Sayeing it would be a Damnable Shame for the said Greentree, if it should be feaund out, and that he would not at present Make any Discourse of it, but the Gerle Should Lead an Unquiet Life with her Master. But when Least the Gerle Should Lead an Unquiet Life with her Master. But when he was gone he would Make it Peblick, That Sometime afterwards being at Bankses together, after he had spoad it about to John Lumber. and there having some Discourse about the Same Matter, he the said Labouse in a Redicue long Manner said Dam them. meaning Greentree Family, I have some up with him for Backbiteing of me, That at another time being at Bankses together, he the said Labouse asked this Deponent, what M.r Greentree said of et, at home, and what he would Make of et, hearing the said Greentree designed to call him to an Account, This Deponent said he sould not tell so he did Not tell him his Design, That the said Labouse hearing that this Deponent was Designed, as an Evidence against him for what he had spoake of M.r Green= tree, said, you Need not Relate or Speak of every thing that we discoursed, of M.r Greentree in the house, which if he did, you know, that I know severall things, that you have Spoake of M.r Greentree, which if I tell him, will Make

Margin Notes:

W.m Dustons Comp.t a.t Hoskinson [...]ising his Chimn[ey]

Robert Leach stated that, having some calves tied just by the drift way side, he told Palin that if he drove the cattle that way they would damage the calves, and for that reason told him he should not drive that way. However, he never hindered him any other time before or since.

William Duston complained that George Hoskison refused to raise his chimney according to former orders about chimneys, it being very dangerous as it now stood and potentially very detrimental to the neighbours if not raised higher.

Hoskison stated he offered to build the chimney all along and still did, but could not conveniently do it now, this being the seasonable time for planting.

The Council therefore ordered that two men - Captain Goodwin and James Greentree - view the chimney to determine how high it must be built, and that this be done within two months.

James Greentree, free planter, complained against John Labouse Montrose for spreading abroad that Greentree had marked a heifer of the Right Honourable Company's and a steer of Joshua Johnson's.

Labouse stated that a girl named Mary Higham told him what he told Lumber.

Soldier William Simpson declared as follows. Some time since at Greentree's house in the country, John Labouse Montrose told this witness that Greentree their landlord had marked a heifer of the Right Honourable Company's and a steer of Joshua Johnson's, and said Mary Higham and Labour the black wench had told him. Labouse then called Mary Higham and the black wench to justify the same before him, whereupon they said the same. But Mary Higham said she knew nothing except that the black wench told her afterwards. Whereupon Labouse said he believed it was true enough from what he heard from the black wench. Afterwards, often among themselves, Labouse and this witness had discourse about it, at which Labouse seemed glad and joyful, saying it would be a damnable shame for Greentree if it should be found out, and that he would not at present make any discourse of it, but the girl should lead an unquiet life with her master. When Labouse was gone he would make it public. Some time afterwards, being at Banks's together, after Labouse had spread it about to John Lumber, and there having some discourse about the same matter, Labouse in a ridiculing manner said "Damn them" - meaning the Greentree family - "I have evened up with him for backbiting of me." At another time, being at Banks's together, Labouse asked this witness what Greentree said of it at home and what he would make of it, hearing that Greentree intended to call him to account. This witness said he could not tell, so did not tell him Greentree's design. When Labouse heard that this witness was intended as evidence against him for what he had spoken of Greentree, he said "You need not relate or speak of everything that we discoursed of Greentree in the house, which if you do, you know that I know several things that you have spoken of Greentree, which if I tell him will make [the record breaks off]."

Interpretations

Leach's defence that he warned Palin away from the drift to protect calves tied nearby, and never obstructed passage before or since, presented his action as temporary precaution rather than systematic denial of right-of-way. This distinction mattered: blocking established drift rights was actionable obstruction, but momentary diversion to protect property might be excusable. The case demonstrates how customary rights to drive cattle along established paths could conflict with individual needs to protect livestock, requiring case-by-case adjudication.

The chimney dispute reveals building regulation operating within the small settlement. Hoskison's resistance to raising his chimney immediately - citing planting season - shows competing demands on labour time in agricultural communities. The Council's compromise - requiring inspection to set the standard and allowing two months for compliance - balanced safety concerns against practical limitations whilst establishing that planting obligations did not excuse indefinite delay in fire-safety improvements.

Simpson's extraordinarily detailed testimony about Labouse's slander of Greentree exposed how malicious gossip operated in the fort community. Labouse systematically spread accusations of livestock theft based on hearsay from a black servant via a girl, seemed gleeful about the potential damage to Greentree's reputation, and explicitly framed it as revenge for Greentree's "backbiting" of him. When confronted with being called as a witness, Labouse threatened Simpson with counter-revelation of Simpson's own criticisms of Greentree, attempting to enforce mutual silence through mutually assured destruction of reputations.

Speculations

Labouse's statement that he would not immediately publicise the theft allegations but would let the girl "lead an unquiet life with her master" before making it public suggests calculated cruelty. By holding the accusation in reserve whilst the servant Labour suffered under suspicion from Greentree, Labouse could maximise both the girl's distress and the eventual damage when he chose to make the allegations public. His timing would give him control over when the scandal broke, turning slander into a weapon to be deployed at his convenience.

The chain of gossip - from the black wench Labour to Mary Higham to Labouse to Simpson to Lumber and others - illustrates how accusations moved through the community across lines of race, servitude, and free status. Labour's initial statement, whether true or invented, became progressively more certain as it passed from person to person. By the time Labouse told Simpson, he claimed to "believe it true enough" based on what he heard from the black wench via the girl, despite Mary Higham's disclaimer that she knew nothing directly. This cascade effect transformed uncertain rumour into seemingly substantiated accusation through repetition and elaboration.

38

30

Make him hate you, as Long as you Live; When this Deponent Came of the Gueard, he the said Deponent told M.r Greentree his Landlord, about the said, and the whole Matter, what Labour had told him; Whereeupon M.r Green= tree Called both Mary Hegham, and the black Wench Sabar, and then De= =clare what they knew of the Matter, Mary Hegham said, the said Laboufe pro= mefed her, a Sow, or Money to buy One, if She would tell him Every thing She Knew, of what was done, or said on the House, Since She came, and he would give her a Petty seale and a Stommager at present, and told her he would Cary M.r Greentree to More Shame then Ever he brought M.r Addes, and said he would out with it, asoon as he went a way for fear M.r Greentree should Come to him to Make it up with him, and further, he did Mary Hegham bein the Same Tale when she came before the Governour.

The said Mary Hegham says She did tell Laboufe that her Master Markt a Heifer Calf, off the Companys as the Black Wench Sabar told her.

All, Which haveing Examerted into, and findeing it to be No such theng.

We the Governour, and Councill, do hereby Declare the said James Greentree always Lived in good fame, and Repute, and that he is no ways Guilty, of doing, fo Acting any ill theng, and the Companys Stock of Catle being Examined and none Yound to be Lest, Do Acquit, clear, and for Ever dif= charge the said Green tree from, and of what Laboufe Reportted of him.

And that Sabar the Black Wench fo. Raising such a Grosely of her Master, be Severely Whept on her Naked Body at his Descretion, and Laboufe to pay Councell charges.

Samuell Price Souldieer Desires to be discharged from the Company Service.

It is Ordered

That his time being feully Expired Recept. 2. Months, paying only halfe a Dollar for the Remainder of his time. and to pay the Company what he Ows them in theer Store Books of Accounts, upon demand, which he Accordingly did.

M.r Parsons defires that Sambo, M.r Wills black, Roger, and Hagar Orlando Bagley clacks, Sue, Leonard Coulsons Black may be Summoned against Tuesday Some Sennett to be Examened about Robering his house.

Whereas John Clavering, James Welson Gunnerrs Mates and John Lumber, and christopher Kelley quater Gunnerr Presented their Petition yesterday Setting forth thereon. that they Desired to have a Donner on the Corntain Days. as on Muster day, and other Days, Or Else to have some Allowance Equevalent, At which we Can but wonder at theer Coldness and Ignorance, they having Never wanted any Manner of Incouragement, Not well we deny, them, any a Civellety for their Incouragement, to come, and if they are not Sattissfsed with this Repu Result, they are Lest to theer own free will to Apply themselves to the Hon.ble Company or Not.

Thomas Davis, a verby Ancentand Decrepeed Man, Senthis petition yesterday by his Lanell, of Richard Swallow Church Wareten, humbly Represent eng that what he had Collected by the Last Summer Fleet by way of Brief, obtained of Governour, and Councell being all Expended, Desired we [...] of his poor and Deplorable Condetion, and to allow him what we

Margin Notes:

Sam.l Price petitions Gunners Mates Quartr Gunners ptiton for a Dinner [on] Certain Days M.r Davis Petitions for Releife

Simpson continued: "Make him hate you as long as you live." When this witness came off guard, he told Greentree his landlord about the matter and everything that Labour had told him. Whereupon Greentree called both Mary Higham and the black wench Sabar, who then declared what they knew of the matter. Mary Higham said that Labouse promised her a sow or money to buy one if she would tell him everything she knew of what was done or said in the house since she came, and he would give her a petticoat and a stomacher at present. He told her he would carry Greentree to more shame than ever he brought Addes, and said he would bring it out as soon as he went away for fear Greentree should come to him to make it up with him. Further, Labouse told Mary Higham to maintain the same tale when she came before the Governor.

Mary Higham stated she did tell Labouse that her master marked a heifer calf off the Company's, as the black wench Sabar told her.

All of which having been examined and found to be untrue, the Governor and Council hereby declared that James Greentree had always lived in good fame and repute, and that he was in no way guilty of doing or acting any ill thing. The Company's stock of cattle being examined and none found to be lost, the Council acquitted, cleared and forever discharged Greentree from what Labouse reported of him.

Sabar, the black wench, for raising such a gross lie about her master, was to be severely whipped on her naked body at his discretion, and Labouse was to pay council charges.

Soldier Samuel Price requested to be discharged from the Company's service.

The Council ordered that his time being fully expired except two months, he should pay only half a dollar for the remainder of his time and pay the Company what he owed them in their store books of accounts upon demand, which he accordingly did.

Mr. Parsons requested that Sambo, Mr. Will's black, Roger and Hagar, Orlando Bagley's blacks, and Sey, Leonard Coulson's black, be summoned for Tuesday week to be examined about robbing his house.

John Clavering, James Welson, gunners' mates, and John Lumber and Christopher Kelley, quarter gunner, presented their petition the previous day. They requested to have a dinner on certain days such as muster day and other days, or else to have some equivalent allowance. The Council could only wonder at their boldness and ignorance, they having never wanted any manner of encouragement, nor had the Council denied them any civility for their encouragement to attend. If they were not satisfied with this result, they were left to their own free will to apply themselves to the Honourable Company or not.

Thomas Davis, a very aged and decrepit man, sent his petition the previous day by his landlord Richard Swallow, churchwarden. He humbly represented that what he had collected by the last summer fleet by way of brief obtained from the Governor and Council being all expended, he desired they consider his poor and deplorable condition and allow him what they [the record breaks off].

Interpretations

Labouse's systematic corruption of Mary Higham - promising her livestock, money, and clothing in exchange for reporting everything said and done in Greentree's household, then coaching her to maintain the story before the Governor - reveals how malicious gossip could be deliberately manufactured. His explicit comparison to his earlier campaign against someone named Addes indicates a pattern of using accusations of livestock theft as a weapon against those he believed had wronged him. The Council's complete exoneration of Greentree, based on finding the Company's cattle stock intact, demonstrates that they treated such accusations seriously enough to conduct a physical inventory before dismissing them.

The punishment structure distinguished between Labouse, who orchestrated the slander, and the enslaved women who participated in it. Labouse paid only council charges whilst Sabar faced severe whipping for "raising such a gross lie about her master." This disparity reflects the assumption that free men bore financial consequences whilst enslaved people received physical punishment. Mary Higham, despite having been bribed and coached to lie, apparently escaped sanction, perhaps because she was recognised as Labouse's victim rather than willing conspirator.

The gunners' petition for dinners on muster days or equivalent compensation reveals tensions over perquisites and status within the garrison. Their request, dismissed by the Council as showing "boldness and ignorance," suggests the gunners believed they deserved special recognition or material benefits beyond their ordinary pay. The Council's sharp response - reminding them they had "never wanted any manner of encouragement" and inviting them to complain to the Company if unsatisfied - indicates irritation at what was seen as presumptuous demand for privileges.

Speculations

Labouse's statement that he would "bring it out as soon as he went away for fear Greentree should come to him to make it up" indicates he understood that proximity to his target created vulnerability. By planning to spread the accusation from a distance, he could avoid having to negotiate or settle the matter privately with Greentree, ensuring maximum damage whilst minimising his own exposure to confrontation or demands for retraction. His comparison to Addes suggests an earlier successful deployment of similar tactics.

The fact that Sabar, the black wench, originated the false story about Greentree marking Company cattle raises questions about her motive. Whether she invented the accusation from malice, misunderstood something she observed, or sought favour with Labouse (who may have cultivated her as an informant as he did Mary Higham) cannot be determined. Her punishment - whipping at Greentree's discretion - gave her master direct control over severity, ensuring that the penalty would reflect his anger at her betrayal.

The gunners' timing in petitioning for dinner allowances - submitted "yesterday" during what appears to have been a long and contentious council session dealing with Mingo's execution, multiple slander cases, and property disputes - suggests either poor judgment about when to raise the issue or calculation that the Council, distracted by weightier matters, might approve the request without scrutiny. The Council's dismissive response indicates the latter strategy, if intended, failed completely.

39

31

Thought most Convenient, towards his Releif and Maintenance &c.a

It is Ordered.

That the said Thomas Davis be allowed the Sum of Six pounds p Annum for his Board Wages, and that the Same be Charged to the Church Account, and Vestments be made Accordeingly.

Whereas a black Man of Henry Webleys Named Domingo was Yesterday Executed, according to a Verdict of a Jury of. 12. Men. and there having seen a Law formerly Conformed, by the Hon.ble Company. That all Negroes Executed for any Capi= tall Crime should be Accordingly put to death, and payment made to the Owner of such Negro, as the Governour and Councell should think fett, to Vallue him at.

It is therefore Ordered.

That the said Henry. Welby. be allowed the Sum of Twenty Sex pounds, for said Negroe, and that a Warrant be drawn and Segned by us for the Payment thereof According to Proportion Soon after the. 25. day of March Next Ensueing that being the time for all Masters of Familles to give an Account of their Negroes &c.a

Whereas Wedow Hardeing made Complaint to the Governour that Nathaneell Gellion corporall, did on Monday Night Last, abuse her very Grosely by Strikeing her Violently, and breakeing her head against Stone Walls, and meght have Murdered her, had She not made her Escape, and he secured, Soon after.

Whereupon, the said Wedow Hardeing, and the said Gellion who has bin Ever Since on Custody was Sent for, and the said Wedow Star= =cleng being ask't what Sattisfaction She desired, out of her good humour and Generosity Said Nothing More then to beg her pardon, and forewar= =ned him from comeing any More to her house, which he did Accordingly but that being Not any Sattisfaction to us for such a Grose Crime and Effpeccially to a Woman.

It is Ordered

That the said Gellion be Dismist from his place of Corporall, and to Serve the Company as a private Centenell dureing our pleasure.

X.b.r The 6.th 1707 Tho: Goodwin

Island St Helena.

Att a Consultation, held on Tuesday. the. 11.th Day of March. 170 6/7 At Fort James

Pres: Step.n Poirier Governour. Thom: Goodwin Dep.ty Governour

Whereas Ensgn Sanderson Cheef Officer at the Two Gun Ridge made Complaint to Governour and Councell. That John Coulson Free Planter would not Obey his Command, on Repaireing to the Fort, with the Rest of the party When

Margin Notes:

W.m Webleys allowance for his Negro Executed W.m Hardeings Complaint against Gellion Gellion turned to be a private Centenell Sandersons Comp.t against M.r Coulson

The Council thought most convenient towards his relief and maintenance to order that Thomas Davis be allowed the sum of six pounds per annum for his board wages, and that the same be charged to the church account, with vestments made accordingly.

A black man of Henry Webley's named Domingo was executed the previous day according to the verdict of a jury of twelve men. There having been a law formerly confirmed by the Honourable Company that all slaves executed for any capital crime should be accordingly put to death, with payment made to the owner of such slave as the Governor and Council should think fit to value him at, the Council ordered that Henry Webley be allowed the sum of twenty-six pounds for the slave, and that a warrant be drawn and signed by them for payment thereof according to proportion soon after 25 March next ensuing, that being the time for all masters of families to give an account of their slaves.

Widow Harding complained to the Governor that Corporal Nathaniel Gellion had, on Monday night last, abused her very grossly by striking her violently and breaking her head against stone walls, and might have murdered her had she not made her escape. He was secured soon after.

Whereupon, Widow Harding and Gellion, who had been in custody ever since, were sent for. When Widow Harding was asked what satisfaction she desired, out of her good humour and generosity she said nothing more than to beg her pardon and forbid him from coming any more to her house, which he did accordingly. However, that being no satisfaction to the Council for such a gross crime, especially against a woman, the Council ordered that Gellion be dismissed from his place of corporal and serve the Company as a private sentinel during their pleasure.

Signed on [...]ber 6th 1707 by Thomas Goodwin.

At a consultation held on Tuesday the 11th day of March 1707 at Fort James, St Helena.

Present: Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin.

Ensign Sanderson, chief officer at Two Gun Ridge, complained to the Governor and Council that John Coulson, free planter, would not obey his command to repair to the Fort with the rest of the party when [the record breaks off].

Interpretations

The Company's policy of compensating owners for slaves executed for capital crimes created a financial mechanism that eased cooperation with judicial proceedings. Henry Webley's award of twenty-six pounds for Mingo represented significant compensation - roughly equal to five years of relief payments to Thomas Davis or Priscilla Grandy. The timing of payment, scheduled for after 25 March when masters gave account of their slaves, integrated it into the annual census and reckoning, treating executed property as part of ordinary estate management rather than as extraordinary loss.

Widow Harding's willingness to accept merely an apology and a promise from Gellion not to return to her house, despite having been violently assaulted and her head broken against stone walls, reveals either genuine forgiveness or understanding that as a woman and widow she lacked power to demand harsher punishment. The Council's rejection of this settlement - dismissing Gellion from his corporal's rank despite the victim's satisfaction with an apology - demonstrates that they viewed assault on women as requiring official sanction beyond whatever satisfaction the victim sought. The attack on a widow, lacking a husband's protection, may have particularly offended the Council's sense of order.

Speculations

Gellion's assault on Widow Harding on Monday night, severe enough that she barely escaped and he was immediately secured, suggests either a domestic dispute turned violent or an attack by someone whose military authority had emboldened him to force entry to her home. The detail that she forbade him from coming to her house again implies he had been there before, either as visitor or unwelcome intruder. His immediate compliance with her request for apology whilst in custody indicates recognition that his position was indefensible.

The Council's decision to reduce Gellion from corporal to private sentinel rather than imposing fine, whipping, or imprisonment suggests they valued his continued service whilst marking his disgrace. The phrase "during our pleasure" left open the possibility of eventual restoration to rank if he demonstrated reformed behaviour, creating incentive for good conduct whilst punishing the immediate offence. This contrasts with their treatment of William Swallow, recently promoted to sergeant despite his own history of violence and drunken abuse, suggesting that the difference lay either in the severity of the respective offences or in the victims' status - Widow Harding being more vulnerable than the targets of Swallow's misconduct.

40

32

When the Last double Alarm was made, for Two Ships which did not Come Into the Roade, whereeupon the said John Coulson was Summoned to Appear this Day.

The said John Coulson Accordingly, made his Personall Appearrance, and made his Excuse by sayeng he had No Shoes to Weare, or Else would have come down as well as others. But that being a Lame and frevolous Excuse, and it haveing been told the Governour he went a fishong Since with an Old paier Shoes on.

It is Ordered.

That the said Coulson be fined Sex Shillings, and pay Councell Charges for disobeying Orders, being the forst Offence.

Whereas Cap.tn Zachery Tovey made Complaint against John Clavering Gunners Cheef Mate, for Entertaineing some of his Men on Shoar, and Effpeccally his Carpenter, and Boatsivain, on Sunday was Forth Night Last, and Sold them Drenk in Time of Divine Service, and there being a double Allarm. that Day Sent for his said Men then on Shoar, about Ten of the Clock in the forenoon, to Repair on board who Accordingly did, but the said Carpenter, and Boatsivain was So meech in Drenk that they were not Capable of performing theer Deety, According to Comand by which Meanes the said Cap.tn Tovey, alledged his Ship meght have been Lost, the said Two Men being Princeple Officers, to which he made Oath.

The Said Clavering denys what the said Cap.tn Tovey hath alledged against him, desireing proofe to the Contrary.

Cap.tn Tovey desires his Evedence may be Sworn, who accordingly were as followeth.

M.r Granger chief Mate of the Union Sworn Saith that Immediately after the Allarm was made he beeing then on Shoar, went down to the Rocks where Cap.tn Tovey, was in his Boate, and recieved him a Letle while after the Carpenter, and Boatsivain of the Hampshire came down. to the Rocks, and when in the Boate the said Carpenter Said Don't fear Sir, what harm they can do us, for we will fight the Ships, when we Come on board, Upon which the Cap.tn bid him hold his Tongue for he was not Capable, but as for his part Cant say they were Drunk.

M.r Decheson chief Mate of the said Ship Hampsheire Sworn Saith, That when the Carpenter and Boatsivain came on board they were not Capable of doeing their Bussiness, which Seemed to be through the Effects of Too Much Strong Drink they dranke on shoar, and heard them say, they had peunch in M.r Clavering house.

M.r Collinson Peurfer of said Ships Sworn Saith, that when the Allarm was made he went down to the Rocks, where Saw the Carpenter and Boatsivain. and saw the Carpenter fall down, and was in drinke, so war the Boatsivain, who were Unsapable of doeing theer deety, when on board &c.a and that he advysed the Carpenter to keep out of the Cap.s Seght, and that he heard they had Fourteen Bowls of punch hat Morning between Four Men.

The said Clavering desires his Evidence may be Sworn, who were as followeth.

Benjamen Dungee Carpenter of the Ship Union was Sworn, then the Governour ask't him, whether he had Eate and Drank at the said Clavering house this Morning who said yes, he had, and for that Reason being an Evidence for the said Clavering, the Governour Object against his Evedence.

The said Clavering replyes that for Want of the said Dungee Evedence he may be Cast, and if he is, he Cant help it. Repein

Margin Notes:

Coulson Fined Cap.t Tovey Complains against Clavering

Sanderson complained that when the last double alarm was made for two ships which did not come into the road, John Coulson would not obey his command to repair to the Fort with the rest of the party. Coulson was summoned to appear this day.

Coulson made his personal appearance and excused himself by saying he had no shoes to wear, or else would have come down as well as others. But that being a lame and frivolous excuse, and it having been told the Governor that Coulson went fishing since with an old pair of shoes on, the Council ordered that Coulson be fined six shillings and pay council charges for disobeying orders, this being the first offence.

Captain Zachary Tovey complained against John Clavering, gunner's chief mate, for entertaining some of his men on shore, especially his carpenter and boatswain, on Sunday a fortnight last, and selling them drink during divine service. There being a double alarm that day, Tovey sent for his men then on shore around ten o'clock in the forenoon to repair on board, which they did. However, the carpenter and boatswain were so drunk that they were not capable of performing their duty according to command, by which means Tovey alleged his ship might have been lost, these two men being principal officers. He made oath to this.

Clavering denied what Tovey alleged against him and requested proof to the contrary.

Tovey requested that his witnesses be sworn, which they were as follows.

Mr. Granger, chief mate of the Union, sworn, stated that immediately after the alarm was made, he being then on shore, went down to the rocks where Captain Tovey was in his boat and received him. A little while after, the carpenter and boatswain of the Hampshire came down to the rocks. When in the boat, the carpenter said "Don't fear, sir, what harm they can do us, for we will fight the ships when we come on board." The captain told him to hold his tongue for he was not capable. However, for his part, Granger could not say they were drunk.

Mr. Dickeson, chief mate of the Hampshire, sworn, stated that when the carpenter and boatswain came on board they were not capable of doing their business, which seemed to be through the effects of too much strong drink they had drunk on shore. He heard them say they had had punch at Clavering's house.

Mr. Collinson, purser of the ship, sworn, stated that when the alarm was made he went down to the rocks where he saw the carpenter and boatswain. He saw the carpenter fall down and was in drink, as was the boatswain. They were incapable of doing their duty when on board. He advised the carpenter to keep out of the captain's sight, and he heard they had had fourteen bowls of punch that morning between four men.

Clavering requested that his witnesses be sworn, which they were as follows.

Benjamin Dungee, carpenter of the ship Union, was sworn. The Governor then asked him whether he had eaten and drunk at Clavering's house this morning. He said yes, he had. For that reason, being a witness for Clavering, the Governor objected to his evidence.

Clavering replied that for want of Dungee's evidence he might be found guilty, and if he was, he could not help it [the record breaks off].

Interpretations

Coulson's excuse that he lacked shoes to respond to the alarm was dismissed as frivolous once testimony emerged that he had recently gone fishing in old shoes. This demonstrates the Council's intolerance for excuses they believed to be pretextual, particularly when military readiness was at stake. The fine of six shillings - relatively modest and explicitly noted as "the first offence" - suggests the Council viewed this more as establishing principle than as harsh punishment, reserving severer sanctions for repeat violations.

Tovey's complaint against Clavering reveals continuing tension between ship captains dependent on their crews' readiness and shore establishments profiting from selling them drink. The fact that the carpenter and boatswain consumed enough punch to render them incapable of duty during an alarm - when ships might need to defend themselves or manoeuvre quickly - directly threatened the ship's safety. Collinson's report that four men consumed fourteen bowls of punch between them in a single morning suggests either that the account was exaggerated or that Clavering's establishment served drink with abandon regardless of consequences.

The Governor's rejection of Benjamin Dungee as a witness because he had eaten and drunk at Clavering's house that morning demonstrates judicial concern about witness bias when witnesses had received hospitality from the party they were testifying for. This common-law principle - that recent favours compromise credibility - applied even to sworn testimony, showing the Council's attention to ensuring evidence came from genuinely independent sources.

Speculations

The carpenter's boast whilst drunk in the boat - "Don't fear, sir, what harm they can do us, for we will fight the ships when we come on board" - suggests either genuine bravado fuelled by alcohol or an attempt to reassure his captain that despite his condition he remained capable. Tovey's command to hold his tongue indicates the captain recognised this as evidence of incapacity rather than confidence. The purser's advice to the carpenter to keep out of the captain's sight shows officers attempting to shield a colleague from immediate consequences whilst the ship dealt with the alarm.

Clavering's apparent provision of fourteen bowls of punch to four men in a single morning - during divine service on a day when an alarm was raised - suggests either that his establishment operated with complete disregard for regulations about Sabbath trading and military readiness, or that the quantities reported were inflated by witnesses seeking to strengthen Tovey's case. The fact that the carpenter and boatswain were principal officers whose incapacity genuinely threatened the ship's safety gave Tovey strong grounds for complaint, but whether Clavering could be held responsible for how much his customers drank remained the legal question the Council had to resolve.

41

33

Repein Wells being Sworn Saith that as he Came from Church Mett the Boatsivain and Carpentor of Ship Hampshore, and Ship Uncon, and Meeting the Car= penter of the Hampshire forst, ask't him what made him run So fast, he made Answer its time to Run now, there is a Double alarm.

M.r Wells Sworn Saith that comeing from Church Mett the. 4. Men above Named who bed her good Morrow, and being past by said to her Husband, I am Glad to See they are so Sober, to go aboard, and Consequently did not perceive they were any ways Defguefed in Drinck.

Allthough we have had Daily Complaents against John Clavering for Keeping an Irregular house, But to shew our Lenety it haveing been made Evident that he Sold punch in time of Devine Service

It is Ordered

That the said Clavering be fined only the Sum of Fifteen Shillings. and pay Councell Fees, and the Carpenter, and Boatsivain of the Ship Hampshere be fined Five Shillings Each, for being in Drink, and if the said Clavering Should for the future be found Guilty, of Selling Punch, at Unseasonable hours, or any other Immorall Irregularety prackesed in his house.

Then. we do hereby declare he shall forfeit his Licence, and Never to Sell any More Strong Drinck.

M.rs Charles Wedow, and the Executors of her Deceased Husbands Last Will and Testament, brought this Day her Said Deceased Husbands Inventory of all, and Singular his Personall, which the Wedow, Executors, and Appraisers were Sworn to, That the said Inventory was true and Just to the best of their Knowledges.

It is Ordered

That the said Inventory Now produced be received and Approved of according to the abovesaid Oaths.

X.b.r The 6.th 1707 Tho: Goodwin

Island St Helena.

At a Consultation, held on. Tuesday the. 25.th day of March. 1707. Att Fort James.

Pres: Step.n Poirier Governour. Thom: Goodwin Dep.ty Governour

Whereas, William Hague Souldieer, who works about the Forte= =fications, was Suspected by the Governour to have taken at Severall times, a greater allowance of Fire wood then he ought, or Else Emp[l]oyed the Companys Blacks without Leave of any body to fetch him Some, Wheree upon the Governour ordered Ensign Sanderson, and Gabriell Powell, who Oversees the Work Men to Search in the House where the said Hague Lodges, where they found Sex, or Seaven, Beurdens of Geunwood, which was brought down to the Fort Kitchen. Upon Suspecteon as aforesaid, for which the said Hague was Summoned who Appeared Accordingly, and Says on her Defence as followeth. That

Margin Notes:

Clavering Fined Paul Charles his Will proved Hague Searched for [P]ilfering Wood Found in his [Room]

Repein Wells, sworn, stated that as he came from church he met the boatswain and carpenter of the ship Hampshire and the ship Union. Meeting the carpenter of the Hampshire first, he asked him what made him run so fast. The carpenter answered "It's time to run now, there is a double alarm."

Mrs. Wells, sworn, stated that coming from church she met the four men above named who bade her good morrow. Having passed by, she said to her husband "I am glad to see they are so sober to go aboard," and consequently did not perceive they were in any way disguised in drink.

Although the Council had received daily complaints against John Clavering for keeping an irregular house, to show their leniency - it having been made evident that he sold punch during divine service - the Council ordered that Clavering be fined only the sum of fifteen shillings and pay council fees. The carpenter and boatswain of the ship Hampshire were each fined five shillings for being in drink. If Clavering should in future be found guilty of selling punch at unseasonable hours or any other immoral irregularity practised in his house, the Council declared that he would forfeit his licence and never sell any more strong drink.

Mrs. Charles, widow, and the executors of her deceased husband's last will and testament brought this day her deceased husband's inventory of all and singular his personal estate. The widow, executors and appraisers were sworn that the inventory was true and just to the best of their knowledge.

The Council ordered that the inventory now produced be received and approved according to the oaths given.

Signed on [...]ber 6th 1707 by Thomas Goodwin.

At a consultation held on Tuesday the 25th day of March 1707 at Fort James, St Helena.

Present: Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin.

William Hague, soldier, who worked on the fortifications, was suspected by the Governor of having taken at several times a greater allowance of firewood than he ought, or else of having employed the Company's blacks without leave to fetch him some. Whereupon the Governor ordered Ensign Sanderson and Gabriel Powell, who oversaw the workmen, to search the house where Hague lodged. They found six or seven burdens of gumwood, which were brought down to the Fort kitchen. Upon this suspicion, Hague was summoned. He appeared accordingly and stated in his defence as follows [the record breaks off].

Interpretations

The testimony from Repein and Mrs. Wells presented contradictory evidence about the four sailors' sobriety. Wells encountered them running toward the ships, with the carpenter explaining the urgency of the double alarm - behaviour suggesting awareness and capability. Mrs. Wells observed them polite enough to bid her good morrow and appeared sober enough to board ship. This testimony directly contradicted the ship officers' accounts of incapacity. The conflict may reflect different moments in the men's progression from shore to ship, different standards for judging drunkenness, or deliberate testimony to assist Clavering.

The Council's sentence balanced competing concerns. Clavering's fine of fifteen shillings - described as lenient despite "daily complaints" - acknowledged proven wrongdoing whilst stopping short of the licence forfeiture that would end his livelihood. The explicit warning that future violations would result in permanent loss of licence created a final-chance framework. The fines on the carpenter and boatswain - five shillings each for being drunk - placed some accountability on the customers rather than solely on the provider, recognising that adult men bore responsibility for their own consumption.

The search of Hague's lodgings without prior accusation or formal complaint - conducted on the Governor's suspicion alone - demonstrates the powers colonial governors exercised over soldiers and workmen. The discovery of six or seven burdens of gumwood validated the Governor's intuition but also revealed systematic surveillance of subordinates' possessions and movements. The immediate seizure of the wood and summoning of Hague shows how quickly suspicion translated into investigation and prosecution within the fort's closed community.

Speculations

The divergence between ship officers' testimony that the carpenter and boatswain were incapable of duty and the Wells couple's observation that they appeared sober enough to board may reflect the men's deterioration during the boat ride to the ships or their behaviour once aboard rather than their condition on shore. Alternatively, the Wellses may have testified favourably for Clavering out of neighbourhood loyalty, economic interest in maintaining the establishment, or genuine inability to detect intoxication in men they passed briefly on the path.

Hague's accumulation of six or seven burdens of gumwood - far more than individual cooking would require - suggests either systematic pilfering of Company firewood over time or, as the Governor suspected, unauthorised use of Company slaves to collect wood for him. The distinction mattered: taking excess allowance was petty theft, but commanding Company labour without authority usurped supervisory prerogatives and diverted resources. The search of his lodgings before hearing his defence suggests the Governor had reason beyond mere suspicion - perhaps reports from other workmen or observations of wood deliveries - to order the investigation.

42

34

That he has a Load of Wood Every Week allowed him, as others hath and a bout halfe a Year ago, hired M.r Duftons black to fetch Some Wood for him, and about the time they went to Work at Ruperts, Carreed what was Left to M.r Jewsters back Door, and having some more Remaineing at Ruperts brought Two Loads Over, and laid with the Rest, another Load was M.r Feeld Black, and the Rest was, what was Left of his wood, Since Workeing at the Fort, and Some that Morris Greffon Gave him.

Dick Ray, and Harris Hollis Saith that they know the said Hague brought Two Loads of wood from Ruperts when they came from Work there.

Ensign Sanderson and M.r Powell says that they went under Pretence to break fast with Hague, when they went to Search for the Wood, at which time he ask't them, if they had a Warrant to Search, and findeing such a great Quantety, of Wood said Morris Greffon had a Share on it, where eupon M.r Powell ask't Morris whether he had or Not who said he had No Share in the Wood, which vext the said Hague so much that he said this Tresh Dog Meaning Morris Greffon Informed you I had so much Wood by me.

After an Exact Examination of the said William Hague proceeding although there is not posetive proofe, but Strong Cercumstances, by his Contradiction, betwixt what he said to the Ensign and Gabriell Powell, at the forst Surprize, and what he says now.

It is Ordered

That the Matter Stand as it is Now, and he be Discharged till feurther proofe Appear.

Whereas Gabriell Powell made Complaint That Thomas ffrench Stood Indebted to him the Sum of Three Dollars, for Arrack, the wheck he refuses to pay.

The said French Acknowledges the Debt and promises pay= ment as soon as he can.

It is Ordered

That the said French Make M.r Powell payment in Forthnights time or Else the said Powell to prosecute him feurther.

Whereas Serjeant ffrench Informed the Governour That Robert Swallow his Corporall, Neglected Releiving him in due time for Two Severall Mondays at Prosperous Bay, In so much was Obliedged to Leave the Gueard without an Officer Liveing a Great way from his Post, could Not Stay till the Corporall came.

The said Robert Swallow Appeared and said that the Serjeant Never came to Relive him till Nigh. Night, which has been Custymary for Severall years, and presumed he meght have the same Liberty.

It is Ordered.

That his Serjeant William ffrench be Summoned to Appear again. this Day Forthnight, and alfo John Worrall to give his Evidence, what he knows against the said Corporalls Neglect of his Duty.

Margin Notes:

His Defence The Matter Stands till feurther proofe appear Powell Sues M.r ffrench to pay 3. Dollars Searj.t French Complains against Cor.l Swallow

Hague stated in his defence that he received a load of wood every week as others did. About half a year ago, he hired Mr. Duston's black to fetch some wood for him. Around the time they went to work at Rupert's, he carried what was left to Mr. Jewster's back door. Having some more remaining at Rupert's, he brought two loads over and laid them with the rest. Another load was fetched by Mr. Field's black, and the rest was what remained of his wood since working at the Fort, plus some that Morris Griffon gave him.

Dick Ray and Harris Hollis stated they knew Hague brought two loads of wood from Rupert's when they came from work there.

Ensign Sanderson and Mr. Powell stated they went under pretence of taking breakfast with Hague when they searched for the wood. At that time he asked them whether they had a warrant to search. Upon finding such a great quantity of wood, Hague said Morris Griffon had a share in it. Whereupon Powell asked Morris whether he had or not, and Morris said he had no share in the wood. This vexed Hague so much that he said "This trash dog" - meaning Morris Griffon - "informed you I had so much wood by me."

After exact examination of William Hague's proceedings, although there was not positive proof but strong circumstances arising from his contradiction between what he said to the Ensign and Gabriel Powell at the first surprise and what he now stated, the Council ordered that the matter stand as it was and he be discharged until further proof appeared.

Gabriel Powell complained that Thomas French stood indebted to him the sum of three dollars for arrack, which he refused to pay.

French acknowledged the debt and promised payment as soon as he could.

The Council ordered that French make Powell payment within a fortnight or else Powell should prosecute him further.

Sergeant French informed the Governor that Robert Swallow, his corporal, neglected to relieve him in due time on two several Mondays at Prosperous Bay, so much so that he was obliged to leave the guard without an officer. Living a great way from his post, he could not stay until the corporal came.

Robert Swallow appeared and stated that the sergeant never came to relieve him until near night, which had been customary for several years, and he presumed he might have the same liberty.

The Council ordered that Sergeant William French be summoned to appear again in a fortnight, and also John Worrall to give his evidence about what he knew of the corporal's neglect of duty.

Interpretations

Hague's detailed accounting of his wood sources - weekly allowances, wood hired from borrowed slaves, remnants from previous work sites, gifts from Griffon - attempted to explain the suspicious quantity found in his lodgings. However, his accusation that Griffon was the informant who betrayed him, combined with Griffon's denial of having any share in the wood, created the contradiction that undermined his credibility. The Council's decision to discharge him "until further proof appeared" rather than convict or fully exonerate him left the matter open whilst avoiding punishment based on circumstantial evidence alone.

The dispute between Sergeant French and Corporal Swallow over relief times at Prosperous Bay reveals how custom conflicted with regulation. Swallow's defence that French routinely arrived late to relieve him and that this had been customary for years turned the accusation back on his accuser. If the sergeant habitually delayed relief, the corporal's reciprocal lateness represented either retaliation or adaptation to established practice. The Council's decision to summon both French and a witness suggests they recognised this as a mutual-grievance situation requiring evidence beyond the parties' contradictory claims.

Speculations

Sanderson and Powell's pretence of visiting Hague for breakfast whilst actually conducting a search suggests they sought to observe the wood before Hague could conceal or explain it. Hague's immediate question about whether they had a warrant indicates he recognised the visit as official business despite their pretence. His spontaneous claim that Griffon had a share - immediately contradicted by Griffon - suggests either panic-driven improvisation to spread responsibility or genuine belief that Griffon had told him he could use the wood, which Griffon later denied to avoid implication.

Hague's furious identification of Griffon as the informant - "this trash dog informed you I had so much wood" - reveals either accurate intuition about who reported his hoarding or assumption that Griffon, working alongside him under Powell's supervision, had best opportunity to observe and report the accumulation. Whether Griffon actually informed or Hague simply blamed the most obvious suspect, the accusation poisoned any working relationship between them and likely made continued cooperation at the fortifications difficult.

43

35

Whereas Joseph Parsons Montrofs made Complaint that his house has been broake Open, and Severall goods Stolen as is hereafter Mentioned, and Suspects that Some of the Blacks followeng stole them.

November the. 3. 1706 £ s d 1 Bag of Flower - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 00 9 0 15 pownd of Ship Butter - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 00. 7 6 and some fresh Butter - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 00. 2 0 2 pound of Soape - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 00. 5 6 2 pound of Tobacco - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 00 3 8 3 or 4. peeces of Porke and Beefe - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 00 5 0 1 Young Sow - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 00 12 0 1 Tewrkey Cock - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 00 6 0 Some Tape, and some thread - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 00 5 6 1 Hollaned Shift - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 00 4 0 1 Pettycoale - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 00 5 0 1 Apron - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 Shift - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 Peunch bowle - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 Spoons - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 00 4 6 1 Knefe - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 Comb - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 Kitle Received - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3. 18

Besides Damage done in breakeing open the House.

Sue Says that when she was Run away She Saw. 3. peices of Meat at M.r Wills house. two peices of English Beefe, and One peice of Porke. One Spoon, One knefe, One Lackered Bowle, One Allegard Bag with Flower, and that Hagar gave her a Petty Coat, of Sarah Lansdowns, who lives wth the said Parsons.

Sambo Repein Wells black Says he knows Nothing of the house being broake Open, nor the things Stolen. Except the Iron Kittle, which he found in a hole, when he went to Look Hagar being then Run away.

Seeing the Blacks wont Confess any thing of the Theft only Sue, says that Hagar gave her the Pettycoale, and that Sambo gave it her, who both Denys they had it, and that there was No Meat, nor any other thing Else, as See says, she had at her Masters house, and is Innocent of the Fact.

It is Ordered

That the Blacks be Whept, to See whether they'll Confess or No.

After the Examination of Sue Wedow Coulsons Black Wench by whipeing, did Confess that she was with the Two other Blacks, Vez. Sambo, and Hagar, in breakeing Open the said Parsons house, (by which he Suffered Much Damage) and in all probableety, the Speaker Treath. The Black Man having had and Returned, part of the things Stolen, and the said Sue alfo, besides it's well known that Orlando Bagleys Black Wench Hagar, makes a Common trade of such dealings, and hath been punished Severall times for the Same however,

It is Ordered.

That at the forst Quater Sessions held, the Matter shall be laid before the Jury.

Margin Notes:

J.h Parsons Suspects Severall Blacks of [...] [breaking] open his hous[e] An Acco.t of Goods [Stole]n

Joseph Parsons Montrose complained that his house had been broken open and several goods stolen as listed below, and he suspected some of the following blacks had stolen them.

On 3 November 1706, goods were stolen valued as follows: one bag of flour, £0 9s 0d; fifteen pounds of ship butter, £0 7s 6d; some fresh butter, £0 2s 0d; two pounds of soap, £0 5s 6d; two pounds of tobacco, £0 3s 8d; three or four pieces of pork and beef, £0 5s 0d; one young sow, £0 12s 0d; one turkey cock, £0 6s 0d; some tape and some thread, £0 5s 6d; one Holland shift, £0 4s 0d; one petticoat, £0 5s 0d; one apron; one shift; one punch bowl; two spoons, £0 4s 6d; one knife; one comb; one kettle received - total £3 18s. Besides damage done in breaking open the house.

Sey stated that when she was run away she saw three pieces of meat at Mr. Will's house: two pieces of English beef and one piece of pork. Also one spoon, one knife, one lacquered bowl, one alleged bag with flour. Hagar gave her a petticoat belonging to Sarah Lansdown, who lived with Parsons.

Sambo, Repein Wells's black, stated he knew nothing of the house being broken open nor the things stolen, except the iron kettle which he found in a hole when he went to look, Hagar being then run away.

Seeing the blacks would not confess anything of the theft - only Sey saying that Hagar gave her the petticoat and that Sambo gave it to her, which both denied they had, and that there was no meat nor any other thing at her master's house, claiming they were innocent of the fact - the Council ordered that the blacks be whipped to see whether they would confess or not.

After the examination of Sey, Widow Coulson's black wench, by whipping, she confessed that she was with the two other blacks - Sambo and Hagar - in breaking open Parsons's house, by which he suffered much damage, and in all probability she spoke truth. The black man had received and returned part of the things stolen, as had Sey. Besides, it was well known that Orlando Bagley's black wench Hagar made a common trade of such dealings and had been punished several times for the same. However, the Council ordered that at the first quarter sessions held, the matter should be laid before the jury.

Interpretations

The itemised inventory of stolen goods - ranging from staple foods and livestock to clothing, utensils and a punch bowl - reveals both the value of household property in the small settlement and the vulnerability of homes to theft. The total of £3 18s represented substantial loss, roughly equivalent to three-quarters of the annual relief paid to aged poor like Thomas Davis. The inclusion of items like Holland shifts and petticoats alongside food staples indicates that clothing held significant value as portable property that could be traded or worn.

The investigation's reliance on Sey as informant mirrors her role in the conspiracy investigation. Her initial statement whilst "run away" - presumably whilst herself a fugitive - placed stolen goods at Mr. Will's house and implicated Hagar and Sambo. Her testimony came under torture, and only after whipping did she confess her own participation rather than merely accusing others. This pattern raises the same questions about credibility that plagued her earlier testimony: whether she spoke truth, told interrogators what they wanted to hear, or combined elements of both.

The Council's decision to refer the matter to quarter sessions jury rather than imposing summary punishment suggests they recognised this as a serious felony requiring more formal adjudication. The notation that Hagar "made a common trade of such dealings and had been punished several times" indicates she had an established reputation as a thief, yet continued access to potential victims' homes and property. This suggests either that previous punishments had been insufficient deterrent or that opportunities for theft were so abundant that even known offenders could continue operating.

Speculations

Sey's observation of stolen goods whilst herself run away indicates she had been in contact with the thieves or their fence during her absence from her mistress. Whether she was already a confederate in the theft before running away or stumbled upon the stolen goods during her flight and later used this knowledge to bargain for leniency remains unclear. Her delayed confession until after whipping suggests either genuine reluctance to implicate herself or calculated resistance until pain made continued denial pointless.

Sambo's claim that he found the iron kettle in a hole whilst looking for the run-away Hagar presents a convenient explanation for possession of stolen property: he discovered it by accident whilst searching for a fugitive. This account required the Council to believe either that Sambo innocently stumbled upon evidence whilst performing a legitimate search, or that he invented this story to explain suspicious possession whilst distancing himself from the actual theft. His partial return of stolen goods may represent either an attempt at restitution or evidence that he was indeed the receiver rather than the thief.

Hagar's reputation as someone who "made a common trade" of theft - implying systematic rather than opportunistic stealing - combined with her being run away at the time of investigation, suggests she may have used periods of absence to operate more freely. If she regularly absconded and returned, she could have established networks for disposing of stolen goods beyond the immediate settlement whilst maintaining access to potential targets during periods of service.

44

36

George Hoskison who has the Care of Jonathan Beals Orphans Stock of Cattle &c. alledgeing that he has Not their Account Ready Stated, which should have been done against this Day.

It is Ordered

That the said Hoskison Appear this day Forthnight with the Childrens Account Ready Stated, That we may know the troth thereof.

Robert Leach, who has the Care and Pofsefsion of Leaches Orphans Cattle, did Not Appear to give an Account of the decrease, and Increase, besides to adjust the whole Years Account.

It is Ordered

That the said Robert Leach Appear this day Forthnight to give an Account of the Same.

Whereas Samuell Des Fontaines, with Paul Graton came this Day, and Appeared personally, before Governour, and Councill. to the End That the said Samuell Des Fortaines might be Discharged of, and from the Lease now presented for the Lemon Garelen &c.a in Chappell Valley, which the said ffountain has affigned, and made Over. to the said Paul Graton who has had the same in his pofefsion for Two years past; Upon Mature Confederation.

It is Ordered

That the affignment, So made Over, and affigned to the said Graton Stand in force, and be Recorded on the Councill book, that the said Des Fontaines may have a Coppy when Ever Demanded.

X.b.r The. 6.th 1707 Tho: Goodwin

Island St Helena.

Att a Consultation. held on. Tuesday the. 8.th Day of Aprill. 1707. att Fort James.

Pres: Step.n Poirier Governour. Thom: Goodwin Dep.ty Govern.r

Whereas Henry ffrancis free Planter Presented his Petition. heumbly Desireing that we would allow him about Two Acres of the Right Hon.ble Comp.a West Land, Lyeing on the Water fall plain Next adjoyneing to his own Land, which was formerly Granted to her Deceased Father in Law, Edward Edmonds, but Never was Measured Nor No Lease taken up, Wherefore

It is Ordered That

Margin Notes:

Geo. Hoskinson ordered to appear with the Acco.t of Beals Orpha[ns] Rob. Leach ordered to giv[e] in Acc[ount] of his Orpha[ns] S.l Desfontaines deseirs his Dismission of the Lease of his Garden H.r ffrancis petitions for Wast[e] Land plain

George Hoskison, who had the care of Jonathan Beal's orphans' stock of cattle, alleged that he did not have their account ready stated, which should have been done against this day.

The Council ordered that Hoskison appear in a fortnight with the children's account ready stated, so that the truth thereof might be known.

Robert Leach, who had the care and possession of Leach's orphans' cattle, did not appear to give an account of the decrease and increase, besides adjusting the whole year's account.

The Council ordered that Robert Leach appear in a fortnight to give an account of the same.

Samuel Des Fontaines with Paul Graton came this day and appeared personally before Governor and Council, to the end that Des Fontaines might be discharged of and from the lease now presented for the lemon garden in Chapel Valley, which Des Fontaines had assigned and made over to Paul Graton, who had had the same in his possession for two years past. Upon mature consideration, the Council ordered that the assignment so made over and assigned to Graton stand in force and be recorded on the council book, so that Des Fontaines might have a copy whenever demanded.

Signed on [...]ber 6th 1707 by Thomas Goodwin.

At a consultation held on Tuesday the 8th day of April 1707 at Fort James, St Helena.

Present: Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin.

Henry Francis, free planter, presented his petition humbly desiring that the Council would allow him about two acres of the Right Honourable Company's waste land lying on the Waterfall Plain next adjoining to his own land, which was formerly granted to his deceased father-in-law, Edward Edmonds, but was never measured nor any lease taken up. Wherefore the Council ordered that [the record breaks off].

Interpretations

The Council's management of orphans' estates through appointed guardians like Hoskison and Leach demonstrates systematic oversight of minors' property. The requirement that guardians present annual accounts of "decrease and increase" in livestock represented colonial guardianship practice ensuring that children's inheritances were preserved rather than depleted during their minority. Hoskison's claim that the account was not ready and Leach's failure to appear at all suggest either administrative difficulty in tracking dispersed livestock or reluctance to account for losses that might reveal negligence or misappropriation.

Des Fontaines's formal assignment of his lemon garden lease to Graton after two years' possession by Graton represents regularisation of an existing arrangement. The requirement that the assignment be recorded in the council book and that Des Fontaines receive a copy upon demand provided documentary protection for both parties: Graton gained secure tenure, whilst Des Fontaines obtained formal release from obligations he could no longer fulfil. This formality protected against future disputes about who bore responsibility for lease conditions or improvements.

Henry Francis's petition for two acres of Company waste land adjoining his own property invoked an earlier informal grant to his deceased father-in-law Edward Edmonds that had never been formalised through measurement or lease. This pattern - oral promises or informal permissions followed by years without formal documentation - created ambiguity about actual entitlements. Francis's petition sought to convert his father-in-law's unexercised claim into his own secured tenure, linking family connection to land rights across generations.

Speculations

Hoskison's excuse that the orphans' account was not ready "which should have been done against this day" implies he had been given prior notice and deadline but failed to comply. Whether this reflected genuine difficulty assembling records of cattle births, deaths, sales and transfers across a year, or deliberate delay to avoid revealing unfavourable numbers, the Council's response - ordering appearance in a fortnight with completed accounts - gave limited additional time whilst signalling impatience. Leach's outright failure to appear suggests either more serious accounting problems or physical absence from the settlement.

The two-year gap between Graton's taking possession of the lemon garden and Des Fontaines's formal assignment suggests either that informal arrangements were common and only formalised when one party required legal certainty, or that Des Fontaines had delayed seeking official release hoping to resume cultivation himself. The timing of formalisation may have been driven by Graton's demand for secure tenure before making improvements, or Des Fontaines's recognition that he could not reclaim the land and needed documented release from lease obligations.

Francis's invocation of his father-in-law's never-measured, never-leased grant demonstrates how family memory preserved claims to land even when official records did not. The fact that Edmonds received a grant but never formalised it through measurement or lease-taking suggests either that informal permission sufficed for cultivation during his lifetime, or that he died before completing the administrative process. Francis's petition attempted to inherit this incomplete claim, arguing that family connection and adjacency to his existing land justified completing what Edmonds had begun.

45

37

That a Warrant be Issued out to the Surveyer to Measure the said Land, and that a Lease be drawn, and Delievered Accordingly.

Whereas the said Francis Appeared with Jonathan Beals Orphans with their Account, where in it did Appear that they stood Indebted to him the Sum of Seaven pound, and Sex pence, being the Ballance of last years Account, and Thirteen pounds for the year last past, which is Twenty pound and Sex pence in all of which the said ffrancis hath Receved Nineteen pounds on their Account by George Hoskison as Appears by the Companys Store bookes, So there Remains due but Twenty Shillings, and Sexpence.

It is Ordered

That the said Henry Francis have the said Two Children the year Ensueing at the Rate as he had Last year, and on the Same Conditions.

Whereas William Beale free plan ter made Complaint against Isaack Leach, for Killing a Dogg of his, Upon his own Land.

The said Leach Denys it.

The said Beale Defires his Evidence might be Sworn.

William Seale being Sworn Saith that some time Since M.r Bazett came to his house, and said that the said Beals Dogg had bitt him in plan Nigh halfe an hour, and Like to have bitt him, Upon wheech Isaack Leach made Answer that Dogg was Like to have bitt me Severall times, and Ile Shoote him Some time or other, and being going in to the Great Wood, heard a Gun fire, and when he came home ask't who it was that fored and at what, Isaack Leach made Answer that it was him, and had Shott the said Beales Dogg, a little above his Wall Next the said Deponent Hedge.

The said William Seales Wefe Saith to the same Effect as her Husband hath. already Deposed.

William Seale further Saith that John Orchard told him that he saw the said Isaacke Leach Shoot the Dogg a little above the said Beals pasture Wall.

The said Beale says he has more Sufftim trall Evidence Viz.t John Orchard, and John. Hardeing and Defires they may be Summoned against Next Councell Day which is Granted, and the cause Dismist till then.

Whereas the Governour has been Informed that Robert Swallow Corp.ll has Neglected his deuty at Prosperous Bay in not Releiving the Serjeant in due time, and being absente from thence severall Nights, wherefore was Sumoned to Appear this day with John Worrall Evidence against him.

The said Swallow Accordingly Appeared, and denys what Serjeant French hath Informed the Governour of his Neglect of deuty, sayeing that only Stayed one Night away from his post, when he was not able to go there being very much troubled with the Gripes.

John Worrall Sworn Saith. that the Corporall was absent the. 3. and 5.th of March Last all Night, and alfo in Christmas holly days Severall Nights It

Margin Notes:

H.r Francis appears with the [Accoun]t of Beales Orpha[ns] M.rs Francis to have them another year W.m Beals Comp.t ag.t Isaack Leach

The Council ordered that a warrant be issued to the surveyor to measure the land, and that a lease be drawn and delivered accordingly.

Henry Francis appeared with Jonathan Beal's orphans' account, wherein it appeared that they stood indebted to him the sum of seven pounds and sixpence, being the balance of last year's account, and thirteen pounds for the year last past, which was twenty pounds and sixpence in all. Of this, Francis had received nineteen pounds on their account by George Hoskison, as appeared by the Company's store books. So there remained due only twenty shillings and sixpence.

The Council ordered that Henry Francis have the two children for the year ensuing at the rate he had last year and on the same conditions.

William Beale, free planter, complained against Isaac Leach for killing a dog of his upon his own land.

Leach denied it.

Beale requested that his witnesses be sworn.

William Seale, sworn, stated that some time since Mr. Bazett came to his house and said that Beale's dog had bitten him in the plain nearly half an hour and was likely to have bitten him. Upon which Isaac Leach answered that the dog was likely to have bitten him several times and he would shoot him some time or other. Being going into the Great Wood, the witness heard a gun fire. When he came home he asked who it was that fired and at what. Isaac Leach answered that it was him and had shot Beale's dog a little above his wall next to the deponent's hedge.

William Seale's wife stated to the same effect as her husband had already deposed.

William Seale further stated that John Orchard told him that he saw Isaac Leach shoot the dog a little above Beale's pasture wall.

Beale stated he had more substantial evidence - John Orchard and John Harding - and requested they be summoned against next council day, which was granted, and the cause dismissed until then.

The Governor had been informed that Robert Swallow, corporal, neglected his duty at Prosperous Bay by not relieving the sergeant in due time and being absent from thence several nights. Wherefore he was summoned to appear this day with John Worrall as witness against him.

Swallow accordingly appeared and denied what Sergeant French had informed the Governor of regarding his neglect of duty, saying he only stayed one night away from his post when he was not able to go there, being very much troubled with the gripes.

John Worrall, sworn, stated that the corporal was absent on the 3rd and 5th of March last all night, and also during Christmas holidays several nights [the record breaks off].

Interpretations

The resolution of Francis's petition for waste land proceeded efficiently to surveying and lease preparation, demonstrating the Council's willingness to formalise land grants to established planters seeking to expand adjacent holdings. The simultaneous presentation of Jonathan Beal's orphans' account reveals Francis's dual role as both petitioner for his own land and guardian/employer of orphans. The account showed the children indebted to Francis for twenty pounds sixpence for two years' maintenance, nearly all of which had been paid through George Hoskison from Company stores, leaving only twenty shillings sixpence outstanding. The Council's decision that Francis should keep the children another year "at the same rate and conditions" suggests satisfactory performance of guardianship duties.

The complaint about Leach shooting Beale's dog on Beale's own land raised questions of property rights and animal control. Bazett's report that the dog had "bitten him in the plain nearly half an hour" - presumably meaning attacked or harassed him for that duration - established the dog as a nuisance. Leach's stated intention to shoot the dog "some time or other" followed by actually doing so demonstrated premeditation. The critical issue was whether Leach's action constituted legitimate defence against a dangerous animal or unlawful destruction of property, and whether shooting the dog on Beale's own land above his wall aggravated the offence.

Corporal Swallow's defence against charges of neglecting duty at Prosperous Bay - claiming he stayed away only one night when "troubled with the gripes" (intestinal pain) - contradicted Worrall's sworn testimony that he was absent the nights of 3rd and 5th March plus several nights during Christmas holidays. This represented either Swallow's minimisation of absences he hoped would go unproven, or genuine memory failure about the extent of his absences across several months.

Speculations

Francis's presentation of the orphans' account showing they owed him twenty pounds for two years' care, with payment coming through Hoskison via Company stores rather than from the orphans' own resources, suggests a system where the Company or orphans' estates bore maintenance costs rather than guardians providing free care. The nearly complete payment (nineteen of twenty pounds) indicates either regular disbursements or that Francis had only recently sought reimbursement for accumulated costs. The Council's satisfaction with continuing the arrangement another year implies they found both the accounting and the children's welfare acceptable.

Leach's shooting of Beale's dog "a little above his wall next the deponent's hedge" - on Beale's property rather than his own or in common areas - suggests either that he pursued the dog onto Beale's land after it threatened him, or that he deliberately trespassed to destroy the animal. The fact that Bazett complained of being bitten "in the plain" but Leach shot the dog near property boundaries indicates the dog ranged freely but was killed near home. Whether Leach acted in legitimate fear of future attacks or in retaliation for nuisance, shooting the dog on its owner's property rather than his own complicated his legal position.

Worrall's detailed testimony about specific dates of Swallow's absence - 3rd and 5th March plus Christmas holidays - suggests either careful record-keeping or that these absences were conspicuous enough to be memorable. Swallow's claim of being incapacitated by gripes for only one night may have referred to a recent absence whilst forgetting or minimising earlier ones, or may have been deliberate falsehood hoping Worrall lacked specific dates. The pattern of absences during holidays suggests either that Swallow took unauthorised leave during periods he assumed oversight would be lax, or that legitimate relief arrangements broke down during festive periods.

46

38

It is Ordered

That the said Robert Swallow haveing been found very Often Neglectfull of his Deuty at Prosperous Bay being the Cheef and Maen post for the Securety of this Island, be Dismiss from his place of Corporall and to do Centinells dueety, which being read to him he replyed he had Served the Company his Contracted time, and would not Serve as a private Centonell, any Longer Therefore wee Dismiss him from the Companys pay and Service.

Whereas Hatton Starling Longshoreman. Declares against John Jones Souldieer, that being Walkeing with Benjamin Wells, the said John Jones on his Sword, and made a pass at him, which the said Sterling Seeing Reun up Upon the Upper Mount, the said Jones Run after him with his Sword, and Swore he would have his Life then, or another time, upon which the said Hatton Gott up a Stone, and told the said Jones, if he came a Step Nigher to him he would knock him down, Upon. that the said Jones went back.

Benjamin Wells Saith, that he, and Hatton Starling being Walkeing together nigh the Sally port Gate, the said Jones came towards them, and said this is One of the Doggs that Affronted me, So Drew his Sword, and Run after the said Sterling. Swearing he would have his Life, upon wheech Run as fast as he could out of the Fort, and Hatton towards the Upper Mount.

The said John Jones Saith Hatton Sterling having Affronted him, and seeing him in the Fort, bid him be gone out, and offered to Draw his Sword Belt, did not do it, with an Intent to do him any Hart.

William Swallow Serjeant being Sworn Saith, that hearing a Noise in the Garrison, when in the Hall a goeing to Supper, went out, and bed the Corporall command peace, but the Noice not Ceasing, when at Supper the Ensign ordered this Deponent to go, and See what was the Matter and Comeing to the Guard Door, Enqueered who made that Noice, Upon which was told by the Corporall that the said Jones had Drawn his Sword, Upon Hatton Sterling, Upon which the Ensign Ordered him to Preson.

Nathaniell Gellion Sworn Saith, that he was on the Gueard, and hearing that the said Jones had drawn. his Sword, at Hatton Sterling, then went out, and Saw him have his Naked Sword on his hand, Upon which ordered him to peut it up, who did, But makeing some Noise was Confened by the Ensign.

Edmond Kempton being Sworn Saith that being a reading in the Doctors Shop, and hearing a Noice Reun to the Door, and Saw the said Jones with his Naked Sword on his hand, and Hatton Sterling Run on g up Upon the Upper Mount, where he gott up a Stone, and stood in his Defence telling the said Jones Upon his Sagong he would have his Life he would knock him down, Upon which the Corporall came out.

Although the said Jones proceedings in this Matter is found to be a hegh, Misdemeanour, and deserves Severe Pun nishment, But we Confeedering that the said Jones is of a Penceve and Melancholly humour, and beleveing his Braen is Some what altered, which may put him upon Desperate attempts. It

Margin Notes:

Corporall Swallow Dismist the Companys Service Hatton Starling Complains against [J.n] Jones

The Council ordered that Robert Swallow, having been found very often neglectful of his duty at Prosperous Bay - being the chief and main post for the security of this island - be dismissed from his place of corporal and do sentinel's duty. This being read to him, he replied he had served the Company his contracted time and would not serve as a private sentinel any longer. Therefore the Council dismissed him from the Company's pay and service.

Hatton Starling, longshoreman, declared against John Jones, soldier, that being walking with Benjamin Wells, Jones drew his sword and made a pass at him. Starling, seeing this, ran up upon the upper mount. Jones ran after him with his sword and swore he would have his life then or another time. Upon which Starling got up a stone and told Jones that if he came a step nigher to him he would knock him down. Upon that, Jones went back.

Benjamin Wells stated that he and Hatton Starling, being walking together nigh the sally port gate, Jones came towards them and said "This is one of the dogs that affronted me." He drew his sword and ran after Starling, swearing he would have his life. Upon which Wells ran as fast as he could out of the fort, and Hatton towards the upper mount.

Jones stated that Hatton Starling having affronted him, and seeing him in the fort, he bid him be gone out and offered to draw his sword belt, but did not do it with an intent to do him any hurt.

William Swallow, sergeant, sworn, stated that hearing a noise in the garrison whilst in the hall going to supper, he went out and bade the corporal command peace. The noise not ceasing, when at supper the ensign ordered this deponent to go and see what was the matter. Coming to the guard door, he enquired who made that noise. He was told by the corporal that Jones had drawn his sword upon Hatton Starling. Upon which the ensign ordered him to prison.

Nathaniel Gellion, sworn, stated that he was on the guard and, hearing that Jones had drawn his sword at Hatton Starling, went out and saw him have his naked sword in his hand. Upon which he ordered him to put it up, which he did. But making some noise, he was confined by the ensign.

Edmund Kempton, sworn, stated that being reading in the doctor's shop and hearing a noise, he ran to the door and saw Jones with his naked sword in his hand, and Hatton Starling running up upon the upper mount where he got up a stone and stood in his defence, telling Jones that upon his so going - that he would have his life - he would knock him down. Upon which the corporal came out.

Although Jones's proceedings in this matter were found to be a high misdemeanour and deserving of severe punishment, the Council, considering that Jones was of a pensive and melancholy humour and believing his brain was somewhat altered, which might put him upon desperate attempts [the record breaks off].

Interpretations

Corporal Swallow's dismissal from his rank for repeated neglect of duty at Prosperous Bay - described as "the chief and main post for the security of this island" - demonstrates the seriousness with which the Council viewed failures at critical defensive positions. His response that he had served his contracted time and would not serve as a private sentinel reveals either that his corporal rank was essential to his willingness to continue service, or that he saw demotion as sufficiently dishonourable to prefer discharge entirely. The Council's immediate acceptance of his refusal and dismissal from Company service suggests they preferred willing soldiers over resentful demoted ones.

The incident involving Jones drawing his sword on Starling within the fort represented a serious breach of garrison discipline. Multiple witnesses testified consistently that Jones drew his naked sword, pursued Starling whilst swearing to have his life, and only desisted when Starling armed himself with a stone and the corporal intervened. Jones's minimal defence - that he told Starling to leave and "offered to draw his sword belt" without intent to hurt - contradicted the weight of testimony about drawn sword, pursuit, and death threats.

The Council's recognition that Jones's behaviour constituted "a high misdemeanour" deserving "severe punishment" but their consideration of mitigating circumstances reveals judicial discretion balancing discipline against individual capacity. Their observation that Jones was "of a pensive and melancholy humour" and their belief "his brain was somewhat altered" suggests they diagnosed mental disturbance that might lead to "desperate attempts" - potentially meaning suicide or violence beyond rational control.

Speculations

Swallow's immediate refusal to serve as a private sentinel after demotion suggests either that corporal rank carried significant status and privileges he was unwilling to surrender, or that he had planned to leave Company service at the end of his contracted time and saw demotion as sufficient cause to depart immediately rather than complete remaining service at lower rank. His confidence in refusing suggests he had alternative prospects - perhaps as a free planter or in private employment - that made continued military service unnecessary.

Jones's attack on Starling - described as pursuing "one of the dogs that affronted me" - indicates prior conflict between them that had left Jones nursing grievance. Whether the original affront was genuine provocation or existed primarily in Jones's mind, his reaction of drawing his sword and pursuing Starling whilst swearing death threats represents disproportionate response suggesting impaired judgment. The fact that he pursued Starling up the mount and only withdrew when Starling armed himself with a stone indicates sustained aggressive intent rather than momentary anger.

The Council's diagnosis that Jones's "brain was somewhat altered" and might lead him to "desperate attempts" suggests they feared either that severe punishment would drive him to suicide or that his mental state made him unpredictably dangerous. Their incomplete sentence leaves uncertain what disposition they made: whether they confined him for observation, discharged him from service, imposed reduced punishment, or took other measures to address both the disciplinary breach and the apparent mental disturbance.

47

39

It is Ordered

That the said Jones be secured within the ffort, Until he finde Sufficeent Bayle to be of the good behaviour, and preserveing the Peace of the Queen, and the Lives of her Subject, and pay Councell Charges.

Whereas Elinor Coulson Wedow with the Executors of her Deceased Husband, Leonard Coulson Last Will and Testament presented the Same In order of having it proved which was Accordingly Done by the Oaths of George Hoskison, Mathew Bazett, and John Coulson who made Oath, That the said Will now produced is the said Leonard Coulsons Last Will and Tefa= ment, Not knowing of any other by him made Eether in Word or Writeing.

It is Ordered.

That the said Will now produced be Received and Approved of, and Copys Given when Demanded.

Likewise.

The Wedow. was Sworn to Deliver a true Inventory to the Executors Jonathan Daston, and Robert Leach, who were alfo Sworn, to Appraise the said Decaesds Stock According to the best of their Judgements.

Temple Needham Surgeon defired that his former Servant Edm.d Kempton meght Return to him again who both agreed as appears by the followeing Letter.

Worshipfull S.r These are to acqueaint Your Worship that Master and I have Fully agreed, and that I am very welling to Serve under him the Remaineing part of his Covenanted time here, these with all Respect from him who is

Fort March y.e 20.th 170 6/7. Worshipfull S.r Your most Obedient hamble Serv.t Edm.d Kempton

Good S.r I am free to Receive my Servant again, which with my Service to your Worship and my Lady I remain Your Obleged hamble Servant Temple Needham.

Island St Helena We Daniell Griffith and John Alexander both of the said Island Do hereby Enter, into a Recognizance of Ten pounds in Serrant Money of the said Island payable to the Right Hon.ble Uneted Company for the good behavour of John Jones Souldier Toward all her Majesty Liege people, and Effpeccally Hatton Sterling Longleman, and Likewife for his the said Jones perfonall Appearance, before Governour and Councell

Margin Notes:

Leonard Cousons Will approved T. Needham desires his Serv.t Edm.d Kempton for 24 hours to him again D.l Alexandr & D.l Griffeth Enters into a Recogniz [...] for J.n Jones

The Council ordered that Jones be secured within the fort until he find sufficient bail to be of the good behaviour and preserve the peace of the Queen and the lives of her subjects, and pay council charges.

Eleanor Coulson, widow, with the executors of her deceased husband Leonard Coulson's last will and testament, presented the same in order to have it proved, which was accordingly done by the oaths of George Hoskison, Matthew Bazett and John Coulson, who made oath that the will now produced was Leonard Coulson's last will and testament, not knowing of any other by him made either in word or writing.

The Council ordered that the will now produced be received and approved, and copies given when demanded.

Likewise, the widow was sworn to deliver a true inventory to the executors Jonathan Duston and Robert Leach, who were also sworn to appraise the deceased's stock according to the best of their judgements.

Temple Needham, surgeon, requested that his former servant Edmund Kempton might return to him again. Both agreed, as appeared by the following letter:

"Worshipful Sir, These are to acquaint Your Worship that Master and I have fully agreed, and that I am very willing to serve under him the remaining part of his covenanted time here. These with all respect from him who is, Fort, March the 20th 1706/7, Worshipful Sir, Your most obedient humble servant, Edmund Kempton."

"Good Sir, I am free to receive my servant again, which with my service to your Worship and my Lady I remain Your obliged humble servant, Temple Needham."

Island St Helena. We Daniel Griffith and John Alexander, both of the said island, do hereby enter into a recognizance of ten pounds in current money of the island, payable to the Right Honourable United Company, for the good behaviour of John Jones, soldier, toward all Her Majesty's liege people, and especially Hatton Starling, longshoreman, and likewise for his - the said Jones's - personal appearance before Governor and Council [the record breaks off].

Interpretations

The Council's disposition of Jones's case - requiring bail for good behaviour and keeping the Queen's peace rather than immediate severe punishment - represents a compromise between the seriousness of drawing a weapon on another person within the fort and the mitigating circumstances of his apparent mental disturbance. The requirement that he be secured within the fort until sufficient bail was found protected both Jones and potential victims whilst arrangements were made. The specific mention of preserving "the lives of her subjects" and requiring good behaviour "especially" toward Hatton Starling acknowledged both the general threat Jones posed and the particular danger to his original target.

Leonard Coulson's will was proved through testimony of three witnesses who swore it was his last will and testament and knew of no other made "either in word or writing." This safeguard against competing or superseding wills protected executors and beneficiaries from later challenges. The requirement that widow Eleanor deliver a true inventory to the executors, who were sworn to appraise the deceased's stock according to best judgement, established formal accountability for estate administration parallel to the orphan guardianship oversight seen throughout these records.

The reconciliation between surgeon Needham and his servant Kempton - facilitated through formal letters to the Council rather than private arrangement - demonstrates that servant disputes falling under Council jurisdiction required official resolution even when parties reached agreement. Kempton's letter expressing willingness to serve "the remaining part of his covenanted time" and Needham's statement that he was "free to receive my servant again" suggests an earlier breach or dispute that had interrupted the servant relationship, now formally restored.

The recognizance entered by Daniel Griffith and John Alexander for ten pounds current money represents a bail bond making them financially liable if Jones violated the conditions of good behaviour or failed to appear before Governor and Council when required. The ten-pound sum - substantial but not ruinous - balanced the need for meaningful security against making bail impossible to obtain.

Speculations

Jones's need to find "sufficient bail" whilst secured within the fort suggests the Council doubted whether anyone would voluntarily stand surety for someone they had just identified as mentally disturbed and potentially dangerous. The fact that Griffith and Alexander did ultimately provide recognizance indicates either that they had closer ties to Jones than appeared in the assault record, that they believed the incident isolated rather than indicative of ongoing danger, or that Jones or his associates provided them counter-security making their risk tolerable.

The breach between Needham and Kempton that led to their separation before the covenanted term expired likely involved either Kempton's complaint about treatment or Needham's dismissal for cause. Kempton's testimony as sworn witness in Jones's assault case - he was "reading in the doctor's shop" when the incident occurred - places him in Needham's establishment at the time of testimony but perhaps not in Needham's formal service. The timing of reconciliation shortly after Kempton provided this testimony may be coincidental or may indicate that his reliable performance as witness demonstrated character that reassured Needham about taking him back.

Eleanor Coulson's presentation of her husband's will with executors Duston and Leach followed Leonard's relatively recent death. The requirement that she deliver inventory to these same executors whilst they appraised the deceased's stock created checks against widow or executors concealing or undervaluing assets. The fact that one of these executors - Robert Leach - was simultaneously guardian of other orphans whose accounts he had failed to present suggests either that Leach held multiple positions of trust in the community or that the pool of qualified estate administrators was limited enough that even those with incomplete accountings continued receiving appointments.

48

40

Councell when there unto Called; Wittness our hands this. 9.th day. of Aprill. 1707.

Wittnessed Daniell Griffith John Alexander

Thomas Burnham free planter defired to hire about five or Six. Acre: of the Companys Wast Land Lyeing towards the Upper End of Ruperts Valley known by the Name of Tokes Folley.

It is Ordered

That the said Thomas Burnham request be Granted, and that a Warrant be Delievered to the Surveyor to Measure the same Accordingly.

X.b.r The 6.th 1707 Tho: Goodwin

Island St Helena.

Att a Consultation. held the. 21.st Day. of Aprill. 1707. Att Fort James.

Pres: Step.n Poirier Governour. Thom: Goodwin Dep.ty Govern.r

John. Bates being Sworn Saith That on Easter Sunday Last James Wilson. Gunners Second Mate, being upon the Gueard came and ask't him if there was any Punch for the Gun nors Crew, he told him very Cevilly there was not, upon which Answer he went away Seemeing Disfattil= =feed and talking to himself, The Day after being Monday the said Deponent went Over to the Smiths Shop about some Bufiness, where the said James Wilson followed him, and fell Immediately, to Curfeing and Swearing. Sayeing he did not Care for the Governour, and had been Drinp keing punch upon the Valley, Sayeing further in a difrespectfull Manner he was not beholden to the Governour, Still Sentenuing Cursing and Swearving as aforesaid, whereupon the said Deponent as a friend re= proved him for his Wecked Oaths, geveing him all the good adveice he could, upon which the said Wilson askt him if he was a Justice of Peace Urgeing and Calling him Severall Names without any Manner of Provokation of which thought himself in deuty bound to Acqueaint the Governour.

Upon. which the said James Wilson was Imprisoned from the. 15.th Instant to the date hereof and Says for himself that he did Not Say. any thing against the Governour, and what he did say. was through the said Bates geveing him abusive Language.

John Welsh Serjeant being Examened Saith that he being Upon the Gueard, and in the Room where the Arms are Lodged, heard some words pass betwixt the said Wilson and Bates and the said Wilson

Margin Notes:

Tho. Burnam desires to hire 5 or 6 Acres Waste Land Granted J.h Bates his Comp.t against W.m Wilson

Council when thereunto called. Witness our hands this 9th day of April 1707.

Witnessed: Daniel Griffith, John Alexander.

Thomas Burnham, free planter, requested to hire about five or six acres of the Company's waste land lying towards the upper end of Rupert's Valley, known by the name of Toke's Folly.

The Council ordered that Thomas Burnham's request be granted and that a warrant be delivered to the surveyor to measure the same accordingly.

Signed on [...]ber 6th 1707 by Thomas Goodwin.

At a consultation held the 21st day of April 1707 at Fort James, St Helena.

Present: Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin.

John Bates, sworn, stated that on Easter Sunday last, James Wilson, gunner's second mate, being upon the guard, came and asked him if there was any punch for the gunners' crew. He told him very civilly there was not. Upon which answer Wilson went away seeming dissatisfied and talking to himself. The day after, being Monday, this deponent went over to the smith's shop about some business, where Wilson followed him and fell immediately to cursing and swearing, saying he did not care for the Governor and had been drinking punch upon the valley. Saying further in a disrespectful manner he was not beholden to the Governor, still continuing cursing and swearing as aforesaid. Whereupon this deponent, as a friend, reproved him for his wicked oaths, giving him all the good advice he could. Upon which Wilson asked him if he was a Justice of Peace, urging and calling him several names without any manner of provocation. The deponent thought himself in duty bound to acquaint the Governor.

Upon which, James Wilson was imprisoned from the 15th instant to the date hereof. He stated in his defence that he did not say anything against the Governor, and what he did say was through Bates giving him abusive language.

John Welsh, sergeant, being examined, stated that he being upon the guard and in the room where the arms were lodged, heard some words pass between Wilson and Bates, and Wilson [the record breaks off].

Interpretations

Burnham's request for five or six acres of waste land at the upper end of Rupert's Valley "known by the name of Toke's Folly" demonstrates how locations acquired identifying names - in this case presumably from a previous occupant named Toke whose enterprise there had failed or been abandoned. The Council's ready grant of the request and immediate order for surveying and measurement suggests routine accommodation of free planters seeking to expand cultivation into unused Company lands, provided they paid appropriate rents.

Wilson's offence combined several aggravating elements: disrespect toward the Governor, cursing and swearing, drinking punch on Easter Monday (the day after Easter Sunday), and abusive language toward Bates who had civilly informed him no punch was available for the gunners' crew. The fact that Wilson was "upon the guard" when he first enquired about punch suggests he was on duty, making his subsequent drinking and disorderly conduct whilst supposedly serving more serious. His statement that he "did not care for the Governor" and "was not beholden to the Governor" represented insubordination that challenged authority directly.

Bates's account presented himself as having responded civilly to Wilson's initial punch enquiry, then as a concerned friend attempting to reprove Wilson for wicked oaths and give good advice, only to be met with mockery ("if he was a Justice of Peace") and abuse. His decision to report Wilson as a matter of duty rather than personal grievance framed the complaint as protecting discipline rather than settling scores. Wilson's defence that whatever he said resulted from Bates giving him "abusive language" attempted to shift blame but directly contradicted Bates's sworn testimony about civil responses and friendly reproof.

Speculations

Wilson's dissatisfaction and talking to himself after being told no punch was available for the gunners' crew on Easter Sunday suggests either that such provision had been customary and its absence frustrated expectation, or that Wilson's desire for drink was strong enough that denial triggered visible resentment. His subsequent drinking "upon the valley" on Easter Monday - apparently whilst still on guard duty or shortly after - indicates either that he obtained punch elsewhere despite official unavailability or that restriction applied specifically to provision for the gunners' crew rather than to all drinking.

The confrontation at the smith's shop the following day, with Wilson following Bates there and immediately cursing and swearing, suggests either that Wilson sought Bates out deliberately to continue their dispute or that he was already drunk and disorderly when he encountered Bates by chance. His claims of having drunk punch on the valley and his declarations about not caring for the Governor or being beholden to him represent either genuine insubordination fuelled by alcohol or drunken bravado that he would not have expressed sober.

Wilson's imprisonment from the 15th instant (April) to the 21st (date of council hearing) - six days - provided time for him to sober up and reflect whilst the Council assembled witnesses. His defence that he said nothing against the Governor directly contradicted Bates's testimony, whilst his claim that whatever he said resulted from Bates's abusive language attempted to justify words he simultaneously denied speaking. The incomplete testimony from Sergeant Welsh, who heard words pass between them from the room where arms were lodged, likely either corroborated Bates's account or provided additional context about the exchange.

49

41

Wilson Sweareing. the said Bates Reproved him, upon which the said Welson ask't him if he was a Cheurch Warden, or Justice of the Peace, and Comeing into the Shop saw them have hold of Each other, whereupon Commanded peace, who then deceased, but soon after the said Wilson Called the said Bates Severall Names.

Anthony Dehure says that he heard Bates Reprove Wilson for Sweareing in the Smiths Shop, but knows Nothing Else of the Matter.

It is Ordered.

That the said James Wilson be fined the Sum of Twenty Shillings for Sweareing According to our Gracious Queens Proclamateon for the Suppref= =sing of Vice, and Immorality,

And for Uttering such Disrespectfull words against the Governour he be fined Thirty Shillings More, Unlefs Remitted by Governour and Councell Upon his being Sebmiffive and humble for such an Offence, as afore= said within a Months time.

X.b.r The 6.th 1707 Tho: Goodwin

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation. held on Tuesday the 22. day of Aprill. 1707. Att Fort James.

Pres: Step.n Poirier Governour Thom: Goodwin Dep.ty Governor

Whereas the Result of the Last Councell day proceedings in the Cause of William Beale, and Isaack Leach for want of better Evidence Viz.t John Orchard, and John Hardeing, for the Plantefs was Referred till this day

Who being Summoned Appeared this day, and being Examined Saith as followeth.

John Hardeing Saith that he Saw Isaack Leach Comeing towards Beals pastceure, Saw his Dogg Run up towards the said Isaack Leach, who thereupon went up, out of the path, and cocked his Gun, and the Dogg Reunning Negher to him Shott him out of the Pestceure, and after Shott seumpt into the pastceure again.

Mathew Bazett being Sworn Saith that he being in his Cubbidly =tree Greund, and Comeing home again, through Beals pastceure, The said Beals Dogg came Reunning to him very feurily, and would have bitt him had he not Defended himself with his fane, for the Space of a quarter of an hour, and being Got Clear from said Dogg, went to William Veale where he related all the Matter, To which Isaack Leach said he would Kill him Some time or other, for he had Liked to have bitt him Severall times, and a little after he went up towards the Said Beals pastceure with his Gun.

John Orchard being Sworn Saith that being at Work with John Hardeing, Saw Isaack Leach Comeing towards Beals pasture, and Beals Dogg Run up to him above the Wall and path and see him Shoot the Dogg, out of the said Beals Inclosed Land, and asoon as he was Wounden Reun

Margin Notes:

Beale and Leach[s] tryall called over again

Welsh stated that Wilson was swearing, and Bates reproved him. Upon which Wilson asked him if he was a churchwarden or Justice of the Peace. Coming into the shop, Welsh saw them have hold of each other, whereupon he commanded peace, which they then ceased. But soon after, Wilson called Bates several names.

Anthony Dehure stated that he heard Bates reprove Wilson for swearing in the smith's shop but knew nothing else of the matter.

The Council ordered that James Wilson be fined the sum of twenty shillings for swearing according to the Gracious Queen's Proclamation for the suppressing of vice and immorality, and for uttering such disrespectful words against the Governor he be fined thirty shillings more, unless remitted by Governor and Council upon his being submissive and humble for such an offence as aforesaid within a month's time.

Signed on [...]ber 6th 1707 by Thomas Goodwin.

At a consultation held on Tuesday the 22nd day of April 1707 at Fort James, St Helena.

Present: Governor Stephen Poirier, Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin.

The result of the last council day's proceedings in the cause of William Beale and Isaac Leach, for want of better evidence - namely John Orchard and John Harding for the plaintiff - was referred until this day.

They being summoned, appeared this day and, being examined, stated as follows.

John Harding stated that he saw Isaac Leach coming towards Beale's pasture. He saw the dog run up towards Leach, who thereupon went up out of the path and cocked his gun. The dog running nigher to him, Leach shot him out of the pasture, and after being shot jumped into the pasture again.

Matthew Bazett, sworn, stated that he being in his gubbletree ground and coming home again through Beale's pasture, Beale's dog came running to him very fiercely and would have bitten him had he not defended himself with his cane for the space of a quarter of an hour. Being got clear from the dog, he went to William Seale's where he related all the matter. To which Isaac Leach said he would kill him some time or other, for he had liked to have bitten him several times. A little after, he went up towards Beale's pasture with his gun.

John Orchard, sworn, stated that being at work with John Harding, he saw Isaac Leach coming towards Beale's pasture, and Beale's dog ran up to him above the wall and path. He saw him shoot the dog out of Beale's enclosed land, and as soon as he was wounded he ran [the record breaks off].

Interpretations

Welsh's testimony that he saw Bates and Wilson "have hold of each other" before commanding peace reveals physical confrontation beyond verbal abuse, though whether this represented Wilson grabbing Bates aggressively or mutual grappling during their dispute remains unclear. The fact that they ceased upon Welsh's command but Wilson "soon after" resumed calling Bates names suggests temporary compliance with military authority followed by continued insubordination once the sergeant's attention shifted.

Wilson's fine of twenty shillings for swearing referenced "our Gracious Queen's Proclamation for the suppressing of vice and immorality" - likely Queen Anne's proclamation against profaneness and immorality issued earlier in her reign. The additional thirty shillings for disrespectful words against the Governor, with provision for remission if Wilson showed submission and humility within a month, offered a path toward reconciliation whilst maintaining authority. The total fifty shillings represented substantial penalty - nearly half a year's relief for poor like Thomas Davis - but the conditional nature of thirty shillings created incentive for proper behaviour.

The resumed hearing of Beale versus Leach with previously unavailable witnesses Orchard and Harding provided the "better evidence" the Council had awaited. Their testimony confirmed Leach shot the dog, but the critical disputed fact was where: Harding stated Leach shot the dog "out of the pasture" (presumably meaning whilst outside it), whilst Orchard stated he shot the dog "out of Beale's enclosed land" (seemingly meaning from outside the enclosure). Both agreed the wounded dog then ran or jumped into the pasture.

Bazett's testimony established the dog's dangerous character - attacking him fiercely for a quarter hour despite his defence with a cane - and Leach's stated intention to kill the dog because it had nearly bitten him several times. This provided justification for destroying a dangerous animal whilst also establishing premeditation.

Speculations

Wilson's question to Bates about whether he was a churchwarden or Justice of Peace - mockery of Bates's reproof for swearing - reveals contempt for moral authority exercised by someone Wilson viewed as an equal or inferior. His willingness to grab or grapple with Bates, requiring military intervention to separate them, demonstrates how alcohol and resentment could overcome normal deference and discipline. His resumption of abuse after Welsh commanded peace suggests either inability to control himself or deliberate defiance of authority.

The conditional nature of Wilson's fine - thirty shillings remissible upon submission and humility within a month - created a test of character and judgment. If Wilson apologised promptly, he would save thirty shillings whilst demonstrating recognition that his behaviour had been wrong. If pride or continued resentment prevented submission, he would pay the full fifty shillings whilst confirming himself as insubordinate. The month's deadline balanced providing time for reflection against preventing indefinite delay.

Leach's shooting of the dog from outside Beale's pasture boundary - "above the wall and path" according to Orchard - raises questions about whether he positioned himself deliberately to avoid trespass whilst destroying the dog, or whether the dog's approach to him on common ground provided opportunity and justification he had been awaiting. Bazett's testimony about the dog's fierce attack on him and Leach's immediate declaration that he would kill it "some time or other" establishes that Leach's action followed pattern: provocation, stated intent, and execution of that intent when opportunity arose.

50

42

Reun into the pasture and fell down.

Further Saith that he being Comeing through Beales pastceure Some time ago the Dogg that Isaack Leach. Shott, and another little Dogg came to him, and had Just hold of the Skirt of his Coat, and heaveing a Stone at the Dogg, he Run, and gott hold of the Little Dogg, he Drowg theer Elfe believes he could Not, have Defenced himself from beeing bitten by the Great Dogg.

Gilbert Cotgrave Saith. That one day at the Goat pound the said Beale, and Isaack Leach had some Words about his Dogg, and Defired him to take fare of him and not Suffer him to Reun after people, or any thing Else, if he did not he would Kill him, to which Beale Answered if you Eatch hom of, off my Own Land you may Kill him and Welcome.

Repein. Wells Saith that being at the Goate pound, the said Beale and Isaack Leach had some words, about the said Beales Dogg Saying he had Likt to have bitt him that Day, and if he did not take better Care of him then he had done he would Kill him, The said Beale said if you do Eatch hom of, of my own Ground you may Kell him but I'le talk with you Another time.

It is Ordered.

At the Request of the Plantefs William Beale.

That the Matter now in Controversie be Referred to the Jury at the Next Generall Sessions, But Not to be as a future Presedent. the said Leach being One of the Companys Servants, and having Not any Pofsessions of any Lands &c.a

Whereas Francis Leach Orphan appeared this day being aged. 21 years, Desired that he might have his Estate Delivered Into his pofsession, which is Now in the pofsession of his Brother Robert Leach.

It is Ordered.

That the said Robert Leach be Summoned against this day Forthnight to Render a true and Just account of his said Brothers Estate In order of Receiveing the Same.

Whereas Mary, the Wife of William Hart well Montrofs Declares, that on the 14.th of this Instant being alone at home, went to M.r Wells house, where she Stayed till a little before Drum beat, and Comeing to her Door foeund the Doore open, which made her Something Amazed haveing the Key in her hand, and Entreing in at the door, heard a Reumbling in the Chamber Over head, called out to her husband by the Name of William (thinkeing it meght be him a purpose to Affright her) Severall times, and told him he did Not do well in doeng So to affright her, and said if he did Not Come down She would fetch Some body, to bring him down, and at Last Ventureing up part of the Stairs, with a fore Stick in her hand, A Man came down Stairs by her, and trod upon her Toes, and Loweing the fire Stick, Saw it

Margin Notes:

Francis Leach desirs that he may have his Estate in his minoreity into his possess[ion] Hartwells Comp.t off Inhabitt[ed]

The dog ran into the pasture and fell down.

Orchard further stated that he being coming through Beale's pasture some time ago, the dog that Isaac Leach shot and another little dog came to him. The large dog had just got hold of the skirt of his coat. Heaving a stone at the dog, it ran, and he got hold of the little dog. He drew there, else he believed he could not have defended himself from being bitten by the great dog.

Gilbert Cotgrave stated that one day at the goat pound, Beale and Isaac Leach had some words about his dog. Leach desired him to take care of him and not suffer him to run after people or anything else. If he did not, he would kill him. To which Beale answered "If you catch him off of my own land you may kill him and welcome."

Repein Wells stated that being at the goat pound, Beale and Isaac Leach had some words about Beale's dog, saying he had liked to have bitten him that day, and if he did not take better care of him than he had done he would kill him. Beale said "If you do catch him off of my own ground you may kill him, but I'll talk with you another time."

The Council ordered, at the request of the plaintiff William Beale, that the matter now in controversy be referred to the jury at the next general sessions, but not to be as a future precedent, the said Leach being one of the Company's servants and having not any possessions of any lands.

Francis Leach, orphan, appeared this day, being aged twenty-one years, and requested that he might have his estate delivered into his possession, which was now in the possession of his brother Robert Leach.

The Council ordered that Robert Leach be summoned against this day fortnight to render a true and just account of his said brother's estate in order to receive the same.

Mary, the wife of William Hartwell Montrose, declared that on the 14th of this instant, being alone at home, she went to Mr. Wells's house where she stayed until a little before drum beat. Coming to her door, she found the door open, which made her something amazed, having the key in her hand. Entering in at the door, she heard a rumbling in the chamber overhead. She called out to her husband by the name of William, thinking it might be him on purpose to affright her, several times, and told him he did not do well in doing so to affright her. She said if he did not come down she would fetch somebody to bring him down. At last, venturing up part of the stairs with a fire stick in her hand, a man came down stairs by her and trod upon her toes. Lowering the fire stick, she saw it [the record breaks off].

Interpretations

The accumulation of testimony about Beale's dog established a pattern of aggressive behaviour toward multiple people over time. Orchard's account of the dog seizing his coat skirt whilst another small dog was present, requiring him to throw stones and believing he could not have defended himself from the large dog without grabbing the smaller one, demonstrated the animal posed genuine danger beyond isolated incidents. The multiple witnesses to confrontations at the goat pound showed that Leach had repeatedly warned Beale about the dog and threatened to kill it if proper care was not taken.

Beale's responses at the goat pound - "If you catch him off of my own land you may kill him and welcome" according to Cotgrave, and "If you do catch him off of my own ground you may kill him, but I'll talk with you another time" according to Wells - created ambiguity about permission. Beale appeared to grant conditional licence to kill the dog if caught off his property, but his addendum "I'll talk with you another time" suggested either threat or reservation about this permission. The question for the jury became whether Leach's shooting the dog from outside the pasture boundary whilst the dog approached him fell within Beale's conditional permission or violated it.

The Council's decision to refer the matter to jury at general sessions whilst noting it should "not be as a future precedent" because Leach was a Company servant without land possessions suggests unusual circumstances. Typically such matters might have been resolved summarily by the Council, but Beale's request for jury trial - possibly reflecting doubt about the Council's likely judgment or desire for more formal adjudication - was granted with the caveat that this accommodation should not establish routine jury access for all similar disputes.

Francis Leach's appearance at age twenty-one to request his estate from his brother Robert Leach represents coming of age and end of guardianship. The requirement that Robert render "true and just account" before delivering the estate protected Francis against potential misappropriation during minority. This is the same Robert Leach who had failed to appear previously with accounts of other orphans' cattle, suggesting either that he held multiple guardianships or that accounting practices in his management were lax.

Mary Hartwell's discovery of an intruder in her home whilst her husband was absent presents a serious security breach. Her careful narrative - finding the door open despite having the key, hearing rumbling overhead, calling out thinking it was her husband playing a prank, threatening to fetch help, finally venturing partway upstairs with a fire stick as weapon - demonstrates both initial uncertainty about whether the situation was dangerous and progressive realisation that an unauthorised person was in her home.

Speculations

Beale's conditional permission to kill the dog if caught off his land may have been genuine pragmatic acceptance that a dangerous dog ranging freely beyond his control could legitimately be destroyed, or may have been provocative challenge delivered in anger, doubting that Leach would actually catch the dog off his property. His qualifier "I'll talk with you another time" suggests either that he intended to discuss the matter further when tempers cooled, or that he was threatening consequences if Leach did kill the dog. Wells's recollection of this qualifier versus Cotgrave's omission of it may reflect different moments in the conversation or selective memory about details that bore on legal permission.

Leach's positioning himself outside the pasture boundary when he shot the dog approaching him suggests either careful compliance with Beale's stated permission (shooting only when the dog was off Beale's land) or deliberate attempt to avoid trespass charges whilst executing his stated intent. The fact that the wounded dog then ran back into the pasture and fell down there complicated determining where the actual shooting occurred versus where the dog ultimately died.

The intruder in the Hartwell home who came down the stairs, trod on Mary's toes, and was partially visible when she lowered her fire stick represents either a burglar caught in the act or someone with presumed access to the house (servant, lodger, workman) whose presence Mary had not anticipated. Her initial assumption that it was her husband playing a prank followed by her arming herself and threatening to fetch help shows progression from innocent explanation to recognition of genuine threat.

51

43

it was Jacob Mankell Souldieer, who fell down Stairs, and Throwed down the Table and Form, a little after, went back again to M.r Wells house, and Related the whole Matter to him, and as they were talkeing William Grant Came in, who she ask't where Jacob Mankell was, or whether he was at home, who said No, and being Informed of the bufsness, and Defcribeing the Cloaths he had on Grant said he had Knive of selh teether, and some he denyed, which made her Suspect that he was Concerned, and after some Discourse M.r Wells said Come Let us go into the house perhaps he has Left his Cap, or Dropt Some thing Else, and goeng found a Key at the Stair Foot, which the said Wells kept in her Pocket till the Next Morneing, at which time went up to Jacob Mankell, And Grant at John foles Doore and ask't whose Key that was, which was Owned to be his Key of John foles house, and the said Mankell being taxed with the Fact Confest he went onto the said house, and that She has Lost Money and Other things Severall times, and Suspects him to have Stolen them.

The said Jacob Mankell was Imprisoned till this Day, and being Examined, Confefses that he was within the said Hartwells house, being then Dreunk, but Never was there before Upon any such Account, nor did he take any thing away with him then.

Upon Mature Consideration It is Ordered.

That the said Jacob Mankell be Secured within the Fort till Next Mufterday and then be Reun the Gantlett through the whole Garrison bearing Arms, and to pay the said Hartwell the Sum of Twenty Shellings and Councell Charges, and to Worke for the Company about the Fortifica= tioons at the same Wages, as he hath had Lately.

X.b.r The 6.th 1707 Tho: Goodwin

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation. held on Tuesday the. 6.th day of May. 1707. att Fort James.

Pres: Step.n Poirier Governour. Thom: Goodwin Dep.ty Governour.

Whereas this day Fortnight Francis Leach Orphan aged 21. yeours and upwards. Made his Appearance before Governour and Councill, and Defired that his Brother Robert Leech who has the Care of the whole Estate might be ordered to deliver the same up to his own pofsefseon.

That the said Robert Leach be Summoned to Appear again this Day, who accordingly did, and gave an Account of the whole Estate where on it did Appear that the said Account amounted to One hundred Nine pounds thirteen Shellings, and Four pence besedes the Catle Consisting of Fifteen head.

Margin Notes:

Mankell Whipt by the Garrison

Jacob Mankell, a soldier, fell down the stairs and knocked over the table and form. A short time later he returned to Mr Wells's house and described what had happened to her. While they were talking, William Grant came in. She asked him where Jacob Mankell was, and whether he was at home. Grant replied that he was not. On being told what had occurred, and hearing the clothes described, Grant said Mankell owned a knife of [...] teeth, though he denied owning others. This raised her suspicion that he was involved. After some further conversation, Mr Wells suggested going into the house, since Mankell might have left his cap or dropped something else behind. On going in, a key was found at the foot of the stairs. Wells kept this key in her pocket until the following morning.

The next morning Wells went up to Jacob Mankell and Grant at John Foles's door and asked whose key it was. Mankell acknowledged it as his own key to John Foles's house. When charged with the offence, Mankell confessed that he had been in the house. Wells stated that money and other items had gone missing on several occasions, and that she suspected him of having stolen them.

Jacob Mankell was imprisoned until this day. On being examined, he admitted he had been inside Hartwell's house, but claimed he was drunk at the time, had never been there before on any such errand, and had taken nothing away with him.

After full consideration, it was ordered that Jacob Mankell be held within the Fort until the next muster day, then run the gauntlet through the whole garrison under arms. He was to pay Hartwell the sum of £1 0s 0d and council charges, and to work for the Company on the fortifications at the same wages he had recently received.

6 December 1707. Tho: Goodwin

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 6 May 1707 at Fort James.

Present: Stephen Poirier Governor. Thomas Goodwin Deputy Governor.

A fortnight earlier, Francis Leach, an orphan aged twenty-one years and upwards, had appeared before the Governor and Council. He asked that his brother Robert Leach, who had charge of the whole estate, be ordered to deliver it up into his own possession.

Robert Leach was summoned to appear again on this day, and did so. He gave an account of the whole estate, which came to £109 13s 4d, besides the cattle, consisting of fifteen head.

Mankell was whipped by the garrison.

Interpretations

The proceedings against Mankell show how garrison discipline and civil justice ran together on the island. A soldier accused of theft was tried by the Governor and Council rather than by any separate civil court, and the punishment combined military shaming through the gauntlet with financial restitution to the victim and compelled labour for the Company. The same body that governed the island also commanded its troops and managed its workforce, with no real separation of functions.

The Leach case shows the Council acting as a probate and guardianship authority. A young man on reaching majority had to apply to the Council to recover his inheritance from an older brother who had administered it during his minority, and that brother was required to present a full account of the estate to the same body. In a small settlement without resident lawyers or a separate court of equity, the Council filled the role.

Speculations

The order that Mankell continue working on the fortifications at his recent wages suggests the Council was unwilling to lose his labour at a time when defensive works were a priority. The punishment was designed to humiliate and to compensate Hartwell, but stopped short of removing the man from productive service.

The fortnight's gap between Francis Leach's first appearance and Robert Leach's summons points to a deliberate practice of giving the administering relative time to prepare a proper accounting. A sudden demand for the estate would have produced a confused reply; a fortnight allowed the figures to be assembled and verified before the Council.

52

44

It is Ordered

That the said Robert Leach Deliver unto the Said Francis Leach his Brother his Portion and Devidend of said Estate, and Consequently be Difcharged from the same.

Whereas when the Governour was Last in the Countrey, the Ensign being then at the Fort, Informed the Governour That John Clavering Gunners Cheef Mate came down to the Sally Port Gate, a little after the Drum came into the Fort, and the Sentry Challengeing him asked him why he chal= =lenged before the Drum had done beating who said it had where eupon Called him Lyeng Blockhead, Upon which Struck him with his Musfquett, and with the blow broake it, but upon Veew found it was Easely Mended, and would be as Servicceable as Ever.

It is Ordered

That he pay for mending the peice and pay Five Shellings for his Misdemeanour, and Charges of Councell.

Whereas William Beale free planter haveing Stood Indeb= ted to John Alexander In the Sum of Ten pounds Seaventeen Shellings for Leeence and ffees, for Severall, Years past, and Upon Denyeng said Debt the said Alexander made Complaint to Governour and Councell and Thereupon was Ordered to pay him his Demand of Ten pounds Seaventeen Shellings, but denyeing Again to pay said Debt, Notwith= standing the said Alexander Civell Demand Severall times, and the Governour and Councell being Made Acqueainted there with Iffued out a Warrant to diftrefse the said Beals Goods & Chattels in order of Makeing payment which was done Accordingly

Whereas Joseph Whaley Souldieer who Affifted the Smith, having Left the Shop, and Work upon Not having as meech pay allowed him as he defireed; Wee have agreed with William Smith Souldieer to afsift the Smith at the Rate of Twenty Shellings p Month and dieet, who Voluntairely Confented, and agreed to Serve the Right Hon.ble Company as Long as he Stays in their Service in the Afsisting the Smith and to do Setch Work as he is Capable of in said Shop.

May the. 20.th 1707.

Whereas William Marsh Free Planter came into the Governour Hall very much Overtaken with Strong Drinck and the Governour Speakeing to him Swore an Oath to his face

It is Ordered

That the said Marsh pay Five Shellings for being Drunk and Two Shellings for Sweareing. X.b.r The 6.th 1707 Tho: Goodwin

Margin Notes:

Rob.t Leach pays his ffran[cis] Leach his Portion Clavering beates a Musqueet M.r Alexand.r makes a Deftres upon Beals Esta[te] for [...] W.m Smith Afsifts the Smith W.m Marsh fined for Sweareing and beeing Drunk

It was ordered that Robert Leach deliver to his brother Francis Leach his portion and dividend of the estate, and thereby be discharged from any further obligation in respect of it.

When Poirier was last in the country, the Ensign was at the Fort and reported to him that John Clavering, the Gunner's Chief Mate, had come down to the Sally Port Gate shortly after the drum entered the Fort. The sentry challenged him and asked why he had challenged before the drum had finished beating. Clavering said it had finished, called the sentry a lying blockhead, and struck him with his musket. The blow broke the weapon, but on inspection the piece was found to be easily repairable and would be as serviceable as before.

It was ordered that Clavering pay for the repair of the musket, pay five shillings for his misdemeanour, and pay the council charges.

William Beale, a free planter, had stood indebted to John Alexander in the sum of £10 17s 0d for licences and fees over several past years. On Beale denying the debt, Alexander complained to the Governor and Council, who ordered Beale to pay the demand of £10 17s 0d. Beale again refused to pay, in spite of repeated civil demands from Alexander. Once the Governor and Council were made aware of this, a warrant was issued to distrain Beale's goods and chattels in order to obtain payment, and this was carried out.

Joseph Whaley, a soldier who had been assisting the smith, left the shop and the work because he was not allowed as much pay as he wanted. An agreement was therefore made with William Smith, a soldier, to assist the smith at twenty shillings a month with diet. He gave his consent freely and agreed to serve the Honourable Company for as long as he remained in their service, assisting the smith and doing such work in the shop as he was capable of.

20 May 1707.

William Marsh, a free planter, came into the Governor's Hall heavily under the influence of strong drink, and on Poirier speaking to him he swore an oath to his face.

It was ordered that Marsh pay five shillings for being drunk and two shillings for swearing.

6 December 1707. Tho: Goodwin

Robert Leach paid Francis Leach his portion. Clavering broke a musket. Alexander made a distraint upon Beale's estate for [...]. William Smith assisted the smith. William Marsh was fined for swearing and being drunk.

Interpretations

The Council operated as a court of first and last resort for almost every kind of dispute on the island, hearing inheritance, debt, military discipline and public order matters in a single sitting. The same body that authorised distraint on Beale's goods also fined Marsh for swearing in the Governor's hall and assessed damages for a broken musket, with no procedural distinction between civil debt, criminal offence and breach of garrison discipline.

The handling of the smith's assistant shows the Company managing labour shortages by direct contract with individual soldiers. When Whaley walked off the job over pay, the administration did not increase his wage to retain him, but found a replacement willing to take the post at the standard rate of twenty shillings a month with diet. The arrangement treated a soldier's auxiliary labour as a separate negotiable service, available at a fixed price set by the Council rather than by the market.

The Clavering case reveals how seriously the night challenge procedure was treated. A chief mate, a man of some standing, was fined and charged for striking a sentry who had challenged him correctly, even though the musket was repairable. The order protected the routine authority of an ordinary sentinel against an officer's contempt.

Speculations

The fact that Beale's debt had accumulated over several years before any distraint was issued suggests Alexander had been reluctant to escalate the matter while informal demands might still produce payment. Distraint of a planter's goods was a public and damaging step in a small community, and would have been held back until civil approaches had clearly failed.

Marsh's two separate fines for the same incident, one for drunkenness and one for swearing, point to a deliberate practice of tariffing each component of disorderly conduct rather than imposing a single composite penalty. Itemising the charges made the schedule predictable and would have given the Council a ready answer if any planter complained that the punishment was arbitrary.

53

45

Island St Helena

At a Consultation. held on. Tuesday the 3. day of June. 1707. Att Fort James

Pres: Step.n Poirier Governour. Thom: Goodwin Dep.ty Governour. Edw: Mashborne. 3. in Councill. William Marsden. 4. in Councill.

Whereas Hermon Warner Souldieer haveing Served the Right Hon.ble Company. here his Contracted time, Petitioned us to Grant him Leave to go off the said Island in the Ship Rochester Cap.t Francis Stains Commander, now on the Road, and bound to Bencoolen; It being ask't the said Warner whether he would Enter himself to Serve the said Company at Bencoolen, made Answer he was welling to Serve them Five years.

It is Ordered.

According to his Request that he take pafsage on board said Shipp, and to Serve Five years as aforesaid.

John Hemon Souldieer alfo haveing Served his Contracted time here, Petitioned, to go to Bencoolen on said Shyp &c.a

It is Ordered

That his Request be granted upon the terms aforesaid.

Wedow Mudge Complained That John Jefrey Stood Indebted to her the Sum of Four Dollars and a halfe for Three Gallons of Arrack which he refuses to pay her.

The said John Jefrey Acknowledges the Debt and promises paym.t

It is Ordered.

That the said John Jefrey pay her Four Dollars, and a halfe Next pay Day at furtheft.

John Mudge Free planter made Complaint to the Governour that M.r William Marsden Stood Indebted unto him the Sum of Three Dollars, which he promised to pay his Daughter Rachell upon her Delive= =rong a Gold Ring to M.r Eaglesfeild Second Mate of the Ship Union.

The said M.r Marsden says that Doctor Needham came to him and told him that M.r Granger, and M.r Eaglesfeild were Strept and ready to go fighting; Whereeupon went and Seeing them in a posture to feght, and having word.s about a Gold Rong, that the said M.r Eaglesfield had delivered to Rathell Mudge, Desired her to Deliver him the Ring again, he would pay her the Vallue of et, and Defires the said Eaglesfield might be Called Who

Margin Notes:

Herman Warner Enters him self for Bencoolen, to Serve 5. years J.n Hemon goes to Bencoolen for 5. years W.s Mudge Complains aga.t J.n Jefrey J.n Mudge Complains aga.t W.m Marsden

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 3 June 1707 at Fort James.

Present: Stephen Poirier Governor. Thomas Goodwin Deputy Governor. Edward Mashborne, third in council. William Marsden, fourth in council.

Hermon Warner, soldier, had served the Honourable Company here for his contracted time. He petitioned for leave to depart the island on the ship Rochester, Captain Francis Stains commander, then lying in the road and bound for Bencoolen. When asked whether he would enlist to serve the Company at Bencoolen, Warner replied that he was willing to serve for five years.

It was ordered, in accordance with his request, that he take passage on board the ship and serve for five years as stated.

John Hemon, soldier, having also served his contracted time here, petitioned to go to Bencoolen on the same ship on the same terms.

It was ordered that his request be granted on the terms stated.

Widow Mudge complained that John Jeffrey stood indebted to her in the sum of four and a half dollars for three gallons of arrack, and was refusing to pay.

Jeffrey acknowledged the debt and promised payment.

It was ordered that Jeffrey pay her four and a half dollars by the next pay day at the latest.

John Mudge, free planter, complained to Poirier that Mr William Marsden stood indebted to him in the sum of three dollars. Marsden had promised to pay that amount to Mudge's daughter Rachel on her delivering a gold ring to Mr Eaglesfield, second mate of the ship Union.

Marsden's account was that Doctor Needham had come to him and reported that Mr Granger and Mr Eaglesfield had stripped and were preparing to fight. Marsden then went to the spot, found them ready to come to blows, and learned that the quarrel concerned a gold ring which Eaglesfield had given to Rachel Mudge. Marsden asked her to return the ring to him and undertook to pay her its value. He asked that Eaglesfield be called.

Hermon Warner enlisted for Bencoolen, to serve five years. John Hemon went to Bencoolen for five years. Widow Mudge complained against John Jeffrey. John Mudge complained against William Marsden.

Interpretations

The two enlistments for Bencoolen show how the Company moved manpower around its eastern stations using soldiers whose St Helena contracts had just expired. Rather than letting time-served men go home, the Council channelled them into a fresh five-year engagement at a more distant post, with the homeward-bound ship serving as both transport and recruiting opportunity. The garrison functioned as a labour pool for the wider network of factories.

The Marsden case illustrates how a council member could become a party to litigation before the same body on which he sat. Marsden was the fourth in council at this very meeting, yet John Mudge's complaint against him was heard in open session. The record does not show him withdrawing, which suggests that personal involvement in a dispute did not automatically disqualify a councillor from the bench, only from voting on his own matter.

The arrack debt of Widow Mudge points to a domestic retail trade in spirits conducted by planters' households. Three gallons sold to a single buyer on credit, payable on the Company pay day, indicates that small-scale alcohol dealing was woven into the cash economy of the garrison, with the Company's wage cycle effectively underwriting private credit.

Speculations

Marsden's intervention in the Granger and Eaglesfield quarrel looks like a deliberate effort to defuse a fight between two ship's officers by buying out the object of contention. Offering to pay Rachel Mudge the value of the ring removed the disputed item from the scene and gave each man a way to back down without loss of face. The subsequent debt to John Mudge arose because Marsden had pledged his own credit on the spot to keep the peace.

The willingness of two time-served soldiers to commit immediately to another five years at Bencoolen suggests that returning to England held little attraction for men of their station, or that the terms offered for eastern service were materially better than what they could expect at home. A fresh contract on a passing ship was easier to take than to refuse when the alternative was an uncertain passage and no employment at the other end.

54

46

Who Says he Never gave her the Ring only, Delivered it her, to give it to the Young Woman it belonged to, which was Grace Clavering.

The said Mudge desired the Evidences meght be Called and Sworn.

Gilbert Cotgrave Saith, that being Standing at her Door, M.r Eaglesfield came to him, and pull'd a Gold Ring from his finger, or Out of his Pocket, and ask't him whether he knew it, and takeing it in his hand said No, and a little While after he Saw him peet it on Rachells Mudges finger, and Suppofes he gave it her, heareing him say Wear it for my Sake.

His Wefe says to the Same Effect.

Wedow Mudge Sworn Saith that she knows the said Eaglesfield gave the Ring to the said Rachell Mudge.

It is Ordered

That the said M.r Marsden. pay the said Mudge the Sum of Three Dollars According to his promise, And to be Repaid So Much again by M.r Eaglesfield for whom he paed said Debt, and Councell Charges.

The said M.r Eaglesfield Accordingly Promises that he will Sattisfee the said M.r Marsden, So that he shall be No Loofer by him.

Tho: Goodwin Edw: Mashborne W.m Marsden

Island St Helena. At a Consultation. held on. Tuesday the. 17.th Day of June. 1707. att Fort James.

Pres: Step.n Poirier Governour Thom: Goodwin Dep.ty Governour. Edward Mashborne. 3. on Councill, William Marsden. 4. on Councill.

Whereas Francis Leach made Complaint to the Governour. That his Brother Robert Leach to whom he Served Five years to learn the Trade of a Cordwainer, Denyed to give him two Suits of Apparell According to Agreem.t and Appears by Consultatieon held the 22.d day of Aprill. 1702. Upon which the said Robert Leach was Summoned to Appear this Day, who Accordingly did, and says that he dont Remember any Such Agreement to find his Brother Two Sects of Apparell, as aforesaid, which being but only his plea, and Confe= =quently. Not true, wherefore.

It is Ordered.

That the said Robert Leach find and Deliver his said Brother Two Suits

Margin Notes:

M.r Marsden pays 3 Doll.s to Mudg [...] Francis Leach Complains ag.t his Brother Robert about apparell R. Leach Ordered to find his Br[other] Su[its]

Eaglesfield's account was that he had never given Rachel Mudge the ring outright, but had only handed it to her so she could pass it on to the young woman it belonged to, namely Grace Clavering.

Mudge asked that the witnesses be called and sworn.

Gilbert Cotgrave testified that as he was standing at his door, Eaglesfield came up to him, pulled a gold ring from his finger or out of his pocket, and asked whether he recognised it. Taking it in his hand, Cotgrave said he did not. A short time later he saw Eaglesfield put the ring on Rachel Mudge's finger, and supposed that he gave it to her, having heard him tell her to wear it for his sake.

Cotgrave's wife gave evidence to the same effect.

Widow Mudge, sworn, said she knew that Eaglesfield had given the ring to Rachel Mudge.

It was ordered that Marsden pay Mudge the sum of three dollars in accordance with his promise, and that he in turn be repaid the same amount by Eaglesfield, on whose behalf the debt had been settled, along with council charges.

Eaglesfield then promised that he would satisfy Marsden, so that he would be no loser by him.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 17 June 1707 at Fort James.

Present: Stephen Poirier Governor. Thomas Goodwin Deputy Governor. Edward Mashborne, third in council. William Marsden, fourth in council.

Francis Leach complained to Poirier that his brother Robert Leach, to whom he had served a five-year apprenticeship to learn the trade of a cordwainer, was refusing to provide him with two suits of apparel as previously agreed and as recorded in the consultation of 22 April 1702. Robert Leach was summoned to appear on this day and did so. He said he did not remember any such agreement to find his brother two suits of apparel. That being his only plea, and consequently untrue, it was ordered that Robert Leach provide and deliver to his brother two suits.

Marsden paid three dollars to Mudge. Francis Leach complained against his brother Robert about apparel. Robert Leach was ordered to find his brother suits.

Interpretations

The ring case shows the Council acting as a careful tribunal of fact, weighing the conflicting accounts of Eaglesfield and Marsden by calling sworn witnesses rather than relying on the word of the parties. Two independent witnesses placed the ring on Rachel Mudge's finger with words of gift, and that testimony was treated as decisive against Eaglesfield's later claim that the ring had only been entrusted to her for delivery elsewhere. The chain of liability constructed by the order, with Marsden paying Mudge and Eaglesfield reimbursing Marsden, preserved the peace-keeping intervention Marsden had made while ensuring that the cost fell ultimately on the man whose conduct had created the dispute.

The Leach decision shows how an indenture of apprenticeship was enforced as a binding contract even five years after its making. The Council relied on the entry in its own consultation book from 22 April 1702 as conclusive proof of the terms, and rejected the master's bare denial as not amounting to a defence. The administrative record carried the weight of a written deed.

Speculations

Eaglesfield's shift in story, from a gift made in front of witnesses with the words wear it for my sake, to a mere errand of delivery to Grace Clavering, suggests an attempt to extricate himself from an entanglement that had already produced one near-fight on the island and would have produced more if news of the gift reached Grace Clavering or her family. Reframing the transaction as a delivery rather than a gift cost him nothing in the original quarrel but might have protected him from a separate complaint.

Robert Leach's denial of an agreement so recently and formally recorded points to a calculated bet that his brother would not pursue the matter or could not prove it. Having just been compelled to deliver up the main estate at the previous month's consultation, he may have hoped to retain at least the apparel by simple refusal, and only abandoned the position when the Council confronted him with the entry in its own book.

55

47

Suits of Apparell, One for holy days, and Another for Worky days, accord ing to Agreement, within a Months time from the Date hereof, and pay Councell charges.

Whereas Thomas Marley Souldieer made Complaint Last Week to the Governour, That Walter Belvard had Affaulted him bruised and Wounded him on the Face, and head, Infomuch he was all of a Gore blood.

Whereeupon. the said Belvard was Summoned, and says the said Marley gave him very abefive and Impertenent Language, Calling him Scotch Dogg, befedes other Scurrelous Names, which was the Reason. he beat him So.

It is Ordered.

That the said Belvard for Unmercifully, and Rashly, beateing and Wenn= =ding the said Marley, and for breach of the Peace be fined the Sum of Five Dollars, One halfe to the Cheurch, the other to Account of Fortefecation, and bound Over to the peace for his good Behaviour, towards all her Majy Leedge people. and Effpeccially, towards Thomas Marley, Until Next Sefse= =ons According to Usuall Custom, and pay councell Charges.

Whereas. John Jefrey Souldieer Appeared this day in order to be Difchargeed from the Companys Service, having Served Some years more then he Contracted time, But we Confidering that he was Very Young when forst taken onto pay, and being Now able to do the Company Service and it being Ward time it would be a weakening to the Island, if all Souldieers were permeted to go off. that has Served their time, wherefore.

It is Ordered.

That the said John Jefrey Serve the Company One Year Longer, in hopes of having more Souldieers Sent here from England.

Whereas John ffrench Gunner, who hath Served his Con= tracted time here, presented his Petition this Day Containing Three Articles Voz.t

1.s That we would be pleased to Allow him an additionall Sallary. 2.d A Servant to do him Service being in great Want of One. 3 His Diet at the Table in Shipping time, and on all Alarms

All which being Confedered.

It is Ordered.

That the said Frenchs Petition be Sent to the Right Hon.ble Company by this Fleet, that they may allow him what they think fitt, it Not Lyeing in our brest, to grant any of his proposalls, and that he Serve the Company One Year Longer, presuming by that time we shall have a Ship directly from England, and the said Hon.ble Company Orders thereupon.

Know all Men by these presents that We John Nichols, and John Alexander, Do hereby Enter into a Recognezance of Ten pounds of Currant Money of the said Island, payable to the Right Hon.ble Uneted Company for

Margin Notes:

Tho. Marley Complains agt W. Belvard

Two suits of apparel were to be supplied, one for holy days and another for working days, in accordance with the agreement, within a month from this date, with payment of council charges.

Thomas Marley, soldier, had complained the previous week to Poirier that Walter Belvard had assaulted him, bruising and wounding him on the face and head so badly that he was all of a gore of blood. Belvard was summoned and said that Marley had used very abusive and impertinent language towards him, calling him Scotch dog among other scurrilous names, and that this was why he had beaten him as he did.

It was ordered that Belvard, for unmercifully and rashly beating and wounding Marley and for breach of the peace, be fined the sum of five dollars, half to the church and half to the account of fortifications. He was bound over to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour towards all Her Majesty's liege people, and especially towards Thomas Marley, until the next sessions in accordance with usual custom, and to pay council charges.

John Jeffrey, soldier, appeared this day to be discharged from the Company's service, having served some years beyond his contracted time. Consideration was given to the fact that he was very young when first taken onto pay, that he was now able to render the Company good service, and that wartime made it inadvisable to let every time-served soldier go, since it would weaken the island.

It was ordered that Jeffrey serve the Company one year longer, in the hope that more soldiers would be sent out from England in the meantime.

John French, gunner, had also served his contracted time here. He presented a petition on this day containing three articles:

That an additional salary be allowed him. That a servant be granted him, since he was in great want of one. That he be given his diet at the table in shipping time and on all alarms.

After consideration, it was ordered that French's petition be forwarded to the Honourable Company by this fleet, so that they could allow him whatever they thought fit, since it was not within the Council's authority to grant any of his proposals. He was to serve the Company one year longer, on the presumption that by then a ship would have come directly from England with the Company's orders on the matter.

Be it known to all that John Nichols and John Alexander entered into a recognisance of ten pounds in current money of the island, payable to the Honourable United Company for [...]

Thomas Marley complained against Walter Belvard.

Interpretations

The Belvard fine illustrates the dual purpose of the Council's penal jurisdiction. The five dollars were split equally between the church and the fortifications account, turning a private assault into a contribution to two of the settlement's standing institutional needs. Half-and-half division between a religious and a defensive purpose was a recognised pattern in English magistracy of the period, and the Council adopted it here without modification. The binding over until the next sessions, with particular reference to the victim, applied a standard English peace-keeping device to a colonial garrison setting.

The handling of Jeffrey and French shows the limits of the Council's authority in personnel matters. The body could compel a time-served soldier to remain for another year by invoking the wartime weakening of the island, but could not vary the terms of a gunner's service to grant additional salary, a servant or victualling. Those concessions had to be referred home. The Council disposed freely of bodies, but money and rank were reserved to the directors in London.

Speculations

The decision to extend Jeffrey's service by a year rather than a longer term suggests the Council was working on the assumption that the next fleet would bring fresh recruits and resolve the manpower question. A short extension kept the man on the books without committing him to the indefinite service that would have been required if no relief were expected, and gave Jeffrey a definite point at which his obligation would end.

The Council's refusal to act on any of French's three proposals, while still forwarding them to London, looks like a deliberate strategy of preserving the Company's exclusive control over conditions of service while shielding the local administration from blame. If the directors granted the petition the local Council took no credit, and if they refused it the local Council took no responsibility. The same device of forwarding rather than deciding is visible elsewhere in these records whenever a request involved a structural change to pay or perquisites.

56

48

for the good Behaviour of Walter Belvard free Planter, towards all her Majestys Leedge people, and Effpeccially. Thomas Marley Souldieer and for his Personall Appearance before Governour and Councell, when there unto Called, Wittness our hands this. 17. day of June. 1707.

John Nichols John Alexander

June the. 18.th. 1707.

Whereas Daniell Griffith free planter came this Day and made Complaint to the Governour as followeth.

The Declaration. of Daniell Griffith free planter against John Long, In the behalf of homfelfe and James Reder, his Son in Law, for that he the said John Long being in his own Nature a very Uncevill, and adold Young Man, and too much Encouraged by his Mother, has in his own Ground Challenged the said Griffith to feght him, and that he the said Griffith would Not be quiet till he had broake his head, Meaning the said Griffith. That he the said Griffith Cannot go to his Geumwood Ground, in peace or Safety, for the said John Long, his Doggs &c.a That he had Likewife Threatned, and this day has abused his Son in Law James Reder Goeng upon his Lawfull Occasions in the Fort, all which he is ready to make Oath of.

Daniell Griffith

It is Ordered.

That the said John Long be Secured in Custody till he give good Securety for his future good behaviour till difcharged by Law.

The said John Long Accordingly Offered Two Men for his bayle who were Accepted off, and a Recognizance made as followeth.

Island St Helena. Know all Men by these presents That we Thomas Cason Serjeant, and Joseph Parsons of the said Island, Do hereby Enter into a Recognizance of Ten pounds in good and Currant Money of the said Island, payable to the Right Hon.ble Uneted Company for the good behaviour of John Long Longleman, towards Daniell Griffith free planter, and all his ffamely, as well as all her Majesty Leedge People, and alfo for his Personall appearance before Governour and Councell, when there eunto Called; Wittness our hands this. 18.th day of June. 1707.

Wittnessed John Alexander. Thomas Cason Joseph Parsons

Tho: Goodwin Edw: Mashborne W.m Marsden

John Nichols and John Alexander entered into a recognisance for the good behaviour of Walter Belvard, free planter, towards all Her Majesty's liege people and especially towards Thomas Marley, soldier, and for his personal appearance before the Governor and Council when called. Signed under their hands on 17 June 1707.

John Nichols. John Alexander.

18 June 1707.

Daniell Griffith, free planter, came on this day and made complaint to Poirier as follows.

The declaration of Daniell Griffith, free planter, against John Long, on behalf of himself and his son in law James Reder. Long was by nature a very uncivil and unruly young man, much encouraged by his mother. On his own ground he had challenged Griffith to fight, declaring that Griffith would not be quiet until he had broken his head. Griffith could not go to his gumwood ground in peace or safety because of Long and his dogs. Long had also threatened, and that same day had abused, his son in law James Reder while Reder was going about his lawful business in the Fort. Griffith stood ready to swear to all of this.

Daniell Griffith.

It was ordered that John Long be held in custody until he gave good security for his future good behaviour, until discharged by law.

Long accordingly offered two men as his bail, who were accepted, and a recognisance was made as follows.

Island of St Helena. Thomas Cason, sergeant, and Joseph Parsons of the island entered into a recognisance of ten pounds in good and current money of the island, payable to the Honourable United Company, for the good behaviour of John Long, longleman, towards Daniell Griffith, free planter, and all his family, as well as towards all Her Majesty's liege people, and for his personal appearance before the Governor and Council when called. Signed under their hands on 18 June 1707.

Witnessed by John Alexander. Thomas Cason. Joseph Parsons.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Interpretations

The recognisance procedure shows the Council reproducing the standard English mechanism of binding over with sureties on a small colonial scale. Two private men pledged ten pounds against the future conduct of a third, with the Company rather than the Crown as the party entitled to forfeit the bond. The substitution of the Company for the sovereign in the wording of the obligation is a quiet but striking adaptation of metropolitan legal forms to corporate jurisdiction, while leaving the underlying structure of recognisance and surety untouched.

The Griffith complaint reveals a recurring source of friction in the settlement, namely access across private holdings to outlying grounds. Griffith's stated grievance was not that Long had assaulted him but that he could not reach his gumwood ground in safety because of Long and his dogs. A planter's livelihood depended on regular passage between dispersed plots, and a single hostile neighbour with dogs could effectively blockade that movement. The Council's response treated the threat to passage as a matter of public order requiring sureties, not merely a private quarrel.

Speculations

The reference to Long being too much encouraged by his mother suggests Griffith was framing the complaint to forestall any defence that Long was an inexperienced young man acting on his own. By identifying a household influence behind the conduct, the complaint pointed to a continuing problem rather than an isolated outburst, which would have strengthened the case for sureties against future behaviour.

The choice of a sergeant of the garrison as one of Long's two sureties points to the entanglement of military and civilian society in the small settlement. A serving non-commissioned officer pledging his own money against the conduct of a planter's son indicates either personal connection or the limited pool of solvent men available to stand surety. The same names recur across these proceedings as bailors, witnesses and litigants, which suggests a tight network in which standing surety was a routine social obligation among the better-off residents.

57

49

Island St Helena.

At a Consultation. held on. Wednsday the. 25.th day of June. 1707. att Fort James

Pres: Step.n Poirier Governour. Thom: Goodwin Dep.ty Governor Edward Masborne. 3. in Councill William Marsden. 4.th in Councill

Whereas M.r John Lufskin free Planter being feully Resolved to go of the said Island in One of the Men of Warr now in the Road bound for England, Affered to Sell, his house, thirty Acres of Land, and provefions which adjoyns to the Right Hon.ble Companys Pasture for theer use, which we Confederng to be and Ly very Useful for them, and Conformable to theer Orders Dated. the. 1.st of August. 1683.

It is hereby agreed and Ordered.

That the said House Land &c.a be bought, for the use and Benefitt of the said Hon.ble Company for the Sum of Three hundred and fefty Pounds to be paed the said M.r Lufskin in Bills of Exchange having No Money in the Store to pay him here.

Tho: Goodwin Edw: Mashborne W.m Marsden

Island St Helena At a Consultation. Held on. Wednsday the. 2.d of July. 1707. att ffort James.

Pres: Step.n Poirier Governour. Thom: Goodwin Dep.ty Governor Edward Mashborne. 3. in Council. William Marsden. 4.th in Council.

Whereas M.r Griffith, and M.r Duston Executors of the Last Will and Testamen of William Duston Late free planter deceased, brought the said Will this Day, before Governour and Councell, in order of having the same proved, which was Accordingly. done by the Oaths of John Jones, Henry Batchelor, and Leonard Hunt, who made Oath that the same Will now produced

John Nichols and John Alexander entered into a recognisance for the good behaviour of Walter Belvard, free planter, towards all Her Majesty's liege people and especially towards Thomas Marley, soldier, and for his personal appearance before the Governor and Council when called. Signed under their hands on 17 June 1707.

John Nichols. John Alexander.

18 June 1707.

Daniell Griffith, free planter, came on this day and made complaint to Poirier as follows.

The declaration of Daniell Griffith, free planter, against John Long, on behalf of himself and his son in law James Reder. Long was by nature a very uncivil and unruly young man, much encouraged by his mother. On his own ground he had challenged Griffith to fight, declaring that Griffith would not be quiet until he had broken his head. Griffith could not go to his gumwood ground in peace or safety because of Long and his dogs. Long had also threatened, and that same day had abused, his son in law James Reder while Reder was going about his lawful business in the Fort. Griffith stood ready to swear to all of this.

Daniell Griffith.

It was ordered that John Long be held in custody until he gave good security for his future good behaviour, until discharged by law.

Long accordingly offered two men as his bail, who were accepted, and a recognisance was made as follows.

Island of St Helena. Thomas Cason, sergeant, and Joseph Parsons of the island entered into a recognisance of ten pounds in good and current money of the island, payable to the Honourable United Company, for the good behaviour of John Long, longleman, towards Daniell Griffith, free planter, and all his family, as well as towards all Her Majesty's liege people, and for his personal appearance before the Governor and Council when called. Signed under their hands on 18 June 1707.

Witnessed by John Alexander. Thomas Cason. Joseph Parsons.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Interpretations

The recognisance procedure shows the Council reproducing the standard English mechanism of binding over with sureties on a small colonial scale. Two private men pledged ten pounds against the future conduct of a third, with the Company rather than the Crown as the party entitled to forfeit the bond. The substitution of the Company for the sovereign in the wording of the obligation is a quiet but striking adaptation of metropolitan legal forms to corporate jurisdiction, while leaving the underlying structure of recognisance and surety untouched.

The Griffith complaint reveals a recurring source of friction in the settlement, namely access across private holdings to outlying grounds. Griffith's stated grievance was not that Long had assaulted him but that he could not reach his gumwood ground in safety because of Long and his dogs. A planter's livelihood depended on regular passage between dispersed plots, and a single hostile neighbour with dogs could effectively blockade that movement. The Council's response treated the threat to passage as a matter of public order requiring sureties, not merely a private quarrel.

Speculations

The reference to Long being too much encouraged by his mother suggests Griffith was framing the complaint to forestall any defence that Long was an inexperienced young man acting on his own. By identifying a household influence behind the conduct, the complaint pointed to a continuing problem rather than an isolated outburst, which would have strengthened the case for sureties against future behaviour.

The choice of a sergeant of the garrison as one of Long's two sureties points to the entanglement of military and civilian society in the small settlement. A serving non-commissioned officer pledging his own money against the conduct of a planter's son indicates either personal connection or the limited pool of solvent men available to stand surety. The same names recur across these proceedings as bailors, witnesses and litigants, which suggests a tight network in which standing surety was a routine social obligation among the better-off residents.

58

50

Produced was the Last Will and Testament, of the said Deceased Williem Duston, and that they know of no other by him made Either in word or Writeing.

It is Ordered

That the said Will now produced be Received, and Approved of According to the Oaths aforesaid, and Coppys given when Demanded.

Likewise the said Executors Defired that the Wedow Duston might be Sworn, to Deliver a true and Exact Inventory of her Deceased Husband Estate, both Reall, and personall, who Accordengly was Sworn; And Samuell Desfontaines, and Leonard Hunt free planter were Nominated and Appointed to Appraise the said Estate According to the best of their Judgment, and bring the same to Governour and Councell Next Councell day, that the said Estate may be devided According to the Testators Will. Tho: Goodwin Edw: Mashborne W.m Marsden

Island St Helena Att a Consultation. held on Tuesday the. 22.d Day of July. 1707. Att Fort James.

Pres: Step.n Poirier Governour Thom: Goodwin. Dep.ty Govern: Edward Mashborne. 3. in Coun: William Marsden. 4.th in Coun:

Whereas M.r Edward Mashborne having lately Arrived here and ordered by the R.t Hon.ble Company to be in Councell And being Defitute of a Habitation having Let out his house Land &c.a before her Departceure, from hence, Defired that we would Let him have the House Land and Provifion which we lately Peurchased of M.r John Lufkeen for the Use and on behalf of the R.t Hon.ble Company.

Upon Confederation of the said M.r Edward Mashborne being at present Deftitute of a Habitateon as aforesaid, and One of the Council.

It is Ordered and Agreed

That the said M.r Mashborne have the abovesaid premises for the Term of. 5. years at the Rate of Twenty five pound p Annum and to Leave the same in as good Condeteon as at this time of pofsefsring the same which is Lest to the Judgment of the Councell to Veew. Errors in Petsing his Bony and Allowable Bargains

The executors produced the last will and testament of the deceased William Duston, and stated that they knew of no other made by him, whether in writing or by word.

It was ordered that the will now produced be received and approved in accordance with the oaths given, and that copies be supplied on demand.

The executors also requested that Widow Duston be sworn to deliver a true and exact inventory of her deceased husband's estate, both real and personal. She was accordingly sworn. Samuel Desfontaines and Leonard Hunt, free planter, were nominated and appointed to appraise the estate to the best of their judgment, and to bring the appraisal before the Governor and Council on the next council day, so that the estate could be divided according to the testator's will.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 22 July 1707 at Fort James.

Present: Stephen Poirier Governor. Thomas Goodwin Deputy Governor. Edward Mashborne, third in council. William Marsden, fourth in council.

Mr Edward Mashborne had recently arrived on the island, having been ordered by the Honourable Company to take a seat in council. He was without a place to live, having let out his house, land and other property before his departure from the island on his earlier voyage. He asked that he be allowed to take the house, land and provision ground lately purchased from Mr John Lufkin for the use and on behalf of the Honourable Company.

Given that Mashborne was at present without a habitation as stated, and was a member of the council, it was ordered and agreed that he have the above premises for a term of five years at twenty five pounds a year, leaving them in as good a condition as at the time of taking possession, the state of the property at handover being left to the council's judgment to view.

Errors in passing his bonds and allowable bargains.

Interpretations

The probate procedure for William Duston shows the Council functioning as a full probate court, taking proof of the will from the executors, swearing the widow to produce an inventory and appointing two free planters as appraisers. Real and personal property were brought within the same valuation, and the division of the estate would be carried out under the Council's direct supervision at the next sitting. Probate, valuation and distribution were all handled within a single administrative body without recourse to any ecclesiastical court of the kind that would have heard such a matter in England.

The Mashborne lease shows the Council disposing of Company property in favour of one of its own members, with the same member sitting and signing the order. Mashborne is recorded as third in council at the very meeting that granted him a five-year tenancy of the former Lufkin estate at twenty five pounds a year. The arrangement was justified on the ground that a sitting councillor needed accommodation, but the absence of any recusal, competing offer or external valuation indicates that the Council saw no procedural difficulty in granting beneficial leases to its own members.

Speculations

The decision to lease the Lufkin estate to Mashborne rather than sell it suggests the Company preferred to retain the freehold of property it had recently acquired, while still extracting an income. A five-year term gave Mashborne security of tenure for the likely duration of his service in council, and would have allowed the Company to recover the property if his employment ended or if a more advantageous arrangement presented itself.

The instruction that the premises be left in as good a condition as at handover, with the condition to be judged by the Council itself, points to an awareness that lease covenants on remote stations were difficult to enforce. Reserving the assessment to the Council's own view, rather than to an external surveyor or a fixed schedule of fittings, kept the matter under the same body that had granted the lease and avoided the need to import any independent valuation procedure.

59

51

Whereas William Marsh free Planter made Complaint that Thomas Burnham free Planter had taken a Cow and Calfe into his Pofsefsion from off the said Marshes Land with out his Consent or knowledge and do now Detain. the same Notwithstandeing being Demanded, where= fore Defires that the said. Thomas Burnham may make Sattisfaction for his offence.

The said Thomas Burnham haveing been Summoned says in his behalfe as followeth.

That his Mother in Law M.rs Marsh made a Bargain with him to have the Milk of the Cow till Betty her Daughter Come of Age, and M.r Marsh being present and hearing the Bargain Never Confenneled it therefore Concluded he might take pofsefsion of said Cow, and Calfe, without any more to do, or the Least Offence, and Defires Edward Marsh may be Sworn.

Edward Marsh being Examined Saith that his Mother made a Bargain with Thomas Burnham that he shoeled have the Milk of the Cow as aforesaid till Betty Marsh Came of Age, and that he was to Look after the Increase of the Cattle that came of her, which his Father heard, and Never Defaumelled.

It is Ordered

That upon Confederation of the said Thomas Burnham haveing Not good and Sufficient Evidence That the said William Marsh her Father in Law, made any Bargain with him for the Milk of said Cow, and her Increase, and the said Marsh Offering to take his Oath that he Knew Nothing of his Wife makeing any Bargain it's Referred to his Depofiteon.

Accordingly. the said Marsh was Sworne and Depofed that he knew Nothing of the Bargain that his Wife made with Thomas Burnham; And feurther Ordered thereeupon that the said Burnham Return the said Cow and Calfe to the said Marsh again, and pay Councell Charges.

Whereas. Isaack Leech Montrofs, Hugh Cloutman, An= =thony Dehure, and John. Nichols Souldieer Neglected in Repaireing to theer Refpective posts on the Last Alarm.

Isaack Leech says that he was a Fefshing and did Not see the Ship, Nor heard any thing of the Alarm. till Came Negh home, and then the Ship was on the Road

Hugh Cloutman Saith that Liveing at such a great Diftance from the Fort, Could Not Make his Appearance any Sooner then he did.

Anthony Dehaure Saith that he was in the Fort Valley, Some time before the Ship came Oppofete to Ruperts, and not findeing the Key of his Land lords house, Stayed to Lodge his Victualls and then Came to the Fort and appeared on Arms.

William Penny Saith that this is the forst time he Neglected his Deuty and Defires fpardon. It

William Marsh, free planter, complained that Thomas Burnham, free planter, had taken a cow and calf into his possession from Marsh's land without his consent or knowledge, and was still keeping them despite Marsh's demand for their return. Marsh asked that Burnham be made to give satisfaction for the offence.

Burnham was summoned and gave the following account. His mother in law Mrs Marsh had made a bargain with him by which he was to have the milk of the cow until her daughter Betty came of age. Marsh had been present, had heard the bargain, and had not objected. Burnham therefore concluded that he could take possession of the cow and calf without any further step, and without giving any offence. He asked that Edward Marsh be sworn.

Edward Marsh, on being examined, said his mother had made a bargain with Burnham that he was to have the milk of the cow until Betty Marsh came of age, and that he was to look after the increase of the cattle bred from her. His father had heard this and had raised no objection.

It was ordered, on the consideration that Burnham had no good or sufficient evidence that William Marsh, the father in law, had himself made any such bargain for the milk of the cow and her increase, and that Marsh offered to take his oath that he knew nothing of any bargain made by his wife, the matter be referred to his deposition.

Marsh was then sworn and deposed that he knew nothing of the bargain his wife had made with Thomas Burnham. It was further ordered that Burnham return the cow and calf to Marsh and pay council charges.

Isaac Leech, matross, Hugh Cloutman, Anthony Dehure and John Nichols, soldier, had neglected to repair to their respective posts on the last alarm.

Isaac Leech said he was fishing and did not see the ship, nor hear of the alarm, until he came near home, by which time the ship was already in the road.

Hugh Cloutman said he lived at such a great distance from the Fort that he could not have made his appearance any sooner than he did.

Anthony Dehure said he had been in the Fort Valley some time before the ship came opposite to Rupert's, and not finding the key to his landlord's house, had stayed to lodge his victuals before coming on to the Fort and appearing under arms.

William Penny said this was the first time he had neglected his duty, and asked pardon. It [...]

Interpretations

The cow dispute shows how the Council interpreted the legal capacity of a married woman in property arrangements. Mrs Marsh's bargain with Burnham was treated as not binding on her husband unless he had positively assented, and his sworn statement that he knew nothing of it was enough to undo the transaction entirely. A wife could negotiate over family livestock, but the disposition was voidable at the husband's word if he had not consented, and the Council placed the burden of proving his consent on the party seeking to rely on the bargain.

The roll of absentees from the last alarm reveals the practical limits of garrison readiness on a dispersed plantation island. Men were called from fishing grounds, from distant residences and from errands of victualling, and each had to give an individual account before the Council. The system depended on every armed man, civilian and soldier, making his way to a designated post on hearing the alarm signal, and the proceedings show the Council inquiring into each delay rather than imposing a uniform penalty.

Speculations

Edward Marsh's testimony in support of Burnham, against the interest of his own father, suggests that the original bargain over the cow had been a known arrangement within the household and that Edward was prepared to confirm it under oath. The collapse of the case rested not on his lack of credibility but on the Council's prior ruling that a wife's bargain did not bind the husband without his consent, which made his testimony legally insufficient however truthful it might have been.

Dehure's explanation about lodging his victuals before coming to the Fort hints at the kind of small domestic obstacle that could delay a man under arms. The detail that he could not find his landlord's key, and would not leave his food in the open, points to a calculation about the security of personal provisions in a settlement where theft from open premises was a recurring problem visible elsewhere in these records. The Council was being asked to weigh that practical concern against the requirement of immediate appearance under arms.

60

52

It is Ordered

That all the aforesaid Souldieers be Difmift with only a Severe check and admonefned for the future.

Whereas Roger a Black belongeing to the Estate of Edward Heath, having been Run away for the Space of Eleaven Weaks, and having been taken and Imprefoned and Severall Persons Loofeing hoggs to the Great Detriment of the Owners, the said Black was Examined who says he Stole. 5 Bagg of Yams from the Slats, out of the Companys Plantateon and 5 Bagg of Yams from out of Taylors Greund, and a few from William Seale and that while he was Run away he Stole, and Killed Seaven Hoggs Voz.t 2. of Connoways 2. of James Drayper 2. of Simon Whaley, 5 of John Coulfop,

Which he Roasted at the Horfe point where he Lay, when Run away most part of the time.

Whereas the abovesaid black hath made a Confefsion of Killing Seaven Hoggs befedes other Roberys dureing the time of his Abfence from his Mafterr Service, and John Alexander having left Severall Grown Hoggs whileft he the said Black Run away, and having Employeed Gilbert Colgrave, and his Brother John Colgrave his Own Servants who is very well Acquainted with the Usuall Walks, and Range of said Hoggs to Search Severall days, and not only. them but has gone homfelfe, wherefore cant but Conclude the said Roger has Stolen, and made afse of them by all, Probableety, Therefore defires Sattisfaction may be made Valueing the Same at Thirty Shellings a peece One with Another

It is Ordered

That the said Thomas Foster Shall make full Sattisfaction for what his black has Stolen, and to pay Councell Charges. £ s d John Alexander - - - - - - 6: 00 Wedow Connoway - - - 3 00 The Company - - - - - - 0 12 0

And as for the Rest to Compound with the Owners.

And that the said Roger be peunished According to the Laws made in Cafes of Blacks Reunning away and Stealing.

We finding no proofe nor Confefsion of S.d Black Stealing any M.r Alexanders hoggs Only S.d Gov.r Gave him his Oath to S.e Vallue of S.d Hogs he had Lost in that time. Therefore, if he thinks himself agreed, We, refer him to a Jury y.t

Tho: Goodwin Edw: Mashborne W.m Marsden

It was ordered that all the aforesaid soldiers be dismissed with only a severe check, and admonished for the future.

Roger, a black slave belonging to the estate of Edward Heath, had been absent for eleven weeks, and had since been taken and imprisoned. Several people had lost hogs to his great detriment of the owners. On examination, Roger admitted he had stolen five bags of yams from the slats out of the Company's plantation, five bags of yams from Taylor's ground, and a few from William Seale. He further confessed that while he was away he had stolen and killed seven hogs, namely two of Conway's, two of James Draper's, two of Simon Whaley's and five of John Coulson's, which he had roasted at Horse Point, where he had lain for most of the time he was absent.

Roger having confessed to killing seven hogs and to other robberies during his absence from his master's service, John Alexander stated that he had lost several grown hogs during the period Roger was absent. He had employed his own servants Gilbert Cotgrave and his brother John Cotgrave, both well acquainted with the usual walks and range of the hogs, to search for them over several days. They had searched, and he had gone himself, without success. He concluded by all probability that Roger had stolen and made use of them, and asked for satisfaction at the rate of thirty shillings apiece, one with another.

It was ordered that Thomas Foster make full satisfaction for what his slave had stolen, and pay council charges, as follows:

John Alexander £6 0s 0d. Widow Conway £3 0s 0d. The Company 12s 0d.

As for the rest, Foster was to compound with the owners.

Roger was to be punished according to the laws made in cases of slaves running away and stealing.

The Council finding no proof nor confession of the slave having stolen any of Mr Alexander's hogs, only that Poirier had given Alexander his oath as to the value of the hogs he had lost in that time, if Alexander thought himself aggrieved he was referred to a jury for that matter.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Interpretations

The disposition of Roger's case shows the layered structure of liability for the conduct of a slave on the island. The slave himself was to be punished under the special laws governing runaways and theft by slaves, while his master Thomas Foster was held civilly liable to compensate the owners of the stolen property in money. Two parallel proceedings flowed from the same set of acts, one criminal against the person of the slave and one in restitution against the purse of the master, with the Council assessing both in a single sitting.

The final paragraph reveals a procedural limit on the Council's willingness to award damages on bare proof. Alexander's claim rested on his own sworn estimate of hogs lost during the period of Roger's absence, with no confession from the slave and no direct evidence linking the disappearance to him. Rather than dismiss the claim, the Council referred Alexander to a jury, which indicates that a jury trial was the recognised next step on the island when sworn assertion was the only basis for a money claim and the Council itself declined to act on it.

Speculations

The decision to dismiss the four delinquent men from the alarm muster with only a severe check, rather than fines or further service, suggests the Council judged that uniform discipline against scattered residents who lived at real distances from the Fort would have created more resentment than improved readiness. A formal reprimand on the record left the possibility of stiffer treatment for any future failure, while not penalising men whose excuses were at least plausible.

The choice to assess damages at thirty shillings a head for the hogs Roger had admitted killing points to a settled customary valuation for grown hogs on the island, applied without separate appraisal of each animal. A standard rate simplified the work of the Council in cases of this kind and avoided protracted dispute about the merits of particular beasts, while still giving the owners a recognised measure of recovery against the slave's master.

61

53

Island St Helena

At a Consultation, held on. Tuesday the . 12.th day of August. 1707. Att Fort James.

Step.n Poirier Govern.r: indispofed in the Countrey Pres: Thom: Goodwin. Dep.ty Governour. Edward Mashborne. 3. in Councill. William Marsden. 4.th in Councill

Whereas. the Governour being so much Indispofed that he could Not appear in Councell, ordered the Rest of the Councell to Meefe and Sett in Councell this Day, to Determine what Cafes are Dependeing between Person and Person, which they did as followeth.

Susanna Dufton Wedow made Complaint to Governour that M.r Jonathan Dufton and M.r Daniell Griffith Executors of her decea= sed Heufbamds Last Will and Testament, denyed her a Sufficient Maintai= =nance, Even Vectualls, to Eate, and defered they Meght be Summoned again= nft this day, who Accordingly were, and being Demanded of why theifded Not, allow her Vectualls to Subsist on, made Reply that She has all the Eftate in her own pofsefsion and Left to her own Will, and pleasure to Make use of it, for her and Familys own Necefsary Use.

M.rs Duston Says that Jonathan Dufton told her, if She made any Use of any thing Eccept yams it Should be Deducted out of her Therds, which deed Not She Shoueld Make it good.

The said M.r Griffith and Dufton Executors, says further That they Never denyed her any Sufficcent Maintainance, which they do allowher Still tell. the Dirdelend be made, but not to Waste, or Imbazle any. thing Unlawfully.

Whereas William Seals Cheurch Warden for this present Year made Complaint that Jonathan Hegham free planter, did work on Sunday the. 27.th July last, by Diggong Yams in his Plantateon.

The said Jonathan Hegham appeared, and says that he has no Manner of helps, and being Intended to come to the ffort the Monday follow= =ing to Get Some theings out of the Store, and having No Yams ready Dugg for his Children, to Eate, deed Digg about halfe a Pott of Yams, and Left them untrimmed in the Ground for his boys to boyle and Trim Next day.

The said William Seals made Complaint further That George Dwight Fell Some fire wood on the Sunday aforesaid.

The said Dwight Denyeed the Crime.

John Mudge being Summoned as an Evidence was Sworn, and Saith, That he being pasfeng by the said Dwights on the Day aforesaid, heard

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 12 August 1707 at Fort James.

Stephen Poirier, Governor, indisposed in the country.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor. Edward Mashborne, third in council. William Marsden, fourth in council.

Poirier being too unwell to attend, he ordered the rest of the council to meet and sit on this day to settle such cases as were pending between person and person. They did so as follows.

Susanna Duston, widow, complained to the Council that Mr Jonathan Duston and Mr Daniell Griffith, executors of her deceased husband's last will and testament, were denying her a sufficient maintenance, even victuals to eat. She asked that they be summoned to appear on this day, which they were. When asked why they did not allow her victuals to subsist on, they replied that she had the whole estate in her own possession, left to her own will and pleasure to use for the necessary needs of herself and the family.

Mrs Duston said that Jonathan Duston had told her that if she made use of anything except yams, it would be deducted from her thirds, and that whatever fell short of that share she would have to make good.

The executors said further that they had never denied her sufficient maintenance, and that they were still allowing it to her until the dividend should be made, only requiring that she not waste or embezzle anything unlawfully.

William Seale, churchwarden for the present year, complained that Jonathan Higham, free planter, had worked on Sunday 27 July last, by digging yams in his plantation.

Higham appeared and said he had no help of any kind. As he intended to come to the Fort on the following Monday to fetch some things from the store, and as no yams were dug ready for his children to eat, he had dug about half a pot of yams and left them untrimmed in the ground for his boys to boil and trim the next day.

Seale further complained that George Dwight had felled some firewood on the same Sunday.

Dwight denied the charge.

John Mudge was summoned as a witness and sworn. He said that as he was passing by Dwight's on that day, he heard [...]

Interpretations

The exchange between the widow Duston and her late husband's executors shows the practical difficulty of the customary widow's thirds when the estate had not yet been valued and divided. The executors' position was that everything remained in her hands until the appraisal was completed, but any consumption beyond yams would be charged against her eventual share. The widow's complaint was that this rule left her, in effect, on a yam diet during the interval, with anything more substantial counted as a debt. The Council was being asked to mediate between a strict accounting view of the executors' duties and a working notion of what amounted to maintenance.

The churchwarden's complaints reveal that Sabbath observance on the island was enforced through the same Council as ordinary civil and criminal matters, with the churchwarden acting as informer and the planters answering before the Governor's deputy. The two cases brought on this day involved a man preparing food for his children and another said to have cut firewood, both routine domestic acts that became offences only because they occurred on Sunday. The detail with which Higham described digging half a pot of yams shows that the defence consisted in minimising the act rather than denying that Sunday work was punishable.

Speculations

Goodwin's willingness to convene the council in Poirier's absence to clear pending business between person and person suggests that the schedule of consultation days was treated as too important to interrupt for the Governor's illness. The phrasing of the entry, recording that Poirier had specifically ordered the rest of the council to sit, indicates a concern to preserve formal authority for the proceedings rather than to leave routine business in suspense until his recovery.

The executors' insistence that the widow could use the estate freely, set against her own report that she had been warned anything beyond yams would be charged against her thirds, points to a familiar tactic in administering an estate where the residual beneficiaries had an interest in restraining the widow's consumption. By stating the principle generously in council while applying it strictly at the kitchen door, the executors could appear reasonable on the record while in practice limiting the widow's use of stores to the cheapest available staple.

62

54

heard the said Dwight or his Black fell Wood, and turning about Saw that it was the said Dwight, and Thereupon Called to him and told him he had better go to Cheurch then to chop wood, and has Seen him fell Wood on Severall Sundays before.

The said Dwight said he only Split a Stick of Wood that lay in the Yard, to boyle a Letle Vectuals, but did Not Carry. or Fetch any at no feur= =ther dictance from his house.

It is Ordered.

That the said Jonathan Hegham Ingenicousty Confefsing he dugg halfe a Pott of Yams, and Confederong he has no helps and in a very Low Sondeteon be will fined Two Shellings to the Fortifecations, and One Shelling More to the Cheurch, and pay Councell Charges;

And admonefned Not to be Guilty of the Like Crime for the future Upon pain of Severe fine and Punnishment.

It is further Ordered

That the said George Dwight for his Offence be fined the Sum of Four Shellings to the Fortefecations, and Two Shellings to the Cheurch befedes Sex Shellings More for Swearing in the face of the Court and presence of Councell, and pay Councell Charges.

Whereas Samuell, Brome Souldieer presented his Pe= tetion this Day, Defired to be admitted as a School Mafter to Teach Childeren in Reading Writeing &c.a at the Countrey Cheurch.

Upon Confederation that the Right Hon.ble Company allows a School Mafter, and being many Young Childeren to be taught, and Instructed in reading Writeing &c.a and so Confequently in Need of Such a Person.

It is Ordered.

That the said Bromes request be granted for the Term of Three Months, to try and see what progrefs he will make in this Matter, but Left to the Approbation of the Governour.

M.r Griffith, and M.r Dufton Executors of the Last Will and Testament, of William Dufton free planter deceased, brought and Delie= =vered the Inventory of his Estate, both Reall and personall, which was Receved and Approved of Upon the Oaths of the said Executors, and Appraefers Samuell Defountaicn and Leonard Hunt.

The said Executors defired our Opinions whether Susanna Dufton ought to have the therds of her deceased Husbands Personall Estate, or No, it being theer Opinions the same is fett of by Will.

It is our Opinions that the said Susanna Dufton, have One thord of her deceased husband personall Estate According to the

John Mudge said that he heard Dwight or his slave felling wood, and on turning round saw it was Dwight. He called out to him that he had better go to church than chop wood. Mudge had seen him fell wood on several Sundays before.

Dwight said he had only split a stick of wood lying in the yard to boil a little food, and had not carried or fetched any from a further distance from the house.

It was ordered that Higham, having freely confessed to digging half a pot of yams, and considering that he had no help and was in very low condition, be lightly fined at two shillings to the fortifications and one shilling to the church, with payment of council charges. He was admonished not to be guilty of the like offence in future, on pain of severe fine and punishment.

It was further ordered that Dwight be fined four shillings to the fortifications and two shillings to the church for his offence, with a further six shillings for swearing in the face of the court and in the presence of the council, and pay council charges.

Samuel Brome, soldier, presented his petition this day asking to be admitted as a schoolmaster to teach children reading, writing and other subjects at the country church.

In consideration that the Honourable Company allowed a schoolmaster, that there were many young children in need of being taught reading and writing, and that such a person was therefore required, it was ordered that Brome's request be granted for a term of three months, to test what progress he would make, subject to the Governor's approval.

Griffith and Duston, executors of the last will and testament of William Duston, free planter, deceased, brought and delivered the inventory of his estate, both real and personal. It was received and approved on the oaths of the executors and of the appraisers Samuel Desfontaines and Leonard Hunt.

The executors asked the Council's opinion on whether Susanna Duston ought to have the thirds of her deceased husband's personal estate, since in their view the same had been set off by the will.

It was the council's opinion that Susanna Duston should have one third of her deceased husband's personal estate according to [...]

Interpretations

The two Sunday observance penalties show how the council calibrated its fines to the circumstances of the offender. Higham, who freely admitted his offence and was described as having no help and being in very low condition, paid three shillings in total and a warning. Dwight, who denied the offence in the face of a sworn witness and swore in council, paid twelve shillings, with the swearing penalty alone exceeding Higham's whole bill. Honesty before the bench and ordinary social standing produced markedly different outcomes for nearly identical conduct.

The schoolmaster arrangement reveals how the Company's provision for education on the island actually worked in practice. The Company allowed a salaried schoolmaster post, but the appointment to fill it was made locally on a probationary basis from among the garrison soldiers, with a three-month trial and the Governor's approval reserved as a final check. A serving soldier could be redeployed to teach children in the country church without any formal qualification beyond the council's view that he might do the job.

Speculations

The executors' suggestion that Susanna Duston's thirds had been set off by the will, raised at the moment the inventory was approved, looks like an attempt to settle the legal basis of her share before any distribution began. By asking the council's opinion in advance, the executors could secure a ruling on the principle without having to litigate it later, and the council's confirmation of her right to one third of the personal estate disposed of the question cleanly at the outset.

The split of fines between the fortifications account and the church in both Sabbath cases points to a fixed double earmarking adopted whenever both moral and material institutional interests could be invoked. Sunday work could be framed as an offence against both the church's discipline and the security of the settlement, since labour on the Sabbath touched on public order as well as religious observance, and the divided fine acknowledged both claims while ensuring that neither account was favoured over the other.

63

55

The Usuall Custome of this Island, but Wrest our Judgments to the Governours, or to a Generall Court. Tho: Goodwin Edw: Mashborne W.m Marsden

Island St Helena. Att A Consultation, held on. Tuesday the. 26.th day of August. 1707. Att Fort James.

Pres: Step.n Poirier Governour Thom: Goodwin Dep.ty Governour. Edward Mashborne. 3. in Councill. William Marsden. 4.th in Councill.

Whereas it has been Reported to the Governour. that George Hoskison free planter, and Executor with his Wife, of the Estate of John Bowman deceased. has Wasted, and Sold all the Timber Trees that was Growing and being upon the said Bowmans Land before he Marreed his Wife, and as much as the Governour Can Remember Says John Bagley boeght most part of it, which Leaves the Orphants to Enqueire feurther into the Matter when. they Come of Age.

And has Moreover and that Lately puled down and Convoryed the Tomber to his own Use. without Acqueainting the Governour and Councell, which he alfo Leaves to the Cheideren to Examine further when they Come of Age as aforesaid, And how that any house of Twenty pound better Vallue when the said Hoskison Marryed his present Wefe is Ad= =guelged Now to be worth Fifty pound, and So proportionably, Upon Con= =federation of Timber, and Worke being Much Dearer Now, then hereto= fore, as it may appear by Generall Bueldors, to whom referrs for better proofe.

Whereas George Hoskison was Summoned to Appear this Day for Neglecteing fenceing the Land in, belonging to Jonas Beals Orphans According to his Agreement as may appear by the Councell Bookes.

The said Hoskison Appeared and Says that the said Land is not Inclosed Upon Confederateon that Gabriell Powell made a Demand of Thirty Acres of the said Land, and not Knoweng what part he meght make Choice of Delayed the fenceing, and alledges that the Governour was of Opinieon that the said Land Should ly Unfenced till. the Company Sent their Orders to the said Powells demand, But the Governour denyeng

The widow's right was according to the usual custom of the island, but the council referred the final judgment to the Governor or to a general court.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 26 August 1707 at Fort James.

Present: Stephen Poirier Governor. Thomas Goodwin Deputy Governor. Edward Mashborne, third in council. William Marsden, fourth in council.

It had been reported to Poirier that George Hoskison, free planter, and executor with his wife of the estate of John Bowman, deceased, had wasted and sold all the timber trees that were growing on Bowman's land before he married his wife. As Poirier could recall, John Bagley had bought the greater part of the timber. This left the orphans to inquire further into the matter when they came of age.

It was further reported that Hoskison had lately pulled down and carried off the timber to his own use, without telling the Governor and Council. This too was left for the children to examine when they came of age. Any house worth twenty pounds at the time of Hoskison's marriage to his present wife was now judged to be worth fifty pounds, and other property in proportion, on consideration that timber and labour were much dearer now than before, as could appear from general builders, to whom reference was made for better proof.

Hoskison was summoned to appear on this day for failing to fence in the land belonging to the orphans of Jonas Beale, in accordance with his agreement as appeared from the council books.

Hoskison appeared and said the land had not been enclosed because Gabriel Powell had made a demand for thirty acres of it, and not knowing which part Powell might choose, Hoskison had delayed the fencing. He claimed that Poirier had been of the opinion that the land should lie unfenced until the Company sent its orders on Powell's demand. Poirier denied [...]

Interpretations

The treatment of the Bowman estate shows how the council managed the long interval between a guardianship and the majority of the orphans concerned. Rather than adjudicate the alleged depredations of the stepfather Hoskison while the children were still minors, the council recorded the complaints in its books and explicitly deferred inquiry to a future date when the children themselves could pursue the matter. The administrative record was being used as a holding device, preserving the question for litigation that might come ten or fifteen years later when the orphans had standing to sue.

The note on rising property values is striking for its method. A house valued at twenty pounds at the time of Hoskison's marriage was now judged at fifty pounds, with the increase attributed not to any improvement but to higher prices for timber and labour, and proof of those higher prices to be drawn from general builders on the island. The council was applying a rough index of construction costs to revalue an estate at the point of a guardianship dispute, an early form of inflation accounting that treated the building trade as the authoritative source of price evidence.

Speculations

Hoskison's defence that he had delayed fencing the Beale orphans' land because Gabriel Powell's pending claim made it unclear which thirty acres he might lose, looks like an after-the-fact justification for inaction that had served his own interest. Unfenced land could be grazed and crossed without the labour and cost of enclosure, and a planter under obligation to fence on behalf of orphans had every reason to find a procedural ground for postponement. The council appears to have anticipated this argument, since Poirier's recorded denial of the supposed opinion in Hoskison's favour pre-empts the central plank of the defence.

The council's repeated decision to defer inquiry into Bowman's timber to the eventual majority of his children, rather than confront Hoskison directly, suggests an unwillingness to disrupt a sitting household management while the children were still dependent on it. A direct prosecution of the stepfather would have unsettled the arrangements under which the orphans were being fed and housed, and the council may have judged that recording the suspicion and leaving it for later action was a safer course than intervention that might harm the very children whose interests were being protected.

64

56

Denyeing what the said Hoskison has said in this Matter and haveing No Proofe to the Contrary.

It is Ordered

That the said George Hoskison fence in the said Orphans Fourty Acres of Land between this day, and the. 25. day of March Next Ensueing which if he Neglects to perform and fonnefh. Then. the said Land and Catle belongeing to the Orphans to be taken out of his pofsefseon, and Lett out to some other person, and the said Hoskison to pay for the fenceing on, and that he take good Care of the Childrens Catle for the feutere.

M.r Francis and M.r Powell Says that the said Beals Orphans Catle do.s Not graze on theer Land According to Agreement, and that there is Severall very Poor now, through the said Hoskisons Neglect.

Walter Belvard made Complaint against John Clavering for Denyeing to pay him Two Dollars on Account of a Stranger Lately here in a Ship, and Sicteen Shellings and Sex pence for punch.

The said Clavering owns he ows the said Belvard the Two Dollars but Denys the Sicteen Shellings and Sex pence.

The said Belvard haveing no Evidence to prove the Debt in Question Nor No book now with him.

It is Ordered

That the said Clavering pay the said Belvard only the said Two Dollars, and Court Charges, and as for the Sicteen Shellings and Sex pence the said Belvard haveing No Proofe as aforesaid, that the said Clavering be difcharged from said Debt.

The said Belvard feurther Complaints against the said Clavering and his Wefe for Grofsly abuseing him and his Wefe, on Calling him Severall Ill Names, his Wefe Nofty Bafterelly Bitch &c.a

The said Claverrng denyes the Action, and that the said Belvard provoakes his Wefe at Every Turn, when he is not at home, to make her say that which he would Not, did he forbear Urging her, on peurpofe that he meght take the Law of him.

Then the Evedences were Called

Robert Gurling being Sworn Saith. That he heard M.rs Clavering abufe the said Belvard Grofsly in Calling him Severall ill Names without any provokation Scolch Welknees Rogue and Dogg, and as for the Yoeing Men on the Island were bound to Cursfe him, and as for Walter Morrifs part he had Spent Ten pound there, and Called his Wefe Yoeng Bafterelly Drunckon bitch, and used to go at Eleaven. and Twelve a Clock at Night with Robert Swallow Reunning up and down the hills Like a Drunkeon Bitch as She was with a Mufsesled her Wefe, and alusfeed all the whole Island, Bitches and Whores, and that there was not an honneft Man, nor Woman upon the Island, but what has been Pock, and that this Deponent Mother was an Old Drunkeen Old Bitch, and Dyed of the Pox.

Poirier denied what Hoskison had said in this matter, and Hoskison had no proof to the contrary.

It was ordered that George Hoskison fence in the orphans' forty acres of land between this day and 25 March 1708. If he neglected to do so, the land and the cattle belonging to the orphans were to be taken out of his possession and let out to some other person, with Hoskison paying for the fencing. He was also to take good care of the children's cattle for the future.

Mr Francis and Mr Powell said that the Beale orphans' cattle were not grazing on their own land according to the agreement, and that several of the cattle were now in very poor condition through Hoskison's neglect.

Walter Belvard complained against John Clavering for refusing to pay him two dollars on account of a stranger lately here in a ship, and sixteen shillings and sixpence for punch.

Clavering admitted that he owed Belvard the two dollars, but denied the sixteen shillings and sixpence.

Belvard had no witness to prove the debt in question, nor any book with him.

It was ordered that Clavering pay Belvard only the two dollars and court charges. As for the sixteen shillings and sixpence, Belvard having no proof as stated, Clavering was discharged from that debt.

Belvard further complained against Clavering and his wife for grossly abusing him and his wife, by calling him various ill names and his wife a nasty baseborn bitch.

Clavering denied the action, and said that Belvard provoked his wife at every opportunity when he himself was not at home, in order to make her say what she would not otherwise say, on purpose that he might take the law of him.

The witnesses were then called.

Robert Gurling, sworn, said he had heard Mrs Clavering grossly abuse Belvard, calling him various ill names without any provocation, such as Scotch lousy rogue and dog. As for the young men on the island, she said they were bound to curse him. As for Walter Morris's part, he had spent ten pounds there. She had called his wife a young baseborn drunken bitch, who used to go out at eleven and twelve at night with Robert Swallow, running up and down the hills like a drunken bitch as she was, with a muzzle on, and her wife abused the whole island as bitches and whores. She had said there was not an honest man nor woman on the island who had not had the pox, and that the deponent's mother was an old drunken old bitch who had died of the pox.

Interpretations

The Hoskison order shows the council using a fixed deadline as the central enforcement device in a guardianship matter. Rather than imposing a fine for past neglect, the order set a date a little more than six months ahead by which the fencing was to be complete, with forfeiture of the management of land and cattle as the consequence of failure. A timed conditional penalty of this kind allowed the council to compel performance without removing the children's stepfather from their immediate care unless he refused to act, and gave Hoskison a clear chance to comply.

The Clavering case illustrates how the council's evidential standards operated in routine debt actions. Belvard recovered the two dollars that Clavering admitted, but failed on the larger claim because he produced neither witness nor book. The principle that admission established liability while disputed sums required positive proof, including documentary evidence kept in the ordinary course of trade, was applied without elaboration. A planter or trader who relied on the council to enforce his accounts was expected to bring his book to the hearing.

Speculations

The detailed recital of Mrs Clavering's invective, including names of third parties who would have heard themselves traduced when the record was read, looks like a deliberate effort by Belvard to broaden the case beyond his own grievance. By calling Gurling to testify to a long stream of abuse that touched many residents and their families, Belvard was effectively converting a private quarrel into a public scandal that the council could hardly dismiss as a minor matter between neighbours.

The recurrence of accusations of pox in the abuse points to a particular sensitivity in the small community about venereal disease, with imputations of infection being among the most damaging slanders that could be exchanged. The detail that Gurling's own mother had been called a drunken old bitch who died of the pox, included in his sworn testimony, suggests that Mrs Clavering's speech had given personal offence to the very witness whose evidence would decide the case, which Belvard may well have known when he chose his witnesses.

65

57

Grace Clavering Called out, and Called Belvard white Levered Scotch Dogg, and let him go Like a Rogue as he is.

Thomas Greffes Sworn Saith that Yesterday Evening he Saw Serjeant French go to Belvards with a Hatt to Sell, and ask't him if he would buy it, Belvard Replyed he would in Cafe his Wefe was welling on part of payment of what he Owed, But not agreeing the said French went Over to Clavering, and Offered to Sell it him, No says M.rs Clavering go Carry it Over to that Scotch Villenious Cheateng Rogue, and Dogg, with many more like ill Expressions, and called his Wefe Drunckeen Bitch, and Went up and down the Steills with Robert Swallow at Eleaven and Twelve a Clock at Neght with the Mufsele after her Arfe, Like a drunkeen beaftly Bitch as She is, and felt a Rawing against all the whole Island, Sayeing both Men and Women were all Pock, and was not One honnest, Sayeing they were a parcell of Pockey Rogues, and Whores, and as for Robert Gurling Mother She dyed with the Pox, Like a Bitch as she was, and M.r Hunt was Eate Up with the Pox, and Lookt as yallow as the Durt, She Walkt Up, Feurther heard Grace Clavering Call Belvard Scotch white Levered Dogg, and More of the like Without any manner of Provocation Like Expressions on the Least. tell being so Grofely Abafed.

Francis Leech Sworn Saith, that he heard M.rs Clavering Call Walter Belvard Severall ill Names, as White Levered Dogg. &c.a and that his Wefe was a Drunckeen Bafterelly Bitch, and said his Mo= =ther deed of the Pox with a great many more ill Expressions.

The said Clavering defires his Evidence might be Called and says that the said Belvard provoaked her, but having No pofsetive proofe.

It is Ordered. for his Wefes abuseing the said Belvard and his Wefe.

That the said John Clavering be fined the Sum of Four Dollars Voz.tt Two Dollars to the Cheurch, and Two Dollars to Account of Fortifecateon and ask the said Belvards Wefe pardon publickly for Calling her Bafterdly Bitch and Whore.

And for Scandalizing the whole Island, the said Claverings Wefe be Ducked in the Sea, at the fame (But upon feurther Confederateon. we Remitt her peunneshment, of being Ducked for this time) and Instead thereof fine the said Clavering the Sum of Sex Dollars tell the Next Relapse, and to pay Councell Charges.

Walter Belvard Complains against Grace Clavering for Calling him white Levered Scotch Dogg, Rogue &c.a without any Manner of Provocation.

The said Grace Clavering Denys the Acteon.

Francis Leech Sworn Saith that he heard the said Grace Clave= =ring Call the said Belvard white Levered Scotch Dogg, Rogue, and Son of a Bitch. Robert

Grace Clavering called out and named Belvard a white livered Scotch dog, telling him to be off like the rogue he was.

Thomas Griffith, sworn, said that the previous evening he had seen Sergeant French go to Belvard's with a hat to sell, and ask whether he would buy it. Belvard replied that he would, provided his wife was willing to take it as part payment for what he owed. They could not agree, and French then went over to Clavering's and offered to sell the hat there. Mrs Clavering told him no, and bid him carry it over to that Scotch villainous cheating rogue and dog, with many more such ill expressions. She called Belvard's wife a drunken bitch, who went up and down the steeles with Robert Swallow at eleven and twelve at night with a muzzle after her [...] like a drunken beastly bitch as she was. She also fell into a railing against the whole island, saying that both men and women were all poxed and there was not one honest person among them, and calling them a parcel of poxy rogues and whores. As for Robert Gurling's mother, she had died with the pox like the bitch she was. Mr Hunt was eaten up with the pox and looked as yellow as the dirt she walked upon. Griffith also heard Grace Clavering call Belvard a Scotch white livered dog and more of the like, without any provocation on the least occasion of being so grossly abused.

Francis Leech, sworn, said he had heard Mrs Clavering call Walter Belvard various ill names, such as white livered dog and the like. She had also called his wife a drunken baseborn bitch and said his mother had died of the pox, along with a great many other ill expressions.

Clavering asked that his witness be called, and said Belvard had provoked his wife, but he had no positive proof.

It was ordered, for his wife's abuse of Belvard and his wife, that John Clavering be fined the sum of four dollars, namely two dollars to the church and two dollars to the account of fortifications, and that he ask Belvard's wife pardon publicly for calling her a baseborn bitch and whore.

For scandalising the whole island, Clavering's wife was to be ducked in the sea at the same time. On further consideration, the punishment of ducking was remitted for this occasion. In its place, Clavering was fined six dollars to last until the next relapse, and was to pay council charges.

Walter Belvard complained against Grace Clavering for calling him a white livered Scotch dog and rogue, without any provocation.

Grace Clavering denied the action.

Francis Leech, sworn, said he had heard Grace Clavering call Belvard a white livered Scotch dog, rogue, and son of a bitch.

[...]

Interpretations

The order against Mrs Clavering shows how punishment for slander was structured around two distinct offences arising from the same outburst. The personal abuse of Belvard and his wife was remedied by a fine and a public apology, with the money split between church and fortifications in the customary equal halves. The wider abuse of the whole island, framed as scandalising the community itself, attracted a separate and corporal penalty in the form of ducking. Treating defamation of named persons and defamation of the general population as different wrongs allowed the council to mark the gravity of the second without merging it into the first.

The remission of the ducking, replaced by an additional six dollar fine on her husband, illustrates the practical operation of the doctrine that a married woman's penalty fell on her husband's purse. Mrs Clavering's bodily punishment was commuted to a money payment, but the payer was John Clavering, since the wife was treated as having no separate estate from which a fine could be drawn. The substitution preserved the deterrent effect of the sentence while sparing the woman a public humiliation that the council, on reflection, judged unnecessary.

Speculations

The clause that the six dollar fine was to last until the next relapse suggests the council was treating Mrs Clavering's offence as the latest in a recognised pattern rather than as an isolated incident. By framing the penalty as conditional on her continued good behaviour, the council reserved the original sentence of ducking for any future occasion of similar abuse, which gave her a strong incentive to silence and her husband a continuing financial interest in restraining her speech.

The willingness of multiple witnesses to repeat in court the most lurid passages of Mrs Clavering's invective, including specific imputations of pox against named residents, points to a settlement in which the recital of slander before the council was itself part of its punishment. The detailed reproduction of her language in the written record, available to be read on later occasions, exposed her to a kind of repeated public shaming that no single ducking could have achieved.

66

58

Robert Gurling Sworn Saith he heard the said Grace Call Belvard white Levered, Scotch Dogg, and Rogue.

Grace Clavering made Complaint against Belvard for Calling her Hott Arfe Bitch, and Young Whore, and that he Never picked Saylors Pockets, and then to go to Bed to them afterwards, She Replyed who did, Belvard Anfwered I have Severall times.

John Nicholls Sworn Saith that Yesterday he heard Walter Belvard Call the said Grace Clavering, Hott Arfe Bitch, and Young Whore Sayeng he Never picket Saylors Pockets, and went to bed to them Afterwards, She made Reply why, who did, he Replyed I have Severall times.

Thomas ffrench Saith to the same Effect.

It is Ordered

That the said Belvard being found to be the Aggressor, and Calling the said Grace Clavering Hott Arfe Bitch and Young Whore, be fined The Sum of Four Dollars, Voz.tt Two Dollars to the Cheurch, and Two Dollars more to the Fortification, and pay Councell Charges; And to aske the said the said Grace Clavering pardon before Governour and Councell.

John Clavering made Complaint against Walter Belvard for Denyeing to pay him Five Dollars According to Agreement to Learn Arethmeteck, he the said Clavering being now ready to perform his part in Instructing him to Cypher as farr as the Rule of Three.

Belvard Says he made such a Contract to Learn so farr, but having no minde to be Instructed any farther then he has already Learnt, which is only some part of Adetiteon.

It is Ordered

That the said Belvard pay the said Clavering the Sum of Three Dollars, and pay Councell Charges.

Joseph Parsons Montrofs made Complaint against John Clavering for his Wefe throwong him down Staers head Long, by which fall woaded him on the Head, breifed him, and thereby Rendered him incapable of performing his Duty Wherefore heumbly Defires Sattisfaction may be made him; and that his Evedences may be Called.

The said John Clavering Appeared on behalfe of his Wefe and Denys the Acteon.

Edmond Kempton being Sworn Saith that he was at the said Clavering house in Company with the said Parsons and Other, where the said Parsons and M.r Clavering had a great many high words about a Handkercheef which the Tore in peeces, and Saw M.rs Clavering pufh M.r Parsons down Staers, and felt his head with the fall and breifed himfelf.

Walter Norris Sworn Saith that he being at the said Claverings house, heard her, and M.r Parsons have a great many hegh words, and Reflected

Robert Gurling, sworn, said he had heard Grace Clavering call Belvard a white livered Scotch dog and rogue.

Grace Clavering complained against Belvard for calling her a hot arsed bitch and young whore, and for saying that she never picked sailors' pockets and then went to bed to them afterwards. When she replied by asking who did, Belvard answered that he had done so several times.

John Nicholls, sworn, said that on the previous day he had heard Walter Belvard call Grace Clavering a hot arsed bitch and young whore, saying that he had never picked sailors' pockets and gone to bed to them afterwards. She replied by asking why, and who did, and Belvard answered that he had done so several times.

Thomas French gave evidence to the same effect.

It was ordered that Belvard, having been found to be the aggressor and to have called Grace Clavering a hot arsed bitch and young whore, be fined the sum of four dollars, namely two dollars to the church and two dollars more to the fortifications, and pay council charges. He was to ask Grace Clavering's pardon before the Governor and Council.

John Clavering complained against Walter Belvard for refusing to pay him five dollars according to agreement to learn arithmetic, Clavering being now ready to perform his part by instructing him to cipher as far as the rule of three.

Belvard said he had made such a contract to learn that far, but had no mind to be instructed any further than he had already learnt, which was only some part of addition.

It was ordered that Belvard pay Clavering the sum of three dollars and pay council charges.

Joseph Parsons, matross, complained against John Clavering, alleging that Clavering's wife had thrown him down the stairs headlong. The fall had wounded him on the head and bruised him, and rendered him incapable of performing his duty. He humbly asked that satisfaction be made to him, and that his witnesses be called.

John Clavering appeared on behalf of his wife and denied the action.

Edmond Kempton, sworn, said he had been at Clavering's house in company with Parsons and others, where Parsons and Clavering had many heated words over a handkerchief which had been torn to pieces. He saw Mrs Clavering push Parsons down the stairs, and saw him fall on his head and bruise himself.

Walter Norris, sworn, said he had been at Clavering's house and heard her and Parsons exchange many heated words. She reflected [...]

Interpretations

The reciprocal slander cases involving Belvard and Grace Clavering show the council applying the same scale of penalty to whichever party was found to have been the aggressor in a given exchange. Belvard's fine of four dollars for calling her a hot arsed bitch and young whore mirrors exactly the four dollar fine imposed earlier on John Clavering for his wife's parallel abuse of Belvard's wife, with the same split between church and fortifications and the same requirement of a public apology before the council. Symmetry of punishment for symmetrical offences is being used to mark the council's even-handedness in a long-running quarrel between two households.

The arithmetic dispute is a rare glimpse of contractual education at this level of society. A man had paid or agreed to pay five dollars to be taught arithmetic from the basics up to the rule of three, and the dispute turned on whether the pupil could discharge his obligation by halting his studies partway through. The council reduced the agreed sum to three dollars, splitting the difference rather than enforcing the contract in full or releasing Belvard entirely, which suggests that part performance by the teacher and partial benefit to the pupil were both being taken into account.

Speculations

The willingness of Belvard and the Claverings to appear repeatedly before the council as both complainants and defendants, accumulating substantial fines on each side at every sitting, suggests that the council's penal jurisdiction had become an established forum for the continuation of their feud by other means. Each new fine fed the church and fortification funds while neither household abandoned the conflict, and the cumulative record of insults read out in evidence may have served the parties' purposes as much as the financial penalties damaged them.

The decision to assess Belvard's debt to Clavering at three dollars rather than the full five points to an unwritten convention by which a teaching contract, like other personal service contracts of this kind, was treated as severable rather than entire. The pupil's refusal to proceed beyond addition was taken as a partial repudiation that reduced but did not extinguish the obligation, which would have given local teachers a settled expectation of recovering something even from pupils who broke off their studies early.

67

59

Reflected one upon the other, and Saw M.r Parson pufh M.rs Clavering and She him down Staers, and tore his hand kercheefe in Severall peeces.

John Clavering made Complaint against Joseph Parsons for Calling his Wefe Old Br[ot]m, and sayeing she Stole her hand kerchef.

It is Ordered

That both the said Parsons and Claverings Caufes be Difmift, there being No Caufe of Acteon, and to pay Councell Charges between them Equally.

M.rs Clavering Defired that She might be Admitted to Swear the Peace against Walter Belvard, thinkeing She goes in Danger of her Lefe, he haveing threatned her.

It is Ordered.

That the said Belvard give good Securety for his good behaviour. tell Next Generall Sefsons.

Gabriell Powell made Complaint against George Hoskison for Not performeing his Contract, about the house, Land, provefieons &c.a he Lately peurchafed of the said Hoskison, who has Cutt Severall trees, and Dugg More Yams then he was to do by agreement.

After Severall Debates Hatton Sterling was Called and Sworn as followeth.

That sometime fince he was at M.r Powell house with the said Hoskison, the said Powell said to M.r Hoskison Let me have y.e Thorty bourthen of Rafthes, and a Weeks Labour of a black, and he would be well Sattisfeed and Shoeld be Eafey upon all Accounts.

It is Ordered

That the said Hoskison Caufe the said Fefty Acres of Land. to be Measured to the said Powell, that he may know the Latts and bownds thereof, and bring the Thorty bourthen of Rafhes to the said Powells house and perform his Contract. According to Agreement between this and Christmas Next, and pay Councell Charges.

George Hoskison free Planter Defered he might take his Oath against Gabriell Powell thinkeing and having Some Reason So to do, that he goes in fear of his Life.

It is Ordered

That the said Gabriell Powell give Securety to be of his good behaviour till Next Sefsions day.

William Beale free planter made Complaint against John Clavering for hendering and forbiddeing him to bueld a Kithcen on Seaven foot of Greund, which he beoght of Walter Morriss free planter.

The said Clavering says he beoght the said Walter Morrifs house, and Greund Lyeing and beeng in Chappell Valley the said Seaven Foot beeng part of et.

The said Walter Morrifs Says, he Acknowledges the said Seaven

Norris said he had seen Parsons push Mrs Clavering, and she had pushed him down the stairs, and his handkerchief had been torn into several pieces.

John Clavering complained against Joseph Parsons for calling his wife old broom and saying she had stolen her handkerchief.

It was ordered that both Parsons's and Clavering's causes be dismissed, there being no cause of action, and that they pay council charges between them equally.

Mrs Clavering asked to be admitted to swear the peace against Walter Belvard, since she believed her life to be in danger because he had threatened her.

It was ordered that Belvard give good security for his good behaviour until the next general sessions.

Gabriel Powell complained against George Hoskison for failing to perform his contract over the house, land, provisions and other items he had lately purchased from Hoskison. Hoskison had cut several trees and dug more yams than he was permitted under the agreement.

After several debates Hatton Sterling was called and sworn. He stated that some time ago he had been at Powell's house with Hoskison, where Powell said to Hoskison that if he might have the thirty burthens of rushes and a week's labour of a slave, he would be well satisfied and easy on all accounts.

It was ordered that Hoskison have the fifty acres of land measured out to Powell so that he might know the bounds, bring the thirty burthens of rushes to Powell's house and perform his contract in accordance with the agreement, all between this date and Christmas next, and pay council charges.

George Hoskison, free planter, asked to take his oath against Gabriel Powell, having some reason to believe his life was in danger.

It was ordered that Gabriel Powell give security for his good behaviour until the next sessions day.

William Beale, free planter, complained against John Clavering for hindering and forbidding him to build a kitchen on seven feet of ground which he had bought of Walter Morris, free planter.

Clavering said he had bought from Walter Morris his house and ground lying and being in Chapel Valley, and the seven feet were part of the property.

Morris said he acknowledged the seven [...]

Interpretations

The dismissal of the cross complaints between Parsons and Clavering, with the parties ordered to share the council charges equally, shows how the council handled disputes in which the evidence pointed to mutual aggression. Sworn testimony described Parsons pushing Mrs Clavering and she pushing him down the stairs, with the handkerchief torn in the middle of the scuffle, and Parsons calling her old broom and accusing her of theft. Rather than apportion blame, the council treated the brawl as one in which neither side could properly recover, and used the costs order to mark the equal responsibility of each.

The double swearing of the peace, by Mrs Clavering against Belvard and by Hoskison against Powell, illustrates how readily this procedure was used at the close of an angry hearing. A party who had failed to obtain a money judgment, or who had been the subject of one, could still extract a binding-over of the opponent simply by deposing that he or she went in fear of life. The council granted both applications without inquiry into the substance of the alleged threats, treating the oath itself as sufficient to trigger the requirement of sureties until the next sessions.

Speculations

The Powell and Hoskison settlement, reducing the purchase price dispute to a delivery of thirty burthens of rushes and a week's labour of a slave by Christmas, suggests that the parties had reached an informal accommodation that Hoskison was now refusing to honour. Sterling's recollection of Powell's words at the meeting, presented as the decisive evidence, fixed the terms of the bargain at a level Powell himself had named, and the council gave it effect rather than reopen the original sale agreement.

The dispute between Beale and Clavering over seven feet of ground in Chapel Valley points to the cramped pattern of building plots in the main settlement, where a margin of a few feet was worth bringing before the council. Beale's purchase of so narrow a strip from Morris, evidently for a kitchen extension, only makes sense in a context where dwellings were packed closely and additions were squeezed into whatever space could be acquired piece by piece from neighbours.

68

60

Seaven Foot of Greund he Sold to the said Beale, before he Sold the house to Clavering, and forgot to tell him of et.

Gunner French Saith, that he was present when the bargain was made betwixt the said Morris and Clavering, and heard the said Morrifs give all his Right and Tetle to all the Lands backwards as farr as the Water, and the Length of the House.

It is Ordered

That the said John Clavering have his Bargain according to his Bill of Sale, and that the Seaven Foote of Greund in Defpute, intake to be the Right Hon.ble Companys, and for that Reafon the said Morrifs Return the Two Dollars to Beale again, and pay the Councell Charges.

Sarah Bell Wefe of Robert Bell made Complaint against Thomas Swallow Junior on behalf of her Son Benjamin for that he the said Thomas Swallow ill Useing him, often beateing him, Calling him a great meny Names, forcing him to Carry heaveer Loads than he was able to Stand under, and deed not allow him Vectualt Enough, which the boy Declared to be true before Governour and Councell.

It is Ordered.

That the said Benjamin Rodger be Difcharged from the said Thomas Swallow his Master Service. According to an order of Councill, bearing date the. 30.th day of July. 1706. Upon a Second Complaint, and the said Swallow to Deliver all his Apprentice Cloaths to his Mother or order; and to pay Councell Charges.

George Hoskison made Complaint against William Hartwell Montrofs for haveing Sold a pay.r of Plufh Britches Which he has had Stolen out of his house at the Fort.

The said Hartwell says he bought the said Britches of a Saylor that belonged to the Litchfeeld.

The said Hoskison says the bretches are his, and made Oath they were

Upon which It is Ordered.

That the said Hartwell pay the said Hoskison the Sum of Twenty Shellings, the Vallue of what he Sold the Bretches for, and pay Councell Charges.

Immediately after that. the said Hoskison made Oath against Gabriell Powell, came and Defired that the said Powell, meght be Acqueited and Difcharged, if he would give his word Not to abufe or afsault him which he did, and accordongly was difcharged.

The Sex foregoeng Confultations from the. 3. day of June. 1707. Voz.tt from page. 45. To. 61. y.e to the. 26. day of August. followeing with the Decleration of Hugh Bodley against Refafe, and order for her Pun [...]ment was done in the Lefe time of Governour Poirier, Though Not Entered fairly in this book as none of the other before therefore not Signed by him.

Tho: Goodwin Edw: Mashborne W.m Marsden

Morris admitted that he had sold seven feet of ground to Beale before selling the house to Clavering, and had forgotten to mention it.

Gunner French stated that he had been present when the bargain was made between Morris and Clavering, and had heard Morris give all his right and title to all the land backwards as far as the water, and the length of the house.

It was ordered that John Clavering have his bargain according to his bill of sale, and that the seven feet of ground in dispute be taken to belong to the Honourable Company. For that reason, Morris was to return the two dollars to Beale and pay the council charges.

Sarah Bell, wife of Robert Bell, complained against Thomas Swallow junior on behalf of her son Benjamin. Swallow had ill used the boy by frequently beating him, calling him a great many names, forcing him to carry heavier loads than he could stand under, and not allowing him enough victuals. The boy declared all of this to be true before the Governor and Council.

It was ordered that Benjamin Rodger be discharged from Thomas Swallow's service as his master, according to an order of council dated 30 July 1706 on a second complaint. Swallow was to deliver all of the boy's apprentice clothes to his mother or her order, and to pay council charges.

George Hoskison complained against William Hartwell, matross, for selling a pair of plush breeches which had been stolen from his house at the Fort.

Hartwell said he had bought the breeches from a sailor belonging to the Litchfield.

Hoskison said the breeches were his, and made oath that they were.

It was ordered that Hartwell pay Hoskison the sum of £1 0s 0d, the value at which he had sold the breeches, and pay council charges.

Immediately after Hoskison had sworn his oath against Gabriel Powell, he came and asked that Powell be acquitted and discharged, provided that Powell would give his word not to abuse or assault him. Powell did so, and was accordingly discharged.

The six foregoing consultations, from 3 June 1707 to 26 August 1707, from pages 45 to 61, together with the declaration of Hugh Bodley against Refafe and the order for her punishment, were taken in the lifetime of Governor Poirier, although not entered fairly in this book as none of the others before, and were therefore not signed by him.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Interpretations

The closing certification on the six consultations shows how the council handled the absence of the Governor's signature on a run of recent business. By recording that the proceedings from 3 June to 26 August had been taken during Poirier's lifetime but not fairly entered in the book, and signing the entries themselves, the three remaining councillors authenticated the record after his death and explained the missing signature. The note converts an administrative irregularity into a documented exception, preserving the validity of the orders made at those sittings.

The Benjamin Rodger discharge illustrates how an apprenticeship could be dissolved by the council on proof of ill usage, with explicit reference to an earlier order of 30 July 1706. The need for a second complaint before the bond was broken, and the requirement that the master deliver up the apprentice clothes, point to a settled procedure in which one warning preceded any release. The child's own statement before the council was accepted as evidence alongside his mother's complaint, which suggests that apprentices on the island were treated as competent to testify to their own treatment.

The breeches case shows the council applying a clear rule against buyers of stolen goods. Hartwell's defence that he had bought the trousers from a sailor of the Litchfield did not save him from liability to the original owner once Hoskison had sworn to the property, and he was ordered to pay the sum he had received on resale. Possession by purchase from an unidentified third party did not defeat the true owner's claim, and the buyer bore the loss.

Speculations

Hoskison's request that Powell be discharged from his recognisance immediately after swearing the peace against him, on Powell's bare word not to abuse or assault him, suggests that the swearing had been a tactical move within an ongoing negotiation rather than a genuine fear for life. The oath produced a momentary advantage, which was promptly traded for a personal undertaking once both men had cooled. The council accepted the arrangement without insisting on the formal sureties that would normally have followed, which indicates that local practice allowed quite informal resolution of these binding-over applications.

The decision to award Hoskison only the twenty shillings that Hartwell had received on resale, rather than the higher original value of the plush breeches, points to a settled measure of damages against an innocent receiver of stolen goods. The buyer was to be deprived of the proceeds of the resale but not to be charged with the owner's full loss, which fell to be recovered, if at all, from the thief. The rule kept the recovery proportionate to the receiver's actual gain and reserved the larger claim for the original wrongdoer.

69

61

Island St Helena August the. 25.th 1707.

The Decleration. of Hugh Bodley Overseer of the Fortefecation as followeth Imployed about the Fortefecation as followeth

That Refase Richard Swallows black, comeing Something too late to Work the said Bodley, ask't him why he did not Come Sooner, Refase Replyed I am come Now, Sorrah said Bodley is that an Answer, and what is your Reafon you deed Not come Sooner, Refase answer'd again Now I am come Upon that the said Bodley Streck him Severall Blows, and on Strekeing him, he took hold of the Steck, and then Immediately Reun some Distance from him Upon that the said Bodley ordered some of the other Blacks to Run and Seige him which he hear= =eng made a Stop, and the said Bodley comeing Cloose to him Streek hom again, upon which the said Refase Laed hands on the Steck he Streck him with, and threw it away Some yards, and Run away again, but being taken ordered him to be Seezed to a Gun, and on the tying off him, One Legg being Loose, the said Refase made a Moteon with his foot and Legg to Kick the said Bodley, after he was Lett Loose, the said Bodley ordered him to his Worfse (among others) upon that the said Refase Run upon the beach, and being persued Came Run= =ning towards the ffort, and held his hand up in a Threatning Man= =ner. and the Sentry Stopping him at the said Bodleys defire, the Ser= =jeant went and Acqueainted M.r Marsden with the said Refase= Infolence he beeing the Cheif Officer then at the ffort, who ordered the Serjeant to Secure him in Clofe profon. till the Governours Pleasure was known, and the Councell being together this Day, Do agree and Order.

That the said Refase Receive on his Naked body To Morrow One hundered Lafhes, Neet day Sixty the day following Foharty More and then to be Marked with the Letter R. and then Releafed, according to the Law made in this Cafe

Island St Helena August. the. 26.th 1707.

The Perticular affairs here after Mentioned being for the Service Behalf and Intreft of the Right Hon.ble English Uneted Eaft India Company Lords Proprietors of the said Island and the good and Safety of the same, Is by the Deputy Governour and the Reft of Councell, Prefented to the Governour (he being Now much Indispofed by Sickness) Defering that he well Maturety Confeder the fercumftances and order them Accord= =ding to the Immergencey of affairs Voz.tt

Forst that he well order That in his Absence one of the Councell or the Ensign do Lie within the Fort, It is Our Opinieons that he do double deuty to any of us he being no Way Else Employed.

Secondly. That all the Working Souldieers do Lie in the Fort for Securety thereof. Thirdly

Island of St Helena

25 August 1707.

The declaration of Hugh Bodley, overseer of the fortifications, employed about the fortifications as follows.

Refase, a slave of Richard Swallow, came to work somewhat late. Bodley asked him why he had not come sooner. Refase replied that he was come now. Bodley said, sirrah, is that an answer, and what is your reason for not coming sooner. Refase answered again, now I am come. Bodley then struck him several blows. As he was being struck, Refase took hold of the stick and immediately ran some distance off. Bodley ordered some of the other slaves to run and seize him, and on hearing this Refase came to a halt. Bodley came close to him and struck him again, on which Refase laid hands on the stick that was being used on him and threw it several yards away, and ran off again.

Once Refase had been taken, Bodley ordered him to be tied to a gun. As he was being tied, one of his legs being loose, Refase made a motion with his foot and leg as if to kick Bodley. After he was let loose, Bodley ordered him to his work among the other slaves. Refase then ran along the beach, and being pursued came running towards the Fort, and held his hand up in a threatening manner. The sentry stopped him at Bodley's request. The sergeant went and informed Marsden, who was the chief officer then at the Fort, of Refase's insolence. Marsden ordered the sergeant to secure him in close prison until the Governor's pleasure was known.

The council, being together this day, did agree and order that Refase receive on his naked body one hundred lashes on the morrow, sixty the next day and forty the day after, and then be marked with the letter R and released, in accordance with the law made in this case.

Island of St Helena

26 August 1707.

The particular affairs hereafter mentioned, being for the service, benefit and interest of the Honourable English United East India Company, lords proprietors of the island, and for its good and safety, were presented by Goodwin and the rest of the council to Poirier, who was now much indisposed by sickness. They asked that he duly consider the circumstances and order matters according to the emergency of affairs as follows.

First, that he order that in his absence one of the council or the Ensign lie within the Fort. The council's opinion was that the Ensign should do double duty in place of any of them, since he was otherwise unemployed.

Secondly, that all the working soldiers lie in the Fort for its security.

Thirdly [...]

Interpretations

The sentencing of Refase reveals the formal legal regime applied to slave punishment on the island. A staged sequence of two hundred lashes over three days, followed by branding with the initial of his name, was imposed under what the council described as the law made in this case, indicating a written or settled procedure for slaves who struck back at an overseer or threatened a free man. The punishment was both physical and permanent, the brand serving as a lifelong mark of the offence visible to any future buyer or supervisor, and the distribution across three days designed to extend the suffering rather than risk killing the offender with a single beating.

Bodley's own narrative, presented as the foundation of the council's order, shows a striking imbalance in the treatment of evidence between free and slave parties. The whole record of what was said and done was given by the man whose conduct had provoked the resistance, and Refase had no opportunity to put his side of the encounter. The brief exchange in which he answered now I am come reads as ordinary insolence rather than violence, yet became the predicate for a sustained beating, and his subsequent acts of self defence were taken as the offences requiring punishment.

The note on the consultations of 26 August captures the council operating in anticipation of Poirier's death. By presenting a list of orders to the dying Governor for his approval rather than acting on its own authority, the council preserved the formal hierarchy while in substance taking charge of arrangements for the security of the Fort. Asking the Governor to confirm the proposed measures in writing converted what was effectively an emergency reorganisation into a properly authorised order under his name.

Speculations

The decision that the Ensign should do double duty within the Fort rather than rotate the burden among the councillors points to a deliberate effort to keep the senior administrators free for civil business while still ensuring military command was present overnight. The phrase that he was no way else employed reads as a polite acknowledgement that the Ensign's primary function was precisely the kind of resident garrison duty now being asked of him, while the councillors had other administrative work that justified their exemption.

Bodley's insistence on tying Refase to a gun for further punishment after the initial blows, and his decision to bring the matter to the sergeant once Refase had run towards the Fort, suggests an effort to convert what had started as overseer's discipline into a formal council matter. The escalation removed Bodley from any need to justify his own conduct and placed Refase in the hands of the military authorities, where his act of raising a hand in a threatening manner near the Fort could be presented as a public offence rather than a private dispute between overseer and slave.

70

62

Thirdly. That the Blacks be not permitted to Reun through the Fort when they go to Work, but that the Sentenall Cause them to go Reound, and that None of the Company. blacks Lie in the Fort, but only the houshold Servants, and that the said Blacks have a Certain Allowance of provefion and that it be Charged to Fortifecations, which well Eafe the Charge of the Generall Table, and that thofe Blacks have the Room which Morris Greffer Now hath, and that they be Lockt up there Every Night by the Corporall of the Gueard or the Overfeer of them.

Fourthly That one of the Councell be Appointed to take an Account of the Cattle &c.a in what Land foever, and that they be burnt, in the Horn, According to the Companys former Orders.

Tefthly. That the same Account be taken of Sheep, Hoggs, Goates &c.a and that it be done Speedily to prevent Imberlement, It is our Opinieon that No More Cattle be bought for the Company this Year, Unlefs they be taken for Defperate Debts, and that when any. be bought, That One of the Councell be present, that a Regular Account be alsoays Kept of the same.

Sexthly. Wee are Informed that the Companys blacks have been very Much abused by John Palen. Defere that he may Either be Removed of another to be with him. Thom: Goodwin Vera Copia p̈ me. Edw.d Mashborne John Alexander. Welliam Marsden

Whereas the Governour, and Councell having Confedered That it's Not Safe for the Garrison to be without an Officer Effpeccally in the Night time for the better Security and Safety of the whole Ifland &c.a and the Councell being Newly recreated.

It is agreed and Ordered

Forst that Enfign Sanderson begin Next time the Governour is absent, and None of the Councell present, and to Stay at the Fort. 8. Days Secondly William Marsden to relieve him and to be - - - 4 days Thirdly Edward Mashborne - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 days Fourthly Cap.tn Goodwin - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 days And so to be Sentenue till feurther Orders.

M.r Alexander Copying Over the abovesaid he told the Governour (upon his Afsing him where he was when Sent for) and when we came down to Donner he Demanded it from us, and Read the Paper Over. Then answered that he was free to Comply with the Fourth, Forft, Second, and third, Paragraph, But Objected against the Fourth, Fefth, and Sext Saying that he were not Obleidged to Render any Account of Hoggs, Sheep, Goats &c.a Nor he would. Notfence the Company. had geven him commifsion for to Act about the Plantateon &c.a as he has done. But after Donner he Defired a Longer time to Confeder and would give us his Anfwer. The

Third, that the slaves not be permitted to run through the Fort when they went to work, but that the sentinel cause them to go round. None of the Company's slaves were to lie in the Fort, except the household servants. The slaves were to have a fixed allowance of provisions, which was to be charged to fortifications, which would ease the charge on the general table. The same slaves were to have the room which Morris Griffith now had, and were to be locked up there every night by the corporal of the guard or by their overseer.

Fourth, that one of the council be appointed to take an account of the cattle, on whichever land they grazed, and that they be branded on the horn in accordance with the Company's former orders.

Fifth, that the same account be taken of sheep, hogs, goats and the like, and that it be done speedily to prevent embezzlement. It was the council's opinion that no more cattle should be bought for the Company this year, unless taken for desperate debts. When any were bought, one of the council should be present, so that a regular account would always be kept.

Sixth, the council was informed that the Company's slaves had been much abused by John Palen, and asked that he be either removed or that another be set over him with him.

Thom: Goodwin. A true copy by me. Edward Mashborne. John Alexander. William Marsden.

The Governor and Council having considered that it was not safe for the garrison to be without an officer, especially in the night, for the better security and safety of the whole island, and the council having been newly recruited, it was agreed and ordered as follows.

First, Ensign Sanderson was to begin the next time the Governor was absent and none of the council were present, and to stay at the Fort eight days.

Secondly, William Marsden was to relieve him and stay four days.

Thirdly, Edward Mashborne, four days.

Fourthly, Captain Goodwin, four days.

The rotation was to continue until further orders.

While Alexander was copying the foregoing, he told Poirier, on Poirier asking where he had been when sent for, and when the council came down to dinner, that Poirier demanded the paper from them and read it over. He then answered that he was willing to comply with the first, second and third paragraphs, but objected to the fourth, fifth and sixth, saying that he was not obliged to render any account of hogs, sheep, goats or the like, nor would he, since the Company had given him commission to act about the plantation as he had done. After dinner he asked for longer time to consider, and said he would give his answer then. The [...]

Interpretations

The third proposal sets out a deliberate separation between the Company's slaves and the interior of the Fort. The proposal that the slaves be made to go around rather than through, that only household servants sleep within the walls, and that the rest be locked into a specified room each night by the corporal of the guard or their overseer, indicates that the council saw the daily movement of slaves through the garrison as both a security risk and an administrative untidiness. Reassigning their provisions to the fortifications account also shifted a recurring cost off the general table, which suggests the proposal had a financial as well as a disciplinary purpose.

The fourth and fifth proposals show the council moving to assert systematic control over the Company's livestock through branding and inventory. The provision that no further cattle be bought except for desperate debts, and that a councillor be present whenever any were acquired, points to a concern that purchases had previously been made without proper record. The reference to embezzlement is the explicit motive, and the speed urged in carrying out the count indicates that the council suspected ongoing losses through informal disposal of Company stock.

Poirier's recorded objection to paragraphs four, five and six is the most striking moment in the proceedings. By asserting that his Company commission to act about the plantation entitled him to dispense with any accounting for hogs, sheep, goats and the like, and by extension to retain unilateral charge of John Palen's conduct, the Governor was claiming a personal sphere of management not subject to council inventory. The council's careful note of his exact reply, and his subsequent request for longer time to consider, preserves the disagreement on the record for any later inquiry.

Speculations

The rotation of eight days for Sanderson followed by four days each for the councillors suggests that the council saw nightly garrison duty as primarily the Ensign's responsibility and the councillors' role as periodic relief. Doubling Sanderson's stint at the start may have been intended to establish a pattern in which a military officer was always the first resort and the civilian councillors stepped in only when necessary, which would have preserved the customary separation between civil and military command while still providing cover during Poirier's increasing absences.

Poirier's combination of partial assent and selective refusal looks like the response of a sick man trying to retain the parts of his authority that mattered most to him while conceding the routine garrison arrangements. The matters he accepted, concerning the movement of slaves and the rotation of officers in the Fort, were essentially administrative. The matters he rejected, concerning livestock accounts and the overseer of the Company's slaves, were precisely those that touched on the Governor's discretionary management of Company property and people, and his commission was being invoked to preserve that discretion against council oversight.

71

63

The Governour Said feurther that John Palin the present Overfeer at Plantation Should Stay his pleasure there, Let who well Say to the Contra= =ry. and that he had private Orders for what he did.

The Day following Governour Poirier was Carreed into the Countrey and was the day after taken Speechlefs, and Sentenued So almoft to the very Hour he dieed, So did not give his anfwer to the aforesaid Premifes. which was to Monday Night the. 8. Instant, And whereas we being Somewhat Doubtfull, that our Hon.ble Maffers may blame us for not Demanding an Account as afore= said Sooner, but Cap.t Goodwin Deputy Governour, doth hereby avouch, that he hath Defered an Account Severall times, But the Governour always fell into a Pafsion, and said he would Not Give any such Account to him Nor any body here, and that he had wrote to the Same peurpofe to his Hon.ble Mafters, but Never reciveed any anfwer So apprehends him= felfe and them too, to be harmlefs therein.

Tho: Goodwin Edw: Mashborne W.m Marsden

Island St Helena. At a Consultation. held on Thursday the . 11.th day of September. 1707. At Fort James

Pres.t Thom: Goodwin late Dep.ty Governour Edward Mashborne. 3. in Councell William Marsden. 4.th in Councell

Whereas by the divine Providence The late Governour Stephen Poirier Esq.r deceased of a Naturall Death after haveing Lenguered a Long time of a Drospicall Diftemper on Monday Night about Eleaven of the Clock being the Eight Instant.

It is Unanimously agreed and Ordered.

That the said. Thomas Goodwin according to the Right of Succefsion. as being late Deputy Governour, and a Commifsion from the R.t Hon.ble Old Eaft India Company brought p̈ Shyp Henry. Cap.tn John Lampernander who Arrieved here this. 3. day of October. 1701. dated the. 5.th of Aprill. 1701. and Confermed by the R.t Honourable Uneted English Eaft India Company as by their Letter dated the. 5.tho Febr.y 1702. may more fully appear, That he be and Continue Governour dureing the said R.t Hon.ble Uneted English Eaft India Companys Plea= sure.

And that M.r Edward Mashborne being Lately Sent Over here one of the Councell, According to a Generall Letter bearing date the 20. of December. 1706. by our said Hon.ble Mafters p̈ Shyp Rochester Cap.t Francis Stayns Commander, who Arrived here the. 17.th of May Laft. Paft

Poirier said further that John Palen, the present overseer at the plantation, should stay there at his pleasure, regardless of any contrary opinion, and that he had private orders for what he did.

The day following, Poirier was carried into the country, and on the day after that he was taken speechless. He continued so almost to the very hour of his death, so that he did not give his answer to the foregoing proposals, which was to have been on Monday night 8 September. The council, somewhat doubtful that the Honourable Masters might blame them for not having demanded an account sooner, recorded that Captain Goodwin, Deputy Governor, hereby avouched that he had asked for an account several times. The Governor had always fallen into a passion, said he would render no such account to him or to anyone present, and added that he had written to the same effect to the Honourable Masters, although he had never received any answer. The Deputy Governor therefore considered himself, and the rest of the council, blameless in the matter.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Thursday 11 September 1707 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, late Deputy Governor. Edward Mashborne, third in council. William Marsden, fourth in council.

By divine providence the late Governor Stephen Poirier, esquire, died a natural death after languishing a long time of a dropsical distemper, on Monday night about eleven o'clock, being 8 September.

It was unanimously agreed and ordered that Thomas Goodwin, by right of succession as the late Deputy Governor, and by virtue of a commission from the Honourable Old East India Company brought by the ship Henry, Captain John Lampernander, which arrived here on 3 October 1701, dated 5 April 1701, and confirmed by the Honourable United English East India Company by their letter dated 5 February 1703, be and continue Governor during the pleasure of the said Honourable United English East India Company.

Mr Edward Mashborne, lately sent here as one of the council in accordance with a general letter dated 20 December 1706 from the Honourable Masters, by the ship Rochester, Captain Francis Stains commander, which arrived here on 17 May last past [...]

Interpretations

The closing passage on Poirier's refusal to render accounts shows the council taking deliberate steps to insulate itself from blame. Goodwin's sworn statement that he had asked repeatedly for an inventory and had been met with the Governor's anger, together with the further claim that Poirier himself had written to London to the same effect without ever receiving an answer, was placed on the record at the moment of his death. Read as a defensive entry against any later directors' inquiry, the note converts the Deputy Governor's prior inaction from administrative weakness into reasonable submission to a superior who had insisted on his prerogative.

The succession entry sets out the documentary basis on which Goodwin assumed the governorship without waiting for fresh instructions from London. By citing the Old Company commission of 5 April 1701, brought out on the Henry, and the confirmation by the United Company in their letter of 5 February 1703, the council assembled a paper title to the office that bridged the merger of the two East India companies and pre-empted any claim that Goodwin's authority lapsed with Poirier's death. The detailed recital of ship names, captains and dates of arrival functions as a kind of evidentiary insurance against challenge.

Speculations

The instruction to John Palen to remain at the plantation regardless of any contrary opinion, accompanied by the assertion that Poirier had private orders for what he did, suggests an arrangement between Governor and overseer that the rest of the council was not party to. Whether such private orders from the directors ever existed is impossible to know from this record alone, but the invocation of them at a moment when the council was pressing for an inventory of Company livestock points to a long-running effort on Poirier's part to shield his plantation management from any local audit.

The decision to convene a consultation only three days after Poirier's death, and to record the succession in such formal terms, indicates that the surviving councillors were anxious to establish continuity of authority before any rumour or rival claim could destabilise the settlement. A clear paper trail of unanimous agreement, dated documents and witnessed signatures left no opening for later dispute about the legitimacy of Goodwin's governorship, which would have mattered particularly in a small community where his immediate decisions on the dying Governor's contested proposals would carry forward into his own administration.

72

64

Paft, That he be Lieutenant Governour of the said Island Dureing the Said R.t Hon.ble Companys pleasure.

And that M.r William Marsden being Confteteuted One of the Councell, as in and by the said Letter before Mentioned may more at Large Appear, be third of Councell, dureing our said Hon.ble Mafters further pleasure herein.

And that all other Officers Continue in their Stations as they are now untell otherwife Ordered. Tho: Goodwin Edw: Mashborne W.m Marsden

Island St Helena At a Consultation. held on. Thursday the. 11.th day of September. 1707. att Fort James.

Pres.t Thom: Goodwin. Governour. Edward Mashborne Dep.ty Govern.r William Marsden. 3. in Councill.

Whereas Since the late Governours death, findeing no Account of our Right Hon.ble Mafters Effects at theer Plantateons, and we being wholly Strangers to all things Relateing thereto do hereby.

Order and appoint Captain Edward Mashborne Lieutenant Governour to take an Account of all, and Singular our said Right Hon.ble Mafters Plantateons, Negroes, Catle, houses, and houshold Goods &c.a and that the said be duely Inventored, That a Clear account of all be Rendered to the R.t Hon.ble Company by the next Conveyance.

And that all the Neat Catle be a Sworn as convenientty burnt, on the Horne with the said Companys Marke, and that all the Marks of Deftinction be taken. of whofe Mark they be, Likewife burnt on the Horn as ufre. said, and that the said Lieuten.t Mashborne do Leive at the said Right Hon.ble Companys great Plantateon with his Wefe and Son in law, and that he render an Account of the Same to Governour and Councill, as often as they Shall demand it, and that they have Preveledge to be there as they Shall have Occafeon.

It is Further Ordered.

That John French Gunner of the Garrifon do take an Account of all his Stores. and deliver the Same to Governour and Councell That it may be Sent to our Hon.ble Mafters Accordingly.

The Governour and Councell, Demanding of John Alexander Clarke, of the Councell, whether he has any of the Right Hon.ble Companys Generall

It was ordered that he be Lieutenant Governor of the island during the pleasure of the Honourable Company.

Mr William Marsden, being constituted one of the council as more fully appeared in the same letter, was to be third in council during the further pleasure of the Honourable Masters.

All other officers were to continue in their stations as they were until otherwise ordered.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Thursday 11 September 1707 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

Since the late Governor's death no account had been found of the Honourable Masters' effects at their plantations, and the council was wholly unfamiliar with the affairs relating to them.

It was therefore ordered and appointed that Captain Edward Mashborne, Lieutenant Governor, take an account of all and every one of the Honourable Masters' plantations, slaves, cattle, houses and household goods, and that the same be duly inventoried, so that a clear account of all could be rendered to the Honourable Company by the next conveyance.

All the neat cattle were to be as conveniently as possible branded on the horn with the Company's mark, and all marks of distinction taken to identify whose marks they were, likewise to be branded on the horn as stated. Mashborne was to live at the Honourable Company's great plantation with his wife and son in law, and to render an account of it to the Governor and Council as often as they demanded. The Governor and Council were to have liberty to be there as they had occasion.

It was further ordered that John French, gunner of the garrison, take an account of all his stores and deliver the same to the Governor and Council, that it might be sent to the Honourable Masters accordingly.

The Governor and Council asked John Alexander, clerk of the council, whether he had any of the Honourable Company's general [...]

Interpretations

The first order of Goodwin's administration set out a comprehensive audit of Company assets on the island that Poirier had refused to deliver. By directing Mashborne to inventory the plantations, slaves, cattle, houses and household goods, by requiring all neat cattle to be branded on the horn with the Company's mark and all private marks to be recorded, and by sending the gunner to account for his stores, the council was reversing in a single sitting the discretion that the previous Governor had asserted over Company property. The death of Poirier had removed the personal obstacle to accounting, and the new administration moved at once to establish the inventory as the foundation of its own record.

The decision to install Mashborne with his wife and son in law at the great plantation, while preserving the right of the rest of the council to visit, replaced the trusted overseer arrangement that had operated under Poirier with a councillor in residence. The plantation passed from the indirect management of an overseer answerable only to the Governor to the direct supervision of a councillor answerable to the whole board, and the requirement that he render an account whenever demanded built continuous oversight into the structure of his appointment.

Speculations

The detail that all private marks of distinction on cattle were to be branded on the horn along with the Company's mark suggests an effort to record the ownership pattern of stock on the island before any consolidation or transfer could obscure it. Cattle moved between Company and private hands by purchase, by payment of debts and by less formal arrangements, and a fixed pattern of double branding would have created a permanent visual record of the previous ownership of each beast, which would have made future disputes far easier to settle and embezzlement far harder to conceal.

The summoning of John Alexander, clerk to the council, immediately after these orders, points to a methodical sweep of every category of Company property and document. The new administration appears to have proceeded systematically from livestock to gunner's stores to written records, treating each in turn as a potential site of irregularity that needed to be brought under formal account. The clerk's holdings of the Company's general papers would have been the next logical step in establishing the documentary basis for the audit ordered against Mashborne.

73

65

Generall. Letters Sent here, and all other Books papers &c.a Relateing to their Affaiers here, made Anfwer that he has only Some Councill books and a few more Loofe papers, and as to the Generall, Letters &c.a the Deceafsed Governour &c.a had in his Cuftody.

Upon which it is Ordered.

That the present Governour take a Veew of all papers in the late Govern.rs posefseon, to See what belongs to the Company and thofe that do.s not to Deliver his Wedow.

That all the Forts, Fortifications, Bueldings hoeuses, ammunition &c.a be forthwith Surveyd that we may See what is in order, and what is Not, and that the same be Repaired afsoon as pofsible. for the Good Safety and Defence of the Island.

That an Examination be taken of all Pofts, on an Alarm that they may be Regulated according as the Pofts and Places Requiere.

That Lemon Valley be forthwith Repaired, having been Left out of Repaier Some time, and that Two Souldieers with an Officer be pofted there as formerly.

That there be One private Sentinall now ordered to Ruperts and Bankses Fort, for the better Strengthning the Same there having been but. Two Men at Each Fort for a great while.

That all the Core be taken as Can be for the Eafe and Lefning of the Charge of the Generall Table, and that the Negros that Works at the Fortifecations be Maintained, upon that Account that the truth of Every charge may Appear, and that the said Negros be put into a litle house formerly Blacke Bettys with out the Fort, and Locked up Every Night by the Corporall of the Guard or the Overfeer of them at Drum beat.

And that all the Workeing Souldieers, do Lie within the Fort for the Strength thereof, having a great many Negroes of the Freemen at Worke.

That an account be taken. of all the Fort houshold Goods, Lequer &c.a that we may See how the Same is Expended.

That the Storer Continue as its now delivering the Charge thereof to M.r William Marsden, and that M.r Bazett Afsift him, and that the Fort Account go on, and a Diftinct Account be made from the Death of Governour Poirier, and so of the Plantateon Account, in all perticulars, to Commence from this Date hereof.

Further about the buyeng of Cattle, that none be bought for the [...] [...] for Defperate Debts.

Alexander answered that he had only some council books and a few loose papers, and that the general letters and the rest had been kept by the late Governor.

It was therefore ordered that the present Governor take a view of all papers in the late Governor's possession, to see what belonged to the Company, and to deliver to the widow those that did not.

All the forts, fortifications, buildings, houses, ammunition and the like were to be surveyed forthwith, so that the council might see what was in order and what was not, and the same repaired as soon as possible for the good safety and defence of the island.

An examination was to be taken of all posts on an alarm, that they might be regulated according as the posts and places required.

Lemon Valley was to be repaired forthwith, having been left out of repair for some time, and two soldiers with an officer were to be posted there as formerly.

One private sentinel was now to be ordered to Rupert's and to Banks's Fort, for the better strengthening of each, since there had been only two men at each fort for a long while.

All the corn was to be taken in as far as could be for the ease and lessening of the charge on the general table. The slaves who worked at the fortifications were to be maintained out of that account, so that the truth of every charge might appear. The same slaves were to be put into a little house formerly occupied by Black Betty, outside the Fort, and locked up every night by the corporal of the guard or by their overseer at drum beat.

All the working soldiers were to lie within the Fort for its strength, since a great many slaves of the freemen were at work there.

An account was to be taken of all the Fort's household goods, liquor and the like, so that the council could see how the same was being expended.

The store was to continue as now, with charge of it being delivered to William Marsden, and Mr Bazett was to assist him. The Fort account was to go on, and a distinct account was to be made from the death of Governor Poirier, and so likewise of the plantation account, in all particulars, to commence from this date.

Further, as to the buying of cattle, none was to be bought for the [...] [...] for desperate debts.

Interpretations

The instruction that the new Governor sort the late Governor's papers, returning to the widow those not relating to Company business, shows how personal and corporate records had been kept together in the Governor's lodgings. The council was acknowledging that some part of Poirier's papers were genuinely his private property, while asserting that everything touching the Company was subject to recovery for the administration. The procedure presumed a level of trust in the new Governor's judgment that no external arbitrator could have provided, and it left the widow no formal right of contest once Goodwin had drawn the line.

The detailed military reorganisation reveals just how thinly the outer posts had been manned under Poirier. Lemon Valley had fallen out of repair entirely, and the outer forts at Rupert's and Banks's had been held by only two men apiece for a long while. The new council's first round of orders restored a permanent garrison at Lemon Valley and added a third sentinel at each of the smaller forts, which suggests that defensive readiness had declined under the previous administration and that the new Governor wished to mark his accession by visible improvements to the island's outer defences.

The order that all accounts be kept distinct from the death of Poirier, and that a separate account be opened from that date for both the Fort and the plantation, is the central financial measure of the new administration. By drawing a line at 8 September, the council ensured that anything missing or unexplained would fall to the previous Governor's account rather than to its own stewardship, and that the new figures could be presented in London as a fresh and verifiable starting point.

Speculations

The detail that the slaves working at the fortifications be housed in Black Betty's old house outside the Fort, and locked up there at drum beat, points to a deliberate physical separation of the working slaves from the garrison interior. Poirier's earlier proposal had been for them to be locked in a room within the Fort, and the council's revised arrangement moved them outside the walls entirely. Removing them from the Fort at night reduced the risk that any internal disturbance among them could affect the garrison directly, and the choice of a named existing house suggests an arrangement that had operated before.

The decision to keep the storekeeping arrangement under Marsden, with Bazett assisting, rather than impose a new appointee, suggests the council wanted continuity in one of the most sensitive offices on the island. Inserting a fresh face at the store at the moment of a governorship transition would have raised obvious questions about what had been counted and what had not. Leaving Marsden in charge with an assistant produced the necessary second pair of eyes while preserving the official record of stock through the change of administration.

74

66

That the Fortifications at the Great Fort be forwarded with all Expedeteon for the Defence and Safety of said Island and our Mafters Interest.

Tho: Goodwin Edw: Mashborne W.m Marsden

Island St Helena Att A Consultation. held on. Friday the. 12.th day of September. 1707. att Fort James

Pres: Thom: Goodwin, Governour Edw: Mashborne Dep.ty Govern.r William Marsden. 3. in Council.

Whereas Severall Demands are made for Debts Contracted by the late Governour Poirier, for the use of the Fort, and Plantation Therefore to make all Accounts Cleare, and that there may be no after Demands.

It is Ordered.

That an Advertizement be this Day Iffued out, to the End all persons Concerned, do bring in theer Refpective Accounts in Writeing to the Governour and Councell on Tuesday the. 23. In= stant, theer Setting at Fort James; for the Regulafeng and Adjuf= =teng all Such Accteoufs, and whom foever is found Remifs in this Matter it shall be to their own Damage.

Tho: Goodwin Edw: Mashborne W.m Marsden

Island St Helena Att A Consultation. held on Tuesday the. 23.th day of September. 1707. att Fort James

Pres: Thomas Goodwin Govern.r Edw: Mashborne Dep.ty Govern.r William Marsden. 3. in Coun.

Whereas M.r George Carne Petitioned this Day to Govern.r

The fortifications at the Great Fort were to be carried forward with all expedition for the defence and safety of the island and for the protection of the Masters' interest.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Friday 12 September 1707 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

Several demands had been made for debts contracted by the late Governor Poirier for the use of the Fort and the plantation. To make all accounts clear, and so that no further demands should arise afterwards, it was ordered that an advertisement be issued this day, requiring all persons concerned to bring in their respective accounts in writing to the Governor and Council on Tuesday 23 September, at their sitting at Fort James, for the regulation and adjustment of all such accounts. Whoever was found remiss in the matter would do so to their own loss.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 23 September 1707 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

Mr George Carne petitioned this day to the Governor [...]

Interpretations

The advertisement requiring all claims against the late Governor's official spending to be brought in by a fixed date shows the new administration drawing a procedural line under Poirier's private and public accounts. By publishing notice and setting a deadline of eleven days later, with the warning that any later claimant would bear the loss, the council was converting the open-ended question of the Governor's outstanding debts into a closed audit window. The mechanism was familiar from English probate practice, where creditors of a deceased were called in by public notice within a stated period.

The distinction in the advertisement between debts for the use of the Fort and debts for the plantation echoes the parallel accounting set up at the previous sitting. By calling for claims under both heads at the same hearing, the council ensured that creditors could not switch their bills between the two accounts to suit themselves, and that each demand would be tested against the records being assembled by Marsden at the store and Mashborne at the great plantation.

Speculations

The eleven day window between the issue of the advertisement and the hearing was short enough to discourage opportunistic claims by people hoping to slip in inflated figures, but long enough for any genuine creditor with a book of accounts to write up the balance and present it in writing. The requirement that demands be brought in writing rather than urged in person points to a deliberate effort to fix the claims on paper at the outset, which would have made it far harder for any party to argue a different total at a later sitting.

The warning that any creditor found remiss in this matter would suffer to his own loss reads as a substantive bar rather than mere encouragement to comply. By stating the consequence in advance and on the record, the council put itself in a position to refuse any subsequent claim on the ground that the claimant had failed to use the opportunity formally afforded. The new Governor was building procedural defences against the open-ended liability that an unaudited governorship might otherwise have created for his administration.

75

67

and Councell defireng that he may have what Mony is due to Governours Helings Children. at Eight p̈ Cent p̈ Annum Intereft. in the R.t Hon.ble Companys Store bookes, offering Securety for the Same.

It is Ordered and agreed.

That the said M.r Carnes request be granted, and that the same Credit be pofted to his Account, he giveing Security for the same, according to his Offer. and that a bond be drawn accordingly.

Likewise the said M.r Carne Petitioned. that Some years Since he received a Letter from the Worshipfull Ephraim Bondall Esq.r the Contents of Near the Sence as followeth.

Understanding Monfeur Stephen Poirier is removed from his Sta= =tion defere you to take into your Care and Cuftodey my unlucky Roque Tom, who you have seen with me at Surra &c.a But that being a Mefsage of the said Ephraim Bondall of the Governours Removall did not make any Demand but he being now dead defires he may have the said Tom delivered into his Care and Cuftody according to the peurport of said Letter.

It is Ordered

That the said M.r Carne take into his Pofefsion the said Tom Unlefs Madam Poirier Can Shew any better Power than the said M.r Carne hath which if she Can. then the said Tom to be delivered her again.

Whereas Hugh Bodley free planter, who hath been Im= =ployed by Governour Poirier as Overfeer of the people Imployeed at Worke at the Fortifecations, did this day present his Petition Setting forth therein that he Never made any Peunctuall Bargain with the said Governour Poirier for any Sallary, Therefore defired to know what and how much he was to have, which did in a manner Surprize us, for we all along thought he had the same allowance of Sallary as Gabriell Powell had, that is Twenty pound p̈ Annum, But there being no Pofitive bargain as we know off, and confederong he is a Man. very well Skilled, and Capable of such Bufsness we Offered him Twen= ty Sex pownds p̈ Annum, and his diet at the Table, But he being not Sattisfied with that Sallary defered Thirty pound which we thought too Much. Therefore After Severall debates allowed him time to confeder, whether he would Accept our Offer or Not, that we may Provede our Selves accordingly.

Henry Coales free planter made Complaint againft Mary the Wefe of Thomas ffofter Corporall. for reportfen, and Spreading abroad. that he the said Henry y.e Coales Wefe made Ufse of a Dildo in her body. wherefore defires Sattiffaction.

The said Mary Fofter Appeared, and denys the Action.

The said Henry Coale defired his Evidences might be Called and Sworn who were as followeth. Mary

Mr George Carne petitioned the Governor and Council this day, asking that he might have the money due to Governor Heling's children, at eight per cent per annum interest, charged in the Honourable Company's store books, offering security for the sum.

It was ordered and agreed that Carne's request be granted, and that the credit be posted to his account, on his giving security for the sum in accordance with his offer, and that a bond be drawn up accordingly.

Carne also petitioned that some years ago he had received a letter from the Worshipful Ephraim Bondall, esquire, the substance of which was as follows. Bondall, understanding that Monsieur Stephen Poirier was removed from his station, asked Carne to take into his care and custody his unlucky rogue Tom, whom Carne had seen with him at Surat. Since the message was based on Poirier's supposed removal, Carne had made no demand at the time. Now that Poirier was dead, Carne asked that Tom be delivered into his care and custody, in accordance with the letter.

It was ordered that Carne take Tom into his possession, unless Madam Poirier could show any better authority than the letter Carne held. If she could, then Tom was to be delivered back to her.

Hugh Bodley, free planter, who had been employed by Governor Poirier as overseer of the people working at the fortifications, presented his petition this day. He stated that he had never made any clear bargain with Poirier for a salary, and asked to be told what and how much he was to have. This came as something of a surprise, since the council had all along assumed he had the same allowance of salary as Gabriel Powell, that is twenty pounds a year. There being no settled bargain so far as the council knew, and considering that he was a man very well skilled and capable in such business, the council offered him twenty six pounds a year and his diet at the table. He was not satisfied with that salary, and asked for thirty pounds, which the council thought too much. After several debates he was allowed time to consider whether he would accept the offer or not, so that the council could make other provision if necessary.

Henry Coale, free planter, complained against Mary, wife of Thomas Foster, corporal, for reporting and spreading the story that his wife had used a dildo on her body. Coale asked satisfaction for the slander.

Mary Foster appeared and denied the action.

Coale asked that his witnesses be called and sworn. They were as follows. Mary [...]

Interpretations

The Carne petitions illustrate the multiple ways in which a death in office unsettled the affairs of those who had business with the Governor. A creditor of Governor Heling's children was offering to take the principal sum into his own account at interest, in exchange for security, which converted a debt owed by minors into a fresh loan secured on a known man's assets. The Tom petition raised a parallel question of custody, with Carne producing a years-old letter from Bondall as his title to the slave, subject only to any stronger document the widow could produce. Together the two requests show how the new Governor's first sittings became occasions for resolving claims that the previous administration had left in suspense.

Bodley's revelation that he had served as overseer of the fortification work without any settled bargain on salary is striking. The council had assumed he was paid twenty pounds a year, the same as Powell, because that was the customary rate, but he had in fact been working on the understanding that the question would be settled later. The case shows how loosely some senior wage-earning appointments had been arranged under Poirier, and how the new administration had to construct retrospective terms of service for at least one important employee.

Speculations

The council's offer of twenty six pounds and diet at the table, against Bodley's demand for thirty, suggests that he was using the moment of administrative transition to press for an increase above the rate paid to Powell. With the fortifications being pushed forward as a priority of the new Governor's first orders, his skilled labour was particularly valuable, and he may have judged that the council would not wish to risk losing him at the start of a major works programme. The decision to give him time to consider, rather than close the matter at once, indicates that the council expected him to take the offer once he had weighed the alternatives.

The willingness of Carne to advance the security for Heling's children's money at eight per cent suggests that interest at that rate was the going return for a secured loan on the island. By offering the council a single solvent debtor with sureties in place of an open balance owed to minors, Carne both removed an administrative complication for the Company's store and gained a clear title to use the money in his own affairs, which would have been worth more to him than the standing balance.

76

68

Marry the Wefe of Thomas Burnham Sworn Saith that Some time Since She was at M.r Foster house talking of Severall Matters, and at Laft we defcourfeed of M.r Coales. and his Wefe how they Lived at Difference, and Cou= not tell what Should be the Reafon, I made Anfwer I believe that he was too hard for her, because that formerly it was said that One Woman would not Serve him M.rs Hoffer replyed, and said it's a Letle Sign. and that M.rs Coales had a thing She made use of in the Room of a Man. I made Anfwer I could not think it I ask't her who told her, the said her Black Wench. So after our difcourfe we though. it was a thing Called a Dildo. feurther Saith Not.

Dorothy Hayes Wedow Sworne Saith that some time Since being in Difcourfe with M.rs Burnham, and M.rs Fofter at her Own house M.rs Fofter said there was Strange News Reseed, of M.rs Coals, M.rs Burnham made Anfwer I dont believe et, and Enquiring into the bufsnefs M.rs Fofter said M.rs Coales made ufe of a thing Called a Dildo.

Jenny a black Wench of Samuell Jefrey being Examined Saith, that some time ago, M.rs Coals Black Wench told her, That her Mefftrifs made ufe of a Dildo. when her Mafter was not at home, which She told her Mefstrefs of when she went home.

It is Ordered.

That the Decifeon of this Matter be referr'd till Next Councell Day and that M.rs Coales Black Wench be ordered to Appear that day in Order of being Examined.

Whereas Walter Belvard, and Leonard Hunt made their Severall Complaints against John Clavering for his Wefes abuseing and Scandalizeing theer Wefes, in Severall Grofs words, and Effperfeons, and it haveing bin already Ordered that the said Clavering was fined, for the said Wefes Affperfeons, and abuseing the whole Ifland, be Now Difcharged having No Caufe of Acteon Since it was before that time.

Peter Goddle Souldieer made Complaint that Francis Leech Slongleman Struck him Severall blows with a Whip on the back without any Manner of provocation.

And Likewife against Leonard Hunt for his Wefes abuseing him, and Throweing Stones at him, and tearing his Leather Bagg, wherein he used to Carry his Vectualls to the Guard.

It is Ordered

That Francis Leech be fined halfe a Dollar to the Cheurch, for Strikeing the said Goddle, and pay Councell Charges.

And M.r Hunt give him another Bagg in Leiu of that his Wefe tore.

[...] [...] [...] Complaint against Robert Gurling

Mary, wife of Thomas Burnham, sworn, said that some time since she had been at Foster's house talking of several matters. At length they fell into conversation about Mr Coale and his wife, how they lived in disagreement, and could not tell what should be the reason. Burnham answered that she believed he was too hard for her, because it had formerly been said that one woman would not serve him. Mrs Foster replied that it was a little sign of that, and that Mrs Coale had a thing she made use of in the place of a man. Burnham said she could not believe it, and asked who had told her. Mrs Foster said her own black wench. After their conversation they thought the thing was called a dildo. She said no more.

Dorothy Hayes, widow, sworn, said that some time since, being in conversation with Mrs Burnham and Mrs Foster at her own house, Mrs Foster said there was strange news abroad about Mrs Coale. Mrs Burnham answered that she did not believe it, and on inquiring into the business, Mrs Foster said that Mrs Coale made use of a thing called a dildo.

Jenny, a black wench of Samuel Jeffrey, on examination, said that some time ago Mrs Coale's black wench had told her that her mistress made use of a dildo when her master was not at home, and that she had told her mistress of it when she went home.

It was ordered that the decision in this matter be deferred to the next council day, and that Mrs Coale's black wench be ordered to appear on that day to be examined.

Walter Belvard and Leonard Hunt made their separate complaints against John Clavering for his wife's abuse and slander of their wives, in several gross words and aspersions. As it had already been ordered that Clavering was fined for his wife's aspersions and her abuse of the whole island, he was now discharged, there being no cause of action since the matter dated from before that time.

Peter Goddle, soldier, complained that Francis Leech, longleman, had struck him several blows with a whip on the back without any provocation.

He also complained against Leonard Hunt for his wife's abuse of him, throwing stones at him and tearing the leather bag in which he used to carry his food to the guard.

It was ordered that Francis Leech be fined half a dollar to the church for striking Goddle, and pay council charges.

Hunt was to give Goddle another bag in place of the one his wife had torn.

[...] [...] [...] complaint against Robert Gurling.

Interpretations

The Coale defamation case shows the council confronting a slander whose subject matter, the imputed use of a sexual object by a wife in her husband's absence, sat at the extreme edge of what the standard binary fine and apology procedure could readily address. The decision to defer judgment to the next council day, and to summon Mrs Coale's slave directly for examination, indicates that the council was not prepared to dispose of the matter on the sworn evidence of two free women and another household's slave. Calling the slave who had supposedly started the report was an attempt to trace the origin of the rumour to its source, which would have been crucial to determining whether the speech had any factual basis at all.

The discharge of Clavering on the Belvard and Hunt complaints, on the ground that the matters complained of pre-dated the earlier fine for his wife's general abuse of the island, demonstrates the council applying a form of res judicata. Once the wife had been penalised in a single comprehensive fine for scandalising the whole island, separate actions arising from the same period of invective could not be brought by individual victims, since the wider penalty was treated as covering the field. The principle prevented multiple recoveries against the same household for the same outburst.

Speculations

The willingness of multiple witnesses to repeat the dildo allegation in council, in sworn evidence and on the record, suggests that the underlying rumour was already widely circulated and that putting it before the bench was the only way Coale could hope to obtain a public correction. The risk in bringing such a case was that the evidence given in court might harden the suspicion in the listening community rather than dispel it, which may explain the council's caution in deferring decision until the original source could be heard.

The detail of the leather bag in the Goddle case, with Hunt being ordered to provide a replacement after his wife had torn it, points to a settlement practice in which damages were directed at restoring the specific item lost rather than at converting the loss into money. A leather bag used by a soldier to carry food to the guard was a piece of working equipment that needed to be replaced in kind, and the council's order produced an exact remedy without the complication of valuing the bag in cash.

77

69

The said Robert Gurling appeared and said that the said Clavering accepted it of Walter Morris for his pay Mafter, which the said Morris Juftifeed, but not Makeing payment.

It is Ordered

That the said Robert Gurling pay the said Clavering the said Dollar, and Councell Charges.

John Clavering gave Information that M.rs Slaughter Sold Punch by Retayle with out a Liecence.

William Slaughter Corporall, appeared in behalf of his Wife, and Denyed the Information.

Thomas Marley Souldieer Sworn Saith. that he was at Corp.l Slaughters house, and Defired his Wife to make him a bowle of punch, She answered She had no Liecence, but said if he sent for any She would give him house Room, and thereupon Sent for Some Lequor of M.r Gra= tons, and M.rs Slaughter found Sugar, and Sowring, and that he paid the said Graton Money for the Lequor.

Thomas Dutch Souldieer Sworn Saith that he was at the said Slaughters, where he drank part of a bowle of peunch, with Thomas Marley, and Michaell altenburg, and that the Lequor came from M.r Gratons that made it, and M.rs Slaughter found Sugar, and Sowring.

Michael altenburg Sworn Saith that he Spent a Dollar at the said Slaughters house, and heard them talking of Someting for Lequor, but Can't Tell who made the Punch.

It is Ordered

That it not appearing Clear, and having no Pofsitive Evedence that M.rs Slaughter Sold any Punch. the Caufe be difmift.

John Clavering made Complaint that Thomas Dutch Souldieer, came drunk into his house, and being Civilly Defired to go out again refufed, and Laid hands on the temple aft and on his Own house and Tore his Cloaths.

The said Thomas Dutch Says That Rifeing up from his Seat the said Clavering took him hold, to Thruft him out of doors. and in saveing himfelf from falleing Laid hold of the said Clavering and So fell, down togethor and Tore his Coat.

William French Serj.t Saith that the said Dutch took faft hold of the said Clavering in a rude Mannor, and Tore his Coat, and that he would not a gone out of the house had he not been forced out although Civelly Intreated by the said Clavering

It is Ordered

That the said Thomas Dutch ride the Wooden Horse Next Releefe

Robert Gurling appeared and said that Clavering had accepted Walter Morris as his paymaster, which Morris had confirmed, but no payment had been made.

It was ordered that Gurling pay Clavering the dollar and council charges.

John Clavering gave information that Mrs Slaughter had sold punch by retail without a licence.

William Slaughter, corporal, appeared on behalf of his wife and denied the charge.

Thomas Marley, soldier, sworn, said he had been at Corporal Slaughter's house and had asked Slaughter's wife to make him a bowl of punch. She answered that she had no licence, but said that if he sent out for some, she would give it house room. Marley accordingly sent for some liquor from Mr Graton's, and Mrs Slaughter supplied sugar and souring. He paid Graton in cash for the liquor.

Thomas Dutch, soldier, sworn, said he had been at Slaughter's house, where he drank part of a bowl of punch with Thomas Marley and Michael Altenburg. The liquor had come from Graton's, who made it, and Mrs Slaughter had supplied sugar and souring.

Michael Altenburg, sworn, said he had spent a dollar at Slaughter's house, and had heard the others talking of fetching liquor, but could not say who had made the punch.

It was ordered that, as the matter did not appear clearly proved and there was no positive evidence that Mrs Slaughter had sold any punch, the cause be dismissed.

John Clavering complained that Thomas Dutch, soldier, came drunk into his house, and on being civilly asked to go out again refused, laid hands on the table at his own house, and tore his clothes.

Dutch said that as he was rising from his seat, Clavering took hold of him to thrust him out of doors. In saving himself from falling, he laid hold of Clavering, and the two fell together, which tore his coat.

Sergeant William French said that Dutch took fast hold of Clavering in a rude manner and tore his coat, and that he would not have left the house unless forced out, although civilly entreated by Clavering.

It was ordered that Thomas Dutch ride the wooden horse on the next relief [...]

Interpretations

The dismissal of the punch licence case turns on a careful distinction between supplying the apparatus of drink and selling the drink itself. The sworn evidence showed that Mrs Slaughter had provided only sugar and souring while the liquor itself was bought separately from Graton, and the council treated that as falling short of retail sale. The licensing regime was being interpreted narrowly, requiring proof that the licensee had sold the alcohol rather than merely accommodated the consumption of drink brought from a licensed house. The arrangement looks like a recognised workaround by which an unlicensed house could host drinking without falling foul of the rule.

The treatment of the assault on Clavering contrasts sharply with the recent slander cases between the same household and others. Where insults had been resolved with money fines split between church and fortifications, a physical intrusion by a drunken soldier was met with a military punishment, riding the wooden horse on the next relief day. The choice of penalty reflects the dual status of the offender as a soldier first and a tortfeasor second, and brings the matter under garrison discipline rather than civil reparation.

Speculations

The fact that the same Thomas Marley and Thomas Dutch who appeared as witnesses for the defence in the licensing case turn up immediately afterward, with Dutch as the defendant in an assault complaint by the same Clavering who had brought the licensing information, suggests an undercurrent of mutual antagonism between Clavering and the soldiers who drank at Slaughter's. Clavering's information may have been an attempt to damage the social circle around the corporal's house, and the assault complaint that followed may have been the soldiers' retaliation or simply the next stage of an evening that had begun at one drinking spot.

The arrangement by which liquor was bought at one house and brought to another for consumption with supplied sugar and souring points to a small economy in which drinking premises were divided informally by the licensing rule. Licensed houses sold the spirit; unlicensed houses, especially those of garrison families with rooms to spare, supplied the social space, the accompaniments and the company. The council's narrow reading of the licence rule effectively preserved this arrangement against complaints from competing licensees.

78

70

Day of the Geuard, dureing Governour and Councell pleasure, and fined Five Shellings for being drunk to the Cheurch Account.

And alfo Mechaell altenburg Five Shellings More, for his being dreunk According to his own Confefseon.

Margarett Sech Wedow defired to hire a parcell of the R.t Hon.ble Companys Wafte Land adjoyneng to her Own and Beals Orphans.

It is Ordered

That her Request be granted the Rent to Commence from this day and that the Same be Measured Accordongly.

Jonathan Dufton. Defired alfo to hire all the R.t Hon.ble Companys Wafte Land, that lies betwext his Father Dufton Land, and the Land formerly Leonard Coulfons, and alfo One acre more which John Coulfon formerly had a grant for which he Relinquifhes, and has afsigned Over to the said Dufton, Ordered, that the same be Measured and the Rent to Commence from this Day.

Tho: Goodwin Edw: Mashborne W.m Marsden

Island St Helena Att A Consultation. held on Wednesday the. 24.th day of September. 1707. att Fort James

Pres.t Thom.s Goodwin Govern.r Edw.d Mashborne Dep.ty Govern.r William Marsden. 3. on Coun:

William Beale free planter being deftitute of a back kitchin and having no Manner of conveniency to drefs Vectuals in, Peteti= =oned. we would be pleafed to Grant him Leave and Leberty to bueld upon a piece of Greund. adjoyneng to the back fede of his House in ffort James Valley, which beeng Confederred, and veciwed to See that he ded not Annoy any of his Neegbours.

It is Ordered

That the said Beale have Leberty to bueld a Kitchen, beginneng from the Lower Corner of his house on the back fede of Twelve foot in Length, to the fam of the Chimney and from the dulfede of the said Twelve foot he is to Reun a Wall of Sex foot. Nine Inches in towards the Greund on the back fede of John Claverings am, fo as Nigh the Water Courfe as he thinks fett, fag the Inlarging of his Said Kitchen, pagong as un Acknowledgment for the Same to the R.t Hon.ble Company the Sum of Three Shellings yearly. and

Thomas Dutch was ordered to ride the wooden horse on the next relief day of the guard, during the Governor and Council's pleasure, and fined five shillings to the church account for being drunk.

Michael Altenburg was likewise fined a further five shillings for being drunk, on his own confession.

Margaret Sech, widow, asked to hire a parcel of the Honourable Company's waste land adjoining her own and the Beale orphans' land.

It was ordered that her request be granted, the rent to commence from this day, and that the parcel be measured accordingly.

Jonathan Duston asked to hire all the Honourable Company's waste land lying between his father Duston's land and the land formerly held by Leonard Coulson, together with one further acre to which John Coulson had previously had a grant, which Coulson now relinquished and assigned to Duston. It was ordered that the same be measured, the rent to commence from this day.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Wednesday 24 September 1707 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

William Beale, free planter, being without a back kitchen and having no convenience for dressing his food, petitioned the council to grant him leave and liberty to build on a piece of ground adjoining the back of his house in Fort James Valley. The proposal was considered, and the ground viewed, to see that he did not annoy any of his neighbours.

It was ordered that Beale have liberty to build a kitchen starting from the lower corner of his house on the back side, twelve feet in length, to the [...] of the chimney. From the outside of the twelve feet he was to run a wall of six feet nine inches inwards on the back side of John Clavering's [...], as near the water course as he thought fit, for the enlargement of the kitchen. He was to pay, as an acknowledgment to the Honourable Company, the sum of three shillings yearly, and [...]

Interpretations

The Beale grant illustrates how the council managed building permissions for additions to private houses on Company freehold ground. Permission was given only after the council had viewed the proposed site to ensure no neighbour would be annoyed, with specific dimensions written into the order and a small annual acknowledgment payable to the Company. By keeping the acknowledgment nominal at three shillings rather than charging a market rent, the council preserved the Company's ultimate title while in practice allowing the planter to treat the kitchen as part of his own holding.

The two waste land hirings to Margaret Sech and Jonathan Duston, granted at the close of the previous sitting, show the council taking up its inventory function in practical earnest. Waste land had been notionally Company property, but its actual measurement and rental had not been routinely enforced. By granting the parcels on payment of rent from a stated date, with proper measurement to follow, the new administration converted dormant claims into active leases that would now appear on the Company's books.

Speculations

The dual fine on Dutch and Altenburg, with Dutch also bound to ride the wooden horse, points to the council distinguishing between civilian and military components of drunkenness. The money penalty for being drunk was the same for both men, but Dutch as a soldier carried the additional burden of corporal military discipline, while Altenburg, whose status is not explicitly given in this entry, escaped that part of the punishment. The differential treatment kept the soldier's offence visible to his fellow troops as a matter of garrison discipline while preserving the standard money fine as a civilian residue applicable to either party.

The arrangement by which John Coulson relinquished and assigned his earlier grant of one acre to Jonathan Duston, with the council recording the transfer and beginning a fresh rent in Duston's name, points to a recognised practice of informal conveyance of held land between planters subject to Council approval. The act of relinquishment and reassignment, captured in the order as a single transaction, gave Duston a clean title to consolidate his neighbouring holdings, while sparing the Council from holding the surrendered acre as vacant ground that would need to be readvertised.

79

71

And that the said John Clavering pay alfo three Shellings p̈ annum for what Ground Remaens on the back fede of his house to the Main Water Courfe.

Whereas it hath been for Some time paft Intended and thought on to have a house bueilt on the Alarm Redge for the Lodging of Arms and ammunieteon and Pofteng of two Souldieers in order to Geuard the ammunieteon and to fire the Alarm Guns there Afsoon as they defcryes any Shyp or Shyps. and upon the hearing of Profperous bay Guns fire, That all the Ifland may be the Sooner allarmed where as Some temes it is an hour before thofe Guns are fired, after the bay Guns, and alfo for the Conveniency, of Lodgeing the whole party pofted there in the Night time. to prevent theer going home to theer Severall houfes as ufually did, and there upon So he Neglected Repaireing to their Refpective Pofts the Next Morneing tell it was very late. all which having Never been fully agreed upon, or any Meanes Used to prevent the same till this day, We thought it very Necefsary, and Convenient to go and take a Veiew of the said alarm Reedge. to See which was the moft Convenients place. to bueild a House on, which having done accordongly.

It is hereby agreed & Ordered.

That a House of Thirty foot within the Walls in Length, and Twelve foot in Breadth. with a Chimney of four foot, and a halfe deep. and Sex foot wide be bueilt afsoon as pofseble. And Thomas Burrnham Mafon Offering his Service to do the same, We thought fett to Employ him. and have agreed to give him Twenty five pounds (after his demand of Thirty pownds) to performe the said house as afsorefaid, he defired tell the Laft day of November to perform the said Work which was agreed, But to Incourage a more Speecly Performance he is promefed that if he can ferenfh the same by the Laft of October to have a Grateuity of Twenty Shellings More.

Upon the veicwing of Lemon Valley to Confeder what was Needfull to be done there with the Approbateon of John George Newman Inginieer have Laid out a platforme of Three Guns to be Erected on the Eaft Sede of the Valley with a house of Thirty foot long and Ten Broad. with a Chimney, and that a powder Room befseell at the backfede thereof, and that a Platform of two Guns with a Smale powder Room to hold Suly Cartredges of powder on the Weft Sede of the Valley both of which are upon two Letle Hells Clear from any Floods, and well per= =tainly make the place Impregnable all which have Imployed Richard Geirling Mafon with fefteen Labourers which well Perform the same in a very Little time. Tho: Goodwin Edw: Mashborne W.m Marsden

Ifland

John Clavering was also to pay three shillings a year for the ground that remained at the back of his house up to the main water course.

For some time past it had been intended and considered that a house should be built on the alarm ridge for the lodging of arms and ammunition, and for the posting of two soldiers to guard the ammunition and to fire the alarm guns as soon as they spotted any ship. On the hearing of Prosperous Bay guns fire, the whole island might then be alarmed more quickly, since the alarm guns there were sometimes fired an hour after the bay guns. The same arrangement would also give the party posted there somewhere to sleep at night, instead of going home to their several houses as they usually did, and so neglecting to return to their posts the next morning until very late. None of this had been fully agreed on, nor any means taken to prevent the abuse, until this day. The council judged it very necessary and convenient to go and view the alarm ridge to see which was the most convenient place to build a house on, which was done.

It was agreed and ordered that a house thirty feet long within the walls, twelve feet broad, with a chimney four and a half feet deep and six feet wide, be built as soon as possible. Thomas Burnham, mason, offered his services to do the work, and the council thought fit to employ him. They agreed to give him twenty five pounds, after his demand of thirty pounds, to complete the house as stated. He asked until the last day of November to perform the work, which was agreed. To encourage more speedy performance, he was promised an additional gratuity of twenty shillings if he could finish by the last of October.

On viewing Lemon Valley, and considering what was needed there, with the approbation of John George Newman, engineer, the council laid out a platform of three guns to be erected on the east side of the valley, with a house thirty feet long and ten broad, with a chimney, and a powder room built at the back of the house. A further platform of two guns, with a small powder room to hold ready cartridges of powder, was to stand on the west side of the valley. Both platforms were on two little hills clear of any floods, and would certainly make the place impregnable. Richard Gurling, mason, had been employed with fifteen labourers to perform the work, which would be finished in a very little time.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Interpretations

The reasoning behind the alarm ridge house lays out the problem of communicating an alarm across the island in language unusually frank for a council minute. The signal chain ran from the seaward guns at Prosperous Bay to the alarm guns on the ridge, and a delay of up to an hour was said sometimes to elapse between the two. By housing the alarm party on the ridge itself, with ammunition stored on site and the men under standing orders not to disperse to their homes at night, the council was addressing the simultaneous problems of slow firing and slow morning muster in a single architectural measure.

The contracting arrangement with Burnham shows how the council managed fixed price construction. A first demand of thirty pounds was negotiated down to twenty five, with a two month deadline and a one month early completion bonus of twenty shillings. The structure incentivised both price restraint and speed without exposing the Company to overruns, and the public record of both the agreed price and the gratuity created a check against any later attempt by either side to vary the terms.

The Lemon Valley scheme, two platforms on dry hills with their own powder accommodation and engineered under the approbation of Newman, illustrates the technical professionalism that the new administration was bringing to defensive works. The choice of sites clear of floods, the separation of ready cartridges from the main powder room, and the dispatch of a named mason with fifteen labourers, together suggest that the works had been thought through in technical detail before being authorised.

Speculations

The decision to set the gratuity for early completion at twenty shillings, against a contract price of twenty five pounds, calibrates the incentive at four per cent of the principal sum. The rate is low enough to indicate that the council saw a one month acceleration as worth a modest premium rather than a substantial one, perhaps because the strategic value of the alarm house lay more in its existence than in its immediate completion. Burnham was being offered a real inducement to finish early, but not so large an inducement as to alter his pricing of the underlying job.

The description of the new Lemon Valley platforms as certainly making the place impregnable is the sort of confident assessment that a new administration is likely to put on record when announcing its first defensive works. Whether two and three gun platforms on dry hills would in fact have repelled a determined French squadron is open to question, but the language reflects the political function of the order as much as its military substance, putting on the record an unequivocal claim that the new Governor's measures had made an exposed valley secure.

80

72

Island St Helena Att A Consultation. held on Tuesday the . 8.th day of October. 1707. Att Fort James.

Pres.t Thom: Goodwin, Governour Edward Mashborne Dep.ty Govern.r William Marsden. 3. in Councill

Whereas John Mudge free Planter made Complaint to the Governour That M.rs Peurling Wedow denyed to pay him for halfe a double Wall which her hufsband (as he says and pretends) bargained with him to pay for so much wall as foned to him the said Mudge, wherefore Defires Sattisfaction may be made him.

M.rs Peurling Says She knows nothing of any Such Bargain that her hufsband made.

Then the Evidences were Called and Sworn.

Daniell Griffith Sworne Saith. he knew nothing of the bargain that M.r Mudge says he made with M.r Peurling. any more than that about four. years Since he heard M.r Peurling say that if he had any thing to do with M.r Mudge he would have a Writeng made, But Never had any direction.s to make any betweet them.

William Seale Sworn Saith that about a Twelve Month ago his Sefter Peurling Sent for him to go and Veiw the damage M.r Mudge said her Cattle had done him. which he, and William Hayfe vallued at a bowle of Peunch, which they had, and in the drenkeng of et. M.r Mudge, and his Sefter Peurling defcourfed. about makeing a Wall betweet him and her, but She Seemed not welling to joyn with him wheck is all he knows of the Contract.

William Hayfe Sworn Saith. that when he and William Seale went to Veiw the Plantateon, and after the bowle of peunch was made M.r Mudge, and M.rs Peurling defcourfed about makeing a Double Wall, but ded not fully Conclude about it, talkeing about the Upper End and Lower End. who should make Each part, and heard Meftrefs Peurling Say, She had and would Keep M.r Mudges Wall in Repair, and bueld a New One at her Leafure.

Thomas Cafon Sworn Saith that he knows M.r Peurling hath mended M.r Mudges Wall Severall times, and that he heard him Say he knew M.r Mudge to be a troublesome unneeghbourly Man, and would Never joyne Walls with him. but make One Upon his own Ground, and Leave a Lane betweet them.

M.r Bell. Sworne Saith that amongst the difcourfe aforesaid her

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 8 October 1707 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

John Mudge, free planter, complained to the Governor that Mrs Purling, widow, refused to pay him for half of a double wall. He claimed that her husband had bargained with him to pay for as much wall as fell on his own side. Mudge asked for satisfaction.

Mrs Purling said she knew nothing of any such bargain made by her husband.

The witnesses were then called and sworn.

Daniel Griffith, sworn, said he knew nothing of the bargain Mudge alleged he had made with Purling, except that about four years ago he had heard Purling say that if he had any dealing with Mudge he would have a writing made. He had never been given any direction to draw any such writing between them.

William Seale, sworn, said that about a twelvemonth ago his sister Purling had sent for him to view the damage Mudge said her cattle had done him. Seale and William Hayes valued the damage at a bowl of punch, which they had. As they were drinking it, Mudge and his sister Purling fell into conversation about making a wall between them, but she seemed unwilling to join with him. That was all Seale knew of any contract.

William Hayes, sworn, said that when he and William Seale went to view the plantation, and after the bowl of punch had been made, Mudge and Mrs Purling discussed making a double wall but did not come to a conclusion. They spoke of the upper end and the lower end, and who should make each part. He heard Mrs Purling say that she had kept Mudge's wall in repair and would do so again, and would build a new one at her leisure.

Thomas Cason, sworn, said he knew Mr Purling had mended Mudge's wall several times. He had heard Purling say he knew Mudge to be a troublesome and unneighbourly man, and that he would never join walls with him, but would build one on his own ground and leave a lane between them.

Mr Bell, sworn, said that among the conversation [...]

Interpretations

The Purling wall case shows the council functioning as a court of evidence in a contract dispute that had passed through the death of one of the parties. Mudge was asserting an oral agreement with the deceased husband, and the widow was disclaiming any knowledge of it. The council was hearing the matter by sworn testimony from five witnesses, three of whom had been present at relevant conversations and two of whom had heard the deceased speak on the subject. The procedural shape is that of a probate court taking evidence on what a now silent party had or had not committed himself to during his life.

The successive layers of testimony reveal how oral neighbour agreements were tested on the island when memory had to do the work of writing. Griffith's recollection that Purling had wanted any dealing with Mudge reduced to writing established the deceased's general caution. Seale and Hayes placed an actual conversation about the wall, but as one that had not been concluded. Cason placed words from the deceased that were positively hostile to any joint wall with Mudge, and pointed to the alternative of a lane between separate walls. Read in sequence, the evidence built against the existence of any binding bargain, with the deceased's recorded distrust of Mudge as the strongest indication that he would not have made one informally.

Speculations

The valuation of cattle damage at a single bowl of punch by the two appraisers is a small but revealing detail of how minor neighbour disputes were settled on the island outside the council's formal jurisdiction. By accepting refreshment as the de facto compensation, Seale and Hayes converted what could have been an arithmetic award into a social gesture that brought the parties together over a drink, and the conversation about the wall that followed was the kind of forward-looking discussion such a settlement might encourage. The arrangement worked because both parties were free planters of broadly similar standing, with a long shared interest in good fences and good relations.

The detail that Purling had repaired Mudge's wall on several occasions while disclaiming any intention to join walls with him points to a pattern of one-sided neighbourly maintenance that may itself have prompted Mudge's belief that an agreement existed. From Mudge's perspective, repeated repairs by his neighbour could readily have looked like the performance of a continuing obligation rather than the discretionary act that Cason's evidence revealed it to be, and the present dispute may have arisen at the point where the widow declined to continue what her husband had quietly done.

81

73

her heifter Peurling was almoft perfwaded to bueld a Wall with M.r Mudge but made no peuncteuall agreement as She knows of.

Upon Confederation of what the Evedences has depofed and fondeing no Particual bargaen, and that many daily Clamors may Enfue and so Render Controversies Endlefs.

It is Ordered.

That the said M.rs Peurling bueld a Wall upon her own Greund at her Own Coft and charges, Afsoon as pofseble She can to prevent feuture Controversies and that they pay Councell Charges Equally betweeen them.

Whereas George Dwight free planter preferred a petetion this day, humbly prayeing that the Drift way through his plantateon may be turned out, alowly. by the outfede of his Wall, which is as Eafey as the other which well be a great Detriment to him the said Dwight if not granted, having Yams already Plantied by the said Drift way fede, where in John Mudges Cattle doth dakly Trample, and Spoel his provifions.

It is Unnanimously agreed by and betweeen the said John Mudge, and the said George Dwight, to End all feu= =ture Controverfees, That the said Mudge drove his cattle from out of the said Dwights Bayles Neet Mudges, and So by the Lower End of George Dwights Land already Inclofed for a plantateon on the outfede the Wall, and so to his Cattels free Land, and that Dwights pay Councell charges.

M.rs Peurling Wedow Complains that John Mudge has Stopt up the dreft way allowed by the Men Chofen for that peurpofe and made So Narrow that no Cattle Can go through without Dam= =nefseing one another by goreing with their horns, or throweing Each other into M.r Bazetts plantateon Lofeby the wayfede.

It is Ordered

That the place be vewed to See who has Encroached into the Drest way, and the Same Regulated Accordingly.

Whereas Madam Poirier Executrifs, and M.r Samuell Des Fontaines prefent Executor of the Laft Well and Teftament of the late deceafed Governour Poirieer brought the Same this Day to Governour and Councell In order of haveing the same proved, which was Accordongly done as followeth.

Imprimis Mathew Bazett made Oath that he has trans la= =ted the said deceafed Governour Poirieers Laft Well and Teftament out of French (as made and Laftly the Teftatr) onto English Accordong to the beft of his Skell and Judgment. Likewife

Mrs Purling had been almost persuaded to build a wall with Mudge, but no positive agreement had been made so far as the witness knew.

On consideration of what the witnesses had deposed, and finding no settled bargain, and that daily complaints might continue and so render the controversy endless, it was ordered that Mrs Purling build a wall on her own ground at her own cost and charges, as soon as she could, to prevent further controversies. The parties were to pay council charges equally between them.

George Dwight, free planter, presented a petition this day humbly praying that the drift way through his plantation be turned out, somewhat, by the outside of his wall, which would be as easy as the present route. He said it would be a great detriment to him if this were not granted, as he had yams already planted along the side of the drift way, where John Mudge's cattle daily trampled and spoiled his provisions.

It was unanimously agreed between Mudge and Dwight, in order to end all future controversies, that Mudge drive his cattle out of Dwight's bayles next to Mudge's, and so by the lower end of Dwight's land already enclosed for a plantation, on the outside of the wall, and so on to the free cattle land. Dwight was to pay council charges.

Mrs Purling, widow, complained that John Mudge had stopped up the drift way allowed by the men chosen for that purpose, and made it so narrow that no cattle could pass through without injuring one another by goring with their horns, or throwing each other into Mr Bazett's plantation lying by the wayside.

It was ordered that the place be viewed to see who had encroached on the drift way, and the same regulated accordingly.

Madam Poirier, executrix, and Mr Samuel Desfontaines, present executor of the last will and testament of the late deceased Governor Poirier, brought the will this day to the Governor and Council to have it proved. The proof was conducted as follows.

First, Matthew Bazett made oath that he had translated the late Governor Poirier's last will and testament out of French, as made and lastly the testator's, into English, to the best of his skill and judgment.

[...]

Interpretations

The three Mudge cases heard on this day map out the routine pressures that arose between adjoining planters over walls, drift ways and grazing rights. Mudge appears in each entry as either complainant or defendant, on disputes about a contested wall, a request to relocate a drift way through Dwight's plantation, and an accusation that he had narrowed the drift way to the point of cattle injury. The cluster suggests that Mudge was at the centre of an ongoing pattern of small infractions, and the council's response, ordering separate walls, agreeing reroutes and viewing the disputed passage, treated each case on its own facts while building up a record that would be available if any of the disputes recurred.

The Poirier probate procedure shows the council acting on a will made in French by a French-born Governor of a small English settlement. The first step was to take sworn evidence from Matthew Bazett, who had translated the document into English, before the will itself could be received in proof. The procedural detail of an oath of translation before any consideration of the will's contents reflects the council's caution about admitting a foreign language document into the official record, and gives a glimpse of the bilingual administration in which Poirier had served.

Speculations

The remedy in the wall case, ordering Mrs Purling to build at her own cost despite Mudge being the original complainant, looks like a pragmatic decision to fix the future rather than litigate the past. With no clear bargain proved, the council could not award Mudge his share of the half wall he had alleged. By directing Mrs Purling to build her own wall at her own expense, the council ensured that the boundary would actually be fenced, eliminating the source of future dispute even if the legal merits did not strictly require the order. The equal division of council charges reinforced the message that neither side had prevailed outright.

The willingness of the council to involve itself in the geometry of cattle passage, with explicit reference to cattle goring one another with their horns or being thrown into a neighbour's plantation, points to a recognition that disputes over the width and line of drift ways had practical consequences in lost livestock. By ordering an immediate view of the place, the council moved to settle the question on the ground rather than by argument in the consultation room. Sending men out to inspect a contested track was probably the most reliable method of resolving such complaints, since the evidence was physical and visible to anyone willing to walk it.

82

74

Likewife

Thomas Cafon. Thomas Gargon, and John Roberfon. Wettnefses to the abovesaid Will, made Oath that they Saw the said Deceafed Govern.r Poirieer Seale and Pubblequely declare the same to be his Laft Well and Teftament. and that they knew of no other made by him Either in Word or Writeng.

It is Ordered

That the said Laft Well and Teftament of the said Deceafed Govern.r Poirier be Received and approved of and Coppys giver when Ever Demanded.

Also

Madam Poirier Executrifs, and Samuell Des Fontain Executor made Oath to Execute the Office of Such. According to the Peurport of said Will, and to deliver a true Inventory, of the Estate Afsoon as Conveniently they Can.

Mathew Bazett, and Samuell Der Fontain Executors of the Laft Will and Teftament of Frafmes Peurling Deceafed about a year Since brought the Inventory of the said Peurlings Estate, to have the same Recorded, which was Examined. and approved of Accordingly.

Whereas on the. 27.th September Laft M.r Carne Prefented a Petetion to Governour and Councill Concerning Tom, a black Man late in the Pofsefseon of Governour Poirier Deceafed as in and by the Confultateon dated as aforesaid doth more fully Appear.

Upon which Madam Poirier did this Day produce a Letter Dated the. 30.th March. 1703. Sent from Surratt by M.r Ephraim Bendall to her Hufsband, and made a Demand off the said Tom, But upon Perufeing the said Letter we found that he was to be Employed in the Companys Service, Therefore have thought fett to Retain him in the Right Hon.ble Companys Service tell his M.r [...] Ephraim Bendalls feurther pleafure be Known. thereon at the Sallary of Four pounds per annceum, befedes Vectualls and Cloaths.

Island St Helena By the Governour and Councell An Advertizement.

These are to give Notice to all, and Every the Inhabitants of the said Ifland that the Day appointed for the Generall Randevouze of the Garrifon. planters. and others. is on Wednsday Next. being the . 15. Inftant. Therr

Thomas Cason, Thomas Gargon and John Robertson, witnesses to the will, made oath that they had seen the late Governor Poirier seal and publicly declare it to be his last will and testament, and that they knew of no other will made by him in writing or by word.

It was ordered that the last will and testament of the late Governor Poirier be received and approved, and that copies be given whenever demanded.

Madam Poirier, executrix, and Samuel Desfontaines, executor, made oath to execute the office of such according to the purport of the will, and to deliver a true inventory of the estate as soon as conveniently they could.

Matthew Bazett and Samuel Desfontaines, executors of the last will and testament of Erasmus Purling, deceased about a year ago, brought the inventory of Purling's estate to have it recorded. It was examined and approved accordingly.

On 27 September last, Mr Carne presented a petition to the Governor and Council concerning Tom, a black man lately in the possession of the late Governor Poirier, as appeared more fully from the consultation of that date.

Madam Poirier this day produced a letter dated 30 March 1703, sent from Surat by Mr Ephraim Bondall to her husband, and made a demand for Tom. On reading the letter, the council found that Tom was to be employed in the Company's service. The council therefore thought fit to retain him in the Honourable Company's service until Bondall's further pleasure was known, at a salary of four pounds a year, besides victuals and clothes.

Island of St Helena

By the Governor and Council

An advertisement.

Notice was given to all the inhabitants of the island that the day appointed for the general rendezvous of the garrison, planters and others, was Wednesday next, the 15 October. There [...]

Interpretations

The probate of Poirier's will completes the formal handling of his estate that began with the inventory orders of 11 September. The will, made in French, had been translated by Matthew Bazett, witnessed by three men who deposed to having seen the testator seal and declare it, and was now received with copies available on demand. Madam Poirier and Desfontaines were sworn to deliver a full inventory in due course. The procedural pattern is identical to that applied to William Duston earlier in the year, which shows that the death of the Governor was handled by the same probate machinery as that of any free planter, without any special treatment for high office.

The disposal of Tom under Bondall's letter shows the council reading the original document with care and choosing a middle course between Carne's claim and the widow's. Carne's letter of some years earlier had asked him to take charge of Tom on the assumption that Poirier was leaving the island, an event that never occurred. The widow's letter of 30 March 1703 was the more recent document and contained an indication that Tom was to be employed in the Company's service. The council resolved the competing claims by taking Tom into Company employment at a stated wage of four pounds a year with victuals and clothes, which neither delivered him to Carne nor left him in the widow's household. The arrangement deferred the substantive question until Bondall himself could be consulted.

Speculations

The decision to pay Tom a salary of four pounds a year, rather than treat him simply as a slave assigned to the Company's service, suggests that his status under Bondall's instructions was something other than ordinary slave labour. A money wage with victuals and clothes is the kind of arrangement made for a servant who was either free or whose service had been bargained for in particular terms by his owner, and the formality of recording his pay in the council books would have made the Company answerable to Bondall for the man's keep and earnings. The council was treating Tom's case as one of contested servitude rather than straightforward chattel ownership, and the wage arrangement preserved Bondall's interest until he could resolve the matter himself.

The recording of the Purling inventory a full year after his death suggests that the executors had been slow to bring it forward, and that the recent administrative tightening was now drawing in cases that had been left pending. The new Governor's emphasis on clear accounts and timely registration was visibly producing a tidying-up of older probate business that had been allowed to drift under his predecessor. Mathew Bazett's appearance both as translator of Poirier's will and as one of the Purling executors shows how a small number of literate men handled most of the documentary work on the island.

83

75

These are therefore in her Majeftys Name to Command and Enjoyn all the Male Inhabitants on the said Ifland that are of the age of. 16. years, and Upwards (Blacks Excepted) To make their personall Appearance att the Sefsions house Near Fort James on the aforesaid. 15.th Inftant. by Nine of the Clock Forenoon with theer Refpective Arms feeed from whence they are not to Depart untill difsmift as they will Answer the Contrary.

Furthermore findeing that all or moft part of thofe persons who used to Retayle Strong drinke publickly are very Slack and Back= =wards in takeing up Liecences, as they ufeually did. Therefore we the Governour and Councell do hereby declare to all such Persons That if they don't come and take up Liecences for the Retayleing of all such Strong drinke between the day of the date hereof, and the. 30.th In= stant, they shall not obtain any Liecence till halfe a year be at an End, and that they muft not think to pretend Selling of a Meals Meat, and so geve them their punch, which will be as much Lookt upon as if it was really punch, Therefore Expect a ready Compliance for that a Strict Infpection will be made to prevent such diforderly houfes, without any Mitegation of the Fine which they may lye lefable to.

Whereas there was ufually Granted by the Governour from time to time, as he thought fett Liberty, to gaather Eggs upon the R.t Hon.ble Companys Lords proprietors Eggs flanels, which for some years paft have been appoonted by the late Governour to be Tuesdays, Theur fdays, and Satturdays, which dayes are Still allowed by the prefent Governour But findeing that there has been (Notwithstandeing they have thereby granted them as much as the Said Lords Proprietors) Eggs gathered upon thofe dayes when they should not.

It is therefore hereby declared that if any Person or Persons Shall presume any more to gaather Eggs upon any other but their Granted Days, That then such boate, and People therein Offendeing Shall Loofe their Said Preveledge the whole Seafon.

Dated att Fort James this. 8.th day of October. 1707.

Signed p̈ order of Governour and Councill

p̈ me John Alexander Clke of y.t Councill,

Tho: Goodwin Edw: Mashborne W.m Marsden

In Her Majesty's name, all male inhabitants of the island aged sixteen and upwards, slaves excepted, were commanded and enjoined to make their personal appearance at the sessions house near Fort James on 15 October next, by nine o'clock in the forenoon, with their respective arms fixed. They were not to depart until dismissed, on pain of being answerable for any failure.

Most of those who used to retail strong drink publicly had become slack and backwards in taking up licences as they normally did. The Governor and Council therefore declared to all such persons that, if they did not come and take up licences for the retail of strong drink between the date of this notice and 30 October, they would obtain no licence until half a year had ended. They were not to suppose they might evade the rule by claiming to sell a meal's meat and so giving away the punch with it, since such conduct would be treated exactly as if punch had been sold openly. A ready compliance was expected, since a strict inspection would be made to prevent disorderly houses, without any mitigation of the fine to which they might become liable.

The Governor had from time to time, at his discretion, granted liberty to gather eggs on the Honourable Company's, as lords proprietors, egg islands. For some years past the late Governor had appointed the days for this as Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, which the present Governor still allowed. It had been found, however, that despite this concession, which gave the gatherers as much licence as the lords proprietors themselves enjoyed, eggs had been gathered on days other than those permitted.

It was therefore declared that if any person presumed in future to gather eggs on any day other than those allowed, the boat and the people in it would lose the privilege for the whole season.

Dated at Fort James on 8 October 1707.

Signed by order of the Governor and Council, by me John Alexander, Clerk of the Council.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Interpretations

The summons to the general rendezvous applies the standard English militia formula of the period, with its appeal to Her Majesty's authority, its threshold age of sixteen, its requirement of fixed arms and its express exclusion of slaves. By drawing the line at slaves rather than at any property qualification or religious test, the order treats every free male of fighting age as part of the island's defensive force, blending garrison soldiers, free planters and the wider male population into a single muster. The administrative reach of the order, calling every free man aged sixteen or over to a single place at a single hour, gives a measure of the small scale on which the island operated.

The retail licensing notice illustrates how the Company's revenue from the drink trade depended on active enforcement of the licence requirement. The slackness of the publicans in taking up their licences had to be met by a deadline backed by the threat of a six month exclusion from licensing, and the express extension of the rule to disguised sales of punch supplied with a meal's meat shows the council closing the most obvious loophole. The Council appears to have known exactly how the rule was likely to be evaded, and addressed the evasion in the same notice that demanded compliance with the rule itself.

The egg gathering order shows the same administration applying the principle of forfeiture of privilege to a quite different sort of resource. Days for collection had been allowed three times a week under the late Governor, and the privilege was being preserved by the new administration, but with sharper enforcement. A whole season's forfeiture of the right, applied to both boat and crew, was a steep penalty for gathering eggs on the wrong day, and reflects how seriously the council took both the principle of obedience to the appointed days and the conservation interest behind them.

Speculations

The three notices issued on the same day, on militia muster, drink licensing and egg gathering, look like a coordinated programme of administrative renewal. By bundling a general muster of all free men, a deadline for renewal of all retail liquor licences, and a tightened rule on access to the egg islands into a single date, the new Governor was placing every category of inhabitant in front of the council's authority within a short space of time. The cumulative effect would have been to make the change of administration unmistakeable to every household on the island.

The reference to the loophole of selling a meal's meat and giving away the punch suggests that this evasion had become the standard practice among unlicensed sellers, and that the council had been told as much by the licensed publicans whose trade was being undercut. By writing the loophole into the notice itself, the council both warned the offenders and reassured the licensed houses that the council was alert to the trick. The licensing regime was being defended not just against unlicensed sale but against the patterns of social hospitality through which the rule had been routinely circumvented.

84

76

Island St Helena

Att A Consultation. held on Wednsday the. 15.th day of October. 1707. Att Fort James.

Pres.t Thomas Goodwin, Governour Edward Mashborne Deputy Governour William Marsden. 3. on Councell.

Whereas the Governour was Informed by John Bates his Steward that Marton Norman Souldieer had Markt a Ewe Goat, which he said was the Companys, and upon Makeing Enycieiry into the Matter found it was realy So.

The said Norman being prefent this day with John Long his Evidence Saith that the Ewe that was Markt John Long ded it at his Requeeft, and that the said Ewe belonged to a Gentleman that was here in the Queen.

John Long owns he Markt the said Ewe at Normans defire, and that he knows it Came out of the Queen but it being above twelve Months Old, and Contrary to the Laws and Confteteateons of this place to Mark any Cattle &c.a above that age.

It is therefore Ordered.

That the said Norman forfeit all his Goats that he pretends to have go ng with the Companys flock. and that John Long be ad= =monefned for the feuture Not to be Guilty, of Such unad bifell Prac= =tices of Markeing Goats not his Own, this being the Second Offence in this Nateure.

Whereas Daniell Griffiths ded Some time fince in July Laft, Complaint against John Long, and was then bound Over to the Peace for three Months as Ufuall. and the said Griffiths makeing no feurther Complaint against him, nor no other Person of the breach of the Peace.

It is therefore Ordered.

That the said Long with his Suretys be difcharged from theer Bayle and bond.

Whereas on Sunday Night about twelve of the Clock being the. 5. Instant, a Black Boy known by the Name of Dennis belongeing to William Marsh free planter was taken withen the Right Hon.ble Comp.a Store, where he Entered by Untileing part of the Roof, and whereas the said Store haveing been broke open, since before in the Same Manner, and Suspected to be done by the said Dennis, he being then Run away from his

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Wednesday 15 October 1707 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

The Governor was informed by his steward John Bates that Martin Norman, soldier, had marked a ewe goat which he had claimed as his own, but which was in fact the Company's. On inquiry, this was found to be true.

Norman appeared this day with John Long, his witness, and said that the ewe had been marked by Long at his request, and that the ewe had belonged to a gentleman who had been here in the Queen.

Long admitted that he had marked the ewe at Norman's request, knowing that it had come out of the Queen. The animal was above twelve months old, and it was contrary to the laws and constitution of the island to mark any cattle or other livestock above that age.

It was therefore ordered that Norman forfeit all the goats he claimed as going with the Company's flock. Long was admonished not to be guilty in future of such ill-advised practices of marking goats not his own, this being his second offence of this kind.

Daniell Griffith had some time since, in July last, complained against John Long, and Long had then been bound over to keep the peace for three months as was customary. Griffith had made no further complaint, nor had any other person, of any breach of the peace by him.

It was therefore ordered that Long, with his sureties, be discharged from their bail and bond.

On Sunday night about twelve o'clock, being 5 October, a black boy known as Dennis, belonging to William Marsh, free planter, was taken inside the Honourable Company's store. He had entered by untiling part of the roof. The store had been broken into before in the same manner, and Dennis had been suspected of the previous break-in, being then a runaway from his [...]

Interpretations

The Norman case shows the operation of a settled rule on the island concerning the marking of livestock. Animals could be claimed by marking only if they were below twelve months of age, and any attempt to brand an older beast was treated as evidence that the animal was not the marker's. Norman's loss of all the goats he claimed in the Company's flock, on the back of a single illegal marking, indicates how heavy the penalty was for a soldier found to have stretched his entitlement, and confirms that the rule was designed to prevent the kind of slow expansion of private herds at Company expense that the new administration was particularly anxious to stop.

The handling of Long's two roles in the same sitting is striking. As Norman's accomplice in the marking, he was admonished as a second offender. As the binding-over case from July had run its three month course without further complaint, he and his sureties were discharged. The same man left the consultation with a clean record on the peace bond and a recorded second admonition on livestock marking. The council was applying a strict separation of matters even where the parties overlapped, which reflects the procedural discipline of the new administration.

The introduction of the Dennis case at the end of the entry signals a serious matter held over for fuller consideration. A second entry by removing roof tiles, by a slave already suspected of an earlier break-in on the same premises, raised both criminal and security questions for the Company's store. The break in the entry mid-narrative reflects how the council recorded the facts as they unfolded, with the disposition presumably to follow at the next sitting or in the continuation of this one.

Speculations

The decision to forfeit all of Norman's goats in the Company's flock, rather than only the single illegally marked ewe, suggests that the rule was being applied as a deterrent against an entire pattern of practice rather than to a specific animal. By treating a single proved offence as evidence that the whole claim was tainted, the council made the marking rule self-enforcing among soldiers who might otherwise have hoped that one or two illicit additions would pass unnoticed. The penalty was disproportionate to the immediate offence by design, since proportionate penalties would have made the gamble worthwhile.

The detail that Dennis had untiled the roof to enter the store points to a recognised method of breaking into stone or solid-walled buildings on the island, where doors and shutters were likely better defended than the roof. The repetition of the same method, against the same store, by the same suspected offender, would have made the council's task of identification easier and gave the present case the character of a confirmation of earlier suspicions rather than a fresh allegation. The administrative response was likely to be correspondingly severe, both as punishment and as a deterrent against any other slaves contemplating the same route in.

85

77

Maftrs Service, and being Imprefoned, (where he is to this Day) was Examined, who Confefsed the Fact, at two Severall times, befedes Once before Some years fince.

It is Ordered.

That the fact aforesaid be laid before the free planters this Day to defire theer Opinieons whether they are welleng the said Black Shall Die, or not. for the fact he has Committed.

The Reafon of Layong this before the Planters is for that a Law hath been Lately made, that if any Black break open house, or houfes, the Therd time Shall Suffer Death, but though the said Black hath been Guelty, of the Same Fact three times, yet one of them was before that Law was made we resolveing that if the planters favor his Lefe, That after Severe Punifh= ment he Shall work for the Hon.ble Company at theer Fortefications Some Confederable time, that Shall make full Recompence for the Damage, befedes makeing their Mafters more Carefsull, in Catcheing theer Reun away Slaves.

Whereas John Lumber quater Gunner being Employed at the Right Hon.ble Companys Plantateons to Look after and Overfee their Negroes, and being in Want of another person to Act in his Room and Stead do hereby Order.

That Ifaack Leech Eldeft Montrofs do Act in the Said Lumbers Room. untell such time as he do.s Contienue at the Said Plantateon.

And that Hugh Cloutman Souldieer, and a black Smith, be Employeed and to Act as Montrofs, and to Look after the arms both at the Great Fort, and out Forts, when on the Geuard, or Necefsity requieres it, and to keepe the Same in good Order.

And that John Worrall Souldieer be hereby Nominated & appoin= =ted to be and Contienue as an Officer to Love Sent meally at Bankses ffort, That the Souldieers may be Kept in good Order, and made to Look out Carefsully.

Whereas in a Confultation held the. 23. day of September Last paft, Hugh Bodley Overfeer of the Fortefications presented a Petetion defireing to Know what Sallary he was to have, as in and by the Said Confultateon may more fully appear, and Someing this day before Governour and Councell. gave her Refsolve Anfwer that he ded Not Serve about the Said Fortifecations for Lefs then Thorty pownd p̈ Annum which being too much, and being fully Refolved to give nayfor for more than Twenty Sex pound p̈ Annum, have difcharged the said Bodley; And being in want of another Overfeer, we have thought fett to Send for John Palen Souldieer, who Lately was Overfeer of the Companys Blacks, and difcourfed him about the Matter. who Accepted the Employ of Over Seeing the Negros

Dennis had run away from his master's service and had been imprisoned, where he still remained. On examination he had confessed to the fact on two separate occasions, besides once before, some years since.

It was ordered that the fact be laid before the free planters this day, to ask their opinion whether they were willing the slave should die, or not, for what he had committed.

The reason for laying the matter before the planters was that a law had lately been made by which any slave who broke open a house a third time should suffer death. Although Dennis had been guilty of the same fact three times, one of those occasions had been before the law was made. The council had resolved that, if the planters were inclined to spare his life, after severe punishment he would work for the Honourable Company at the fortifications for a considerable time, making full recompense for the damage. The arrangement would also make masters more careful in catching their runaway slaves.

John Lumber, quarter gunner, had been employed at the Honourable Company's plantations to look after and oversee their slaves, but a substitute was needed during his absence.

It was ordered that Isaac Leech, eldest matross, act in Lumber's room and stead until such time as Lumber should return and continue at the plantation.

Hugh Cloutman, soldier and blacksmith, was to be employed and to act as a matross, looking after the arms at both the Great Fort and the outer forts when on the guard, or as necessity required, and keeping them in good order.

John Worrall, soldier, was nominated and appointed to be and continue as an officer to lie sentinel at Banks's Fort, so that the soldiers might be kept in good order and made to look out carefully.

In the consultation of 23 September last, Hugh Bodley, overseer of the fortifications, had presented a petition asking what salary he was to have, as appeared more fully in that consultation. Bodley appeared before the Governor and Council this day and gave his answer, that he would not serve about the fortifications for less than thirty pounds a year. This being too much, and the council being fully resolved to give nothing more than twenty six pounds a year, Bodley was discharged.

Being now in want of another overseer, the council thought fit to send for John Palen, soldier, who had lately been overseer of the Company's slaves. Palen was spoken to about the matter, and accepted the employment of overseeing the slaves [...]

Interpretations

The Dennis case shows the council confronting a question of retrospective application of penal law. A new statute had imposed the death penalty on the third instance of housebreaking by a slave, but one of Dennis's three offences pre-dated the law. Rather than decide on its own authority whether the rule reached back to conduct committed before its enactment, the council referred the question to the free planters at the muster being held that same day. The referral converted a difficult point of legal interpretation into a vote of those most directly affected by slave property law, and gave the planters joint responsibility for whatever sentence followed.

The proposal to spare Dennis on condition of severe punishment followed by long labour for the Company on the fortifications, while making masters more careful about catching runaways, reveals the council's preferred solution. A condemned slave was a complete loss to his master and to the Company, while a heavily punished and reassigned slave was a labour resource and an object lesson. The framing of the alternative, as one in which the planters were being asked to favour the slave's life, made the merciful option also the economically rational one for the community.

The administrative reorganisation in the second part of the entry, with substitutes appointed at the plantation and at the outer forts and a named officer placed permanently at Banks's Fort, continues the new administration's pattern of named accountability for each post. Each appointment is recorded with the man's existing rank, the post to which he was assigned and the conditions under which he would act, which gave the council a clear record of who was responsible for what at any given time.

Speculations

The decision to dismiss Bodley over a difference of four pounds a year, after the new administration had inherited him without a settled bargain, suggests that the council was unwilling to let the going rate for an overseer escalate beyond the level paid to Powell. A concession to Bodley on salary would have created an upward pressure on every other senior employee's wage, and the council appears to have judged that the cost of replacing him was worth incurring to hold the line. The immediate availability of John Palen as a replacement made the calculation easier, since the dismissal did not threaten any gap in supervision.

The placing of John Palen, the same man whose abuse of the Company's slaves the council had complained of in late August, in charge of the fortifications overseer post, while removing him from his previous position, looks like a deliberate redeployment. The earlier proposal had been that he be removed from the slaves or that another be set over him, and the new arrangement effected the first half of that recommendation while finding a productive use for his administrative experience. The slaves were spared his direct charge, and a man already familiar with their work was put on the fortifications instead.

86

78

Negros at the Fortefications, at the rate of Twenty pound, p̈ Annum and his diet at the Generall Table So long as he is found fett, for the Employ. or the Governour fonds any fault with him in the Neglect of his Bufsnefs.

In Persuance to the Right Hon.ble Companys Orders in their Gen.tt dated the. 20. December. 1707. have this day being a Generall Randevouze of the whole Ifland read the. 9. and. 10.th Parragraphs of said Letter Concer= =nong out houfes, and Sheep. To which the free planters gave No pofsetive Anfwer Eccept about halfe a Dozen, who was against the Keepong of Sheep Sayeng they ded Mefchefs to the Neat Catle, beting the Grafs very Short.

There fore gave them time tell Next Tuesday being appointed for a Councell Day, to give theer Pofetive Anfwer in writeng that we may proceed Accordingly.

Whereas upon takeing an Account of all papers, and Letters from the Hon.ble Company Sent to this place from time to time, which are Indeed the Laws and Confteteateons of the place. Do find that Severall Generall Letters are wanting befeedes the whole for Ten years Together; Moft of the Wills Eaten very Much by the Ratts and Moth, and that the foun ter part of the Lease Segned by Samuell Des Fontaines for Thorty pound p̈ Annum for the Valley Garden was defaced, and the Seale Torne off fo. which Laft demanded of the Clarke how it Came to be So, anfewered that Governour Poirier Ordered him to peull off the said Seals, at the said Fountaines Defire Sayeng that if not Cancelled, it meght involve his Famely into great trouble after his Deceafe, Upon Confederation of the whole.

It is Ordered

That an Inventory of the whole be taken and Remitted to our Honoeurable Mafters, who may if they pleafe Send Deuplicates of thofe Letters wanting.

That the Wells be all Entered in a book for that peurpofe to prevent Controverfees hereafter, and the Same boote to Enter all Wells as they are brought in.

That New Leafes be drawn and Tendered to Paul Graton who now pofsefses the said Garden for the Remaender of Time, hopeing that he well not refufe to Segne the same, as he promefed to do, as the Clark tellt us. when the abovesaid Leafe was Cancelled.

Tho: Goodwin Edw: Mashborne W.m Marsden

Palen took on the role at the fortifications at twenty pounds a year, with his diet at the general table, for as long as he was found fit for the work, or until the Governor found fault with him in any neglect of his business.

In pursuance of the Honourable Company's orders in their general letter of 20 December 1707, the council this day, being a general rendezvous of the whole island, read the ninth and tenth paragraphs of the letter concerning outhouses and sheep. The free planters gave no positive answer, except for about half a dozen who were against the keeping of sheep, saying that the animals did mischief to the neat cattle, biting the grass too short.

The planters were given time until the following Tuesday, which was appointed as a council day, to give their positive answer in writing, so that the council could proceed accordingly.

On taking an account of all papers and letters sent to the island from the Honourable Company from time to time, being in effect the laws and constitution of the place, the council found that several general letters were missing, including the entire correspondence for ten years together. Most of the wills had been much eaten by rats and moths. The counterpart of the lease signed by Samuel Desfontaines for thirty pounds a year for the Valley Garden had been defaced, and the seal torn off. When asked how this had come about, the clerk replied that Governor Poirier had ordered him to pull off the seal at Desfontaines's request, on the ground that if not cancelled it might involve his family in great trouble after his death. On consideration of the whole, it was ordered that an inventory be taken and sent to the Honourable Masters, who might if they pleased send duplicates of the missing letters.

The wills were to be entered in a book kept for that purpose to prevent future controversies, and all wills coming in were to be entered in the same book.

New leases were to be drawn and tendered to Paul Graton, who now possessed the garden, for the remainder of the term, in the hope that he would not refuse to sign as he had promised the clerk when the earlier lease was cancelled.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Interpretations

The reading of the directors' letter to the assembled free planters, and the request for a positive written answer the following Tuesday, illustrates how the Company sought local consent on questions that touched directly on planter interests. Outhouses and sheep keeping were both matters where the directors' instructions had to fit the practical experience of those who farmed the island, and the council's procedure of reading the relevant paragraphs at a general rendezvous and adjourning for written responses converted what could have been a top-down order into a consultative process. The objection of half a dozen planters that sheep cropped the grass too short for neat cattle was the sort of practical information that the directors in London could not have obtained without such a procedure.

The discovery that ten years of general letters were missing, together with rat and moth damaged wills and a deliberately cancelled lease counterpart, reveals the parlous state of the official record under the previous administration. The clerk's explanation that Poirier had ordered the seal pulled off the Desfontaines lease at the lessee's request, to spare his family later trouble, points to a practice of using cancellation of the formal document as an informal way of releasing a tenant from obligation. The new administration's response, to draw fresh leases on the remaining term and to seek Graton's signature on the present possession, restored a paper trail that the previous Governor had been content to let fall away.

Speculations

The deliberate cancellation of the Desfontaines lease counterpart suggests an accommodation between Poirier and Desfontaines that went well beyond what the formal records would have shown. By removing the seal, the document was rendered unenforceable while the underlying tenancy presumably continued on whatever oral basis the parties preferred. The same Desfontaines appears repeatedly through these consultations as an appraiser of estates, an executor and as Poirier's own executor, which suggests a close working relationship between the two men. The cancellation of his lease seal looks like a private favour cast in the form of administrative procedure.

The council's hope that Graton would not refuse to sign a fresh lease, on the basis of a promise he had given the clerk at the time the earlier document was cancelled, points to the limits of the new administration's leverage. Where the formal record had been destroyed and the tenancy continued informally, the council could only rely on the tenant's willingness to regularise the position. The mention of Graton's earlier promise was effectively a placing on record of the moral obligation he would be invited to honour, and the framing anticipates the possibility that he might decline.

87

79

Island St Helena

Att A Consultation. held on Tuesday the . 4.th Day of November. 1707. Att Fort James.

Pres.t Thomas Goodwin, Governour Edward Mashborne Dep.ty Governour. William Marsden. 3. on Councill.

Whereas M.r Daniell Griffith was Summoned to Appear this Day before Governour and Councell for not Appearring the laft. Generall Randevouze the said Daniell Griffith appeared Accordongly, and being afked the Reafon Replyed that he thought he Oeght to have the same Leberty M.r Carne had the Governour said he had given him Leberty to goe in the Coun= trey, M.r Griffith geveing very haughty Language Sayeng I do proteft against Governour and Councell for his being fened, M.r Alecander the Clarke of the Councell not being here, the Governour had ordered M.r Thomas Free (who writes in the Office) to Enter what was Min uted in Councell, against whom M.r Griffith Objected alfo, Defireing tell Next Councell Day to draw his proteft in Form.

It is Ordered

That the said Daniell Griffith be fened Two Dollars for the Use of Fortifications, One for not appearong at a Generall Mufter, and the Other for his Ill Language to the Governour, and that he be of his good behaviour for the feiture, and fond Security, for the same, and that the Clarke of the Councell geve him a Coppy of this Confultateon when Requiered, and pay Councell charges.

Afsoon as the said Griffith heard the said Order Read, he flew into a Pafsion, and said that he would go to prefon, and would not fonde Security, Upon which the Governour ordered the Marfhall to take him away, Sayeng he Should be Confined within the Fort, Ordereng the Serjeant of the Geuard to give Charge to the Centonell, not to lett. M.r Griffith go out. upon which of his own accord he toak to the Serj.ts Room, which being told to the Governour, who Anfwered it was very well he ded not Care what place he Stayd in.

Whereas It is this Day ordered by Governour and Councell that the black of William Marsh, Receive a Hundred and Fefty Lafhes on his Naked body, and be burnt in the Forehead with the Letter R. and to Serve the Hon.ble Company. Two years In Workieng at theer Fortefecateons. and to Wear a Chain and Clog of Thirty pownd Weight for One year, for breakeing Open the Hon.ble Companys Stores.

Richard Swallow Requefted that he might hire a peece of the Companys Wafte Land, joyneng to his own Next to that he bought of Thomas Caley. Thomas

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 4 November 1707 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

Mr Daniell Griffith was summoned to appear this day before the Governor and Council for failing to attend the last general rendezvous. Griffith appeared accordingly. When asked his reason, he replied that he thought he was entitled to the same liberty that Mr Carne had been given. Goodwin said he had given Carne leave to go into the country. Griffith answered in very haughty language, declaring that he protested against the Governor and Council for his being fined.

Alexander, clerk of the council, not being present, Goodwin had ordered Thomas Free, who wrote in the office, to enter what was minuted at the council. Griffith objected to him too, asking until the next council day to draw his protest in form.

It was ordered that Griffith be fined two dollars to the use of the fortifications, one for not appearing at the general muster and the other for his ill language to the Governor. He was to be of his good behaviour for the future and find security for the same. The clerk of the council was to give him a copy of this consultation when required, and he was to pay council charges.

As soon as Griffith heard the order read, he flew into a passion and said he would go to prison and would not find security. Goodwin then ordered the marshal to take him away, saying he should be confined within the Fort. He directed the sergeant of the guard to charge the sentinel not to let Griffith out. Griffith of his own accord went to the sergeant's room. When this was reported to the Governor, he answered that it was very well, and that he did not care which place Griffith stayed in.

It was this day ordered by the Governor and Council that William Marsh's slave Dennis receive one hundred and fifty lashes on his naked body and be burnt in the forehead with the letter R. He was to serve the Honourable Company for two years working at the fortifications, and to wear a chain and clog of thirty pounds weight for one year, for breaking open the Honourable Company's stores.

Richard Swallow asked that he be allowed to hire a piece of the Company's waste land adjoining his own, next to the parcel he had bought of Thomas Caley.

[...]

Interpretations

The handling of Griffith's contempt shows the council asserting its authority over a planter who had refused to acknowledge the obligation to muster. The double fine, one part for the failure to appear and one part for the ill language to the Governor, mirrors the practice seen earlier in the year where each component of disorderly conduct attracted its own penalty. The further requirement of sureties for good behaviour added a continuing constraint to the immediate financial penalty, and the order for confinement within the Fort when Griffith refused to find sureties followed the standard practice for those who resisted the council's process.

The disposition of Dennis's case reveals the resolution of the question that had been put to the planters on 15 October. The slave's life was spared, but the punishment imposed in its place was severe to a degree that approached judicial mutilation. One hundred and fifty lashes, branding in the forehead with the letter R, two years of forced labour for the Company and a year wearing a thirty pound chain and clog amounted to a sentence designed both to punish and to mark the offender visibly and permanently. The forehead brand placed the conviction where it could not be hidden, in contrast to Refase's body brand earlier in the year, which had been delivered as part of a similar staged corporal regime.

Speculations

The Governor's remark that he did not care where Griffith stayed, on being told that the protestor had taken himself to the sergeant's room rather than to the cells, suggests an awareness that the precise location of confinement mattered less than the fact of it. Griffith had wanted to be a martyr by going to prison, but by allowing him to settle into the sergeant's quarters the council deprived him of the dramatic gesture without compromising the substance of the order. The Governor's offhand response would also have communicated, to anyone listening, that the council was not to be drawn into theatrical confrontation with an angry planter.

The choice of two years' labour and one year of chain and clog for Dennis, rather than a longer or shorter combination, suggests that the council had calibrated the sentence to extract a calculable economic recompense from the slave's labour while preserving him as a working asset at the end. A heavier chain or longer term might have damaged him beyond the point of useful return, while a lighter sentence would not have made the punishment plain enough to other slaves contemplating similar acts. The year of chain and clog, falling within the two years of labour, ensured that for half of his servitude he would be visibly burdened, which extended the deterrent effect of the brand into the daily work of the fortifications.

88

80

Thomas Bagley Requefted that he might hire a parcell of the Hon.ble Comp.a Wafte Land between Orlando Bagley, and Richard Swallow.

It is Ordered

That theer Requefts be granted, the Rent to Commence from this Day, and that the Same be Meafured Accordingly. Tho: Goodwin Edw: Mashborne W.m Marsden

About Nine of the Clock in the Night the said Griffiths Sent a Sediteous Paper, which he calls a Proteft, which was Read in Councell, and Contains as followeth.

Island St Helena

The Proteft. of Daniell Griffith Inhabitant of the said Ifland, and a Natuarall born Sebject of the Queen of England against Thomas Goodwin Esq.r Prefent Governeur, M.r Edward Mafhborne. 2. in Councell, and M.r Marfden. 3. in Councill

For that he the said Daniell Griffith being Summoned before them, to Anfwer for the Neglect of Appeareing at a Generall Mufter of Freemen, and Inhabitants of the said Ifland, was welling to Sebmit to any Fone on Reafon that fhould be Laid upon him, According to the Conftiteteon and Laws in that Cafe made and provided, being Ufually, but One Dollar. Though in Reality, Some Extraordinary Occafton prevented his Coming down at that time, being Never before juftly, or juilty, of any Neglect, Contempt of Government, or any Mefdemeanor fence his Arrivall here, and Referrs himfelfe to the Records, as the Trueft Evedences, however the Governour, and Councill Aggravateng the fume, and doubling the Fine to Two Dollars, and perceiving by theer Reproces, Carrcage, and Dealings towards me that they Defegned to Sengle out as a Mark for perfecuteon, In So much that they would not permit me to Speak the Leaft in my own defence, which Occafioned me to Mention M.r George Carne an Inhabitant of the said Ifland, of a Much Longer date then me Selfe, who is Reputed a Roman Cathoick, and Never died or was Requered to do the Leaft duty or Service to the Company in that Refpect, prayeng that I might not Suffer alone, for that I was born to Equall Priveledge if not Hegher them a perfon of fuch a Character, And feurther that the said M.r Carne has Liberty of Wearing his Sword, and many other Favours which the Queens Dutyfull and Faithfull Sebjects, and the Right Hon.ble Companys Quiet and Obedient Servants Cannot have, which things Cannot but Grate the Ears, and Hearts, of all True, and Loyall Sebjects, Particularly my Self who was born (without Vanity, I prefume to Say) of good and Vertesous Parents, and brought up in the Communion of the Church of England as by Law Established

Thomas Bagley asked to hire a parcel of the Honourable Company's waste land lying between the land of Orlando Bagley and that of Richard Swallow.

It was ordered that both requests be granted, the rent to commence from this day, and the land to be measured accordingly.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

About nine o'clock that night, Griffith sent a seditious paper, which he called a protest. It was read in council, and ran as follows.

Island of St Helena

The protest of Daniell Griffith, inhabitant of the island, and a natural-born subject of the Queen of England, against Thomas Goodwin, esquire, present Governor, Mr Edward Mashborne, second in council, and Mr Marsden, third in council.

Griffith had been summoned before them to answer for failing to appear at a general muster of the freemen and inhabitants of the island. He was willing to submit to any fine in reason that might be laid upon him, according to the constitution and laws in such cases made and provided, the usual penalty being but one dollar. In reality some extraordinary occasion had prevented his coming down at that time. He had never been justly accused of any neglect, contempt of government, or any other misdemeanour since his arrival on the island, and he referred himself to the records as the truest evidence. The Governor and Council, however, had aggravated the matter and doubled the fine to two dollars. From their reproaches, carriage and dealings towards him he perceived they intended to single him out as a mark for persecution, so much so that they would not permit him to speak the least word in his own defence.

It was this that had led him to mention Mr George Carne, an inhabitant of the island of much longer date than himself, who was reputed a Roman Catholic and had never been required, nor had ever done, the least duty or service to the Company in that respect. He prayed that he might not suffer alone, since he had been born to equal privilege with, if not higher than, a person of such a character. Carne had liberty to wear his sword and many other favours that the Queen's dutiful and faithful subjects, and the Honourable Company's quiet and obedient servants, could not enjoy. Such things could not but grate on the ears and hearts of all true and loyal subjects, particularly his own, having been born, as he ventured without vanity to say, of good and virtuous parents and brought up in the communion of the Church of England as by law established.

Interpretations

The Griffith protest moves the dispute from a routine fine for absence onto the higher ground of religious and constitutional grievance. By framing his complaint as a true and loyal Protestant subject against the perceived indulgence of a Roman Catholic resident, Griffith was attempting to recast a personal sanction as evidence of partial government. The reference to Carne's liberty to wear his sword and other favours converts the case into a claim that the Company's administration on the island was failing in its duty to enforce the disabilities that English law of the period imposed on Catholics, and is calculated to embarrass the council before any reader in London.

The procedural detail of the protest, including the heading naming the three councillors against whom it was directed, the recital of facts on which the complaint was based, and the self-description as a natural born subject of the Queen, follows the form of a legal protest filed with a notary or court. Griffith was using the proper forms of metropolitan English legal complaint to address a colonial council, which strengthens the impression that he was preparing his case for an audience beyond the island. The label of seditious paper given by the council captures the threat that the document represented to local authority.

Speculations

The timing of the protest, sent at nine o'clock at night after the day's proceedings had closed with his confinement, suggests it had been drafted in detention by a man stung enough by the day's events to convert his grievance into a formal pleading. The phrasing about being singled out as a mark for persecution, with its echoes of contemporary political language, indicates that Griffith was reaching for the most damaging available framing of the council's conduct rather than the most accurate, since the proceedings had been over a routine muster fine.

The targeting of Carne in the protest, with its mention of his Catholic religion, his exemption from public duty in that respect and his privilege of wearing a sword, suggests that Griffith was reviving an existing local resentment rather than inventing one. Carne had figured in recent consultations as a man of substance, taking up money owed to orphans at interest and pressing claims on slaves held by the late Governor's household. A protest framed to draw a contrast between Griffith's treatment and Carne's privileges would have resonated with any other Protestant planter who had noticed the same disparity, and might have been calculated to broaden the dispute beyond Griffith himself.

89

81

Eftablefned, and Never was Denyed the Wearing of my Sword in any of the Queens Dominicons untell. Now, All which being as I humblly. Conceive but a Will and Modeft Defence. The Governour and Councell Notwithftan= =ding having Conceived a prejudice against me for what Reafon I Cannot tell, unlefs it bear for being a true Friend. and Servant to the Late Governour Poirier, Deceafed, Would not hearken to the Leaft Reafon from me, but with One Mouth, and One Heart, Decreed me to pay Two Dollars, for my Neglect of Duty to be paid towards Fortifecateon, And not Contented to Err, and Transgrefs the Law in that Cafe, In the moft Contemptuous and Vellefyong Manner, that Could be in the face of the Geurt Commanded the Marfhall to Seige me, and Imprefon me, untill I fonde Security for my good Behaviour towards the Government, Whereas (God he knows) I faied no more then what any true born Englefh Man oeght to do that pretends to be a Freeman, Under which Confinement I now Languifh having Not the priveledge of my own house in the Fort, but Lye here Like a Vagabond, and the Greateft Villain I have known to have the Same Priveledge, And in the Interim my poor Wefe and Cheildren, and Famely Suffer at home, to the Detriment of my Health, Estate, and Reputation, and Contr.ry to the Laws of En= gland, Therefore humbly. Refer my poor Diftrefsed Condeteon to the Reght Hon.ble Companys my Worthy good Friends for Remedy and Redrefs; In the Mean time humbly Imploring the Divine Goodnefs to Comfort me under this Affliction.

November. 4.th 1707. Daniel Griffeth

Pv.s Upon. which, Sent Corporall Southen to M.r Griffith to acqueaint him that I had Receeved his Sediteoues Requeeft. and that if he ded not Demean himselfe better before to Morrow this time would Secure him better.

The said Southen Returnong Anfwer that he ded not Mean any Sedeteon, but would Refer himfelfe to the Hon.ble Company.

William French Serjeant Saith that he heard M.r Griffith Say he would proteft against the Governour, for fineing him because he ded not Come to Mufter, and feurther told M.r Mafhborne he knew his Bufsnefs as well as he ded, and M.r Mafhborne told him if he had the Company would not have given pofetive Orders to burn him &c.t of his Employment, and for goving abufive Langeage to the Governour and Councell, the Governour ordered that he Should be Confined untill he gave Security for his good behaveour, and feurther this Deponent. Remem= bers not.

John Clavering Gunars Cheefe Mate Saith that Comeing up into the Hall heard M.r Griffith Reply to the Governour that he would proteft against them, but the Cafe I Know not, The Governour Anfwered him agacn if he was not Civeller on his Expressions he would make him give Security. before

Griffith had never been denied the wearing of his sword in any of the Queen's dominions until now. All which, as he humbly conceived, amounted to no more than a mild and modest defence. The Governor and Council, having taken some prejudice against him for reasons he could not tell, unless it were for being a true friend and servant to the late Governor Poirier, deceased, would not hearken to the least reason from him. With one mouth and one heart they had decreed that he pay two dollars for his neglect of duty, the sum to go to the fortifications. Not content with that error and transgression of the law, they had then, in the most contemptuous and vilifying manner that could be done in the face of the court, commanded the marshal to seize him and imprison him until he should find security for his good behaviour towards the government. God knew, he had said no more than what any true born Englishman who pretended to be a freeman ought to do.

Under this confinement he now languished, with not even the privilege of his own house in the Fort, but lay there like a vagabond, while the greatest villain he had ever known enjoyed the same privilege. In the meantime his poor wife, children and family suffered at home, all to the detriment of his health, estate and reputation, and contrary to the laws of England. He therefore humbly referred his poor distressed condition to the Honourable Company, his worthy good friends, for remedy and redress, and in the meantime humbly implored the divine goodness to comfort him under this affliction.

4 November 1707. Daniell Griffith.

On this, Corporal Southen was sent to Griffith to tell him that the council had received his seditious request, and that if he did not demean himself better before this time the next day, the matter would secure him more closely still.

Southen returned with Griffith's answer that he had meant no sedition, but would refer himself to the Honourable Company.

Sergeant William French stated that he had heard Griffith say he would protest against the Governor for fining him because he did not come to muster, and that Griffith further told Mashborne he knew his business as well as Mashborne did. Mashborne had told him that if he had, the Company would not have given positive orders to turn him out of his employment. For giving abusive language to the Governor and Council, Goodwin had ordered him to be confined until he gave security for his good behaviour. Further than this, the deponent did not remember.

John Clavering, Gunner's Chief Mate, said that on coming up into the hall he heard Griffith reply to the Governor that he would protest against them, though he did not know the cause. Goodwin had answered that if Griffith was not more civil in his expressions, he would make him give security [...]

Interpretations

The exchange recorded by Sergeant French sheds an unexpected light on Griffith's earlier history with the Company. Mashborne's retort, that if Griffith had truly known his business the Company would not have given positive orders to turn him out of his employment, indicates that Griffith had been removed from a Company post by direct instruction from London. This previous dismissal supplies a hidden current beneath the day's confrontation: Griffith arrives at the council as a man who already nursed a grievance against the Company's local administration, and the council members in turn carry a settled view of his record. The supposedly routine muster fine had become the latest occasion for an older quarrel to surface.

The threat sent by Corporal Southen, that if Griffith did not demean himself better the matter would secure him more closely still, shows the council using calibrated escalation in response to written defiance. Rather than punish the protest as a fresh offence, Goodwin gave Griffith a day to retract or moderate, with the implicit understanding that continued defiance would harden the conditions of his confinement. The procedure preserved the council's authority while leaving a route for Griffith to withdraw, and his reported answer that he had meant no sedition was the partial retraction the council had invited.

Speculations

The framing of Griffith's protest as the work of a true Protestant friend and servant of the late Governor Poirier, set against the supposed favours enjoyed by the Catholic Carne, looks like an attempt to place his quarrel within the recognisable politics of metropolitan Protestant grievance. The strategy depended on London readers responding to that framing more strongly than to the local facts, since on the records before the council the case against Griffith was simply that he had failed to attend a muster and had spoken abusively when called to answer. By recasting the dispute as a confessional one, he hoped to convert a clear administrative offence into a contested point of religious liberty.

The detail that Griffith complained of lying in confinement like a vagabond while the greatest villain he had known enjoyed the same privilege is most easily read as a glancing reference to Dennis the runaway slave, who had been sentenced to lashes, branding and forced labour at the same sitting. By placing himself rhetorically alongside Dennis, Griffith was making the implicit claim that a free born Englishman was being treated as if he were no better than a slave. The comparison was rhetorically powerful and personally insulting to the council, since it implied that their orders failed to distinguish between a planter of standing and a convicted house-breaker.

90

82

before he went out of the Fort. the said Griffith Replyed he ded not Care, but ftell Walkeing up and down. the Hall Repeateing many words. the Governor Anfwer'd him he Should give Security for his behavieour. the said Griffith Replyed and said he would not give any Security tell he Knew the Reafon the Governour Anfwer'd him for his Inceveill behavieour before him. So the Governour ordered the Marfhall to take the said Griffith into his Cuftody This is all I Remember to the beft of my Knowledge.

Thomas Free Saith. he being in Councell heard the Governour afk M.r Griffith why he ded not Come to the laft Generall Mufter, he anfwer'd he oeght to have the Same Leberty being a free born Sebject, as the Roman Catholeck had Nameing M.r Carne, the Governour Anfwer'd he had given M.r Carne Leberty to go in the Countrey, and said if M.r Griffith had afset Leberty, he Should not Know, but he might have given him the Same priveledge upon that M.r Griffith made Anfwer he would proteft against the Governour and Councell, and Spoake very high, and said he Never died ufe to Come to Mufter, and bear arms, nor do any duty, the Governour Anfwer'd he Should Come to Mufter, and bear arms for the feuture. the said Griffith Replyed to the Governour, and said Stay untill that time Comes, and if Every body do it, I well do it. And a great many more high words, to that Effect, the Governour anfwer'd if he ded not afse Civeller Langueage, and Behavieour, he Should fonde Security, for his good behavieour. before he went out of the Fort. the said Griffith Anfwer'd I well find no Security and I well proteft against no Security and I well proteft you all Nameing the Governour and Councell. and Spoake very high alfo to M.r Mafhborne sayeng I Know my Bufsnefs as well as you do. and a greate many more Words to that Effect, Feurther I do not Remember to the beft of my Knowledge.

Tho: Goodwin Edw: Mashborne W.m Marsden

M.r Daniell Griffith being bound Over to the peace yesterday being the. 4.th Instant, M.r Joshua Thomlinson Alice, and M.r Joseph Parsons, are hereby bound in an Obligation of Ten pownds to the Right Hon.ble Company for his good behaviour to the Worshipfull Governour and Councell, here, and to appear before the Governour and Councell when called for, as Wittness our hands this. 5.th day of November 1707. Joshua Thomlinson Wittnessed Joseph Parsons p̈ Thomas Free

Before he left the Fort, Griffith replied that he did not care, and continued walking up and down the hall, repeating many words. Goodwin told him he should give security for his good behaviour. Griffith said he would not give any security until he knew the reason, and Goodwin answered that the reason was his uncivil behaviour before him. The Governor then ordered the marshal to take Griffith into custody. That was all the witness remembered to the best of his knowledge.

Thomas Free stated that, being in the council, he had heard Goodwin ask Griffith why he had not come to the last general muster. Griffith answered that, being a free born subject, he ought to have the same liberty as the Roman Catholic enjoyed, naming Carne. Goodwin replied that he had given Carne leave to go into the country, and said that if Griffith had asked for the same leave he would not have known of any reason to refuse it. Griffith answered that he would protest against the Governor and Council, and spoke very loudly. He said he had never been in the habit of coming to muster, bearing arms, or doing any duty. Goodwin answered that he should come to muster and bear arms in future. Griffith replied that the Governor should wait until that time came, and if everyone did it then he would do it too, with many more loud words to the same effect.

Goodwin then said that if Griffith did not use more civil language and behaviour, he would have to find security for his good behaviour before he left the Fort. Griffith answered that he would find no security, that he would protest against the requirement, and that he would protest against the Governor and Council, naming them. He spoke very loudly to Mashborne as well, saying that he knew his business as well as Mashborne did, and used many more words to the same effect. Further than this, the witness did not remember to the best of his knowledge.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Mr Daniell Griffith having been bound over to the peace yesterday, 4 November, Mr Joshua Thomlinson, alice, and Mr Joseph Parsons, were bound in an obligation of ten pounds to the Honourable Company for his good behaviour towards the Worshipful Governor and Council on the island, and for his appearance before the Governor and Council when called. Signed under their hands on 5 November 1707.

Joshua Thomlinson. Joseph Parsons.

Witnessed by Thomas Free.

Interpretations

The depositions of Clavering, Free and Sergeant French allow the council to assemble a documentary record of Griffith's conduct from three independent witnesses present in the hall. The convergence of their accounts on the same key phrases, the protest, the refusal to find security, the comparison with Carne, and the declaration that he had never been in the habit of bearing arms or doing duty, gave the council a fortified record against any later challenge in London. Each witness reported only what he himself remembered, with the formula to the best of his knowledge appended to each statement, which followed the form of sworn depositions in an English court and produced a record robust enough to be sent to the directors.

Griffith's reported statement that he had never been in the habit of coming to muster or bearing arms is the most damaging admission in the depositions. It transforms his case from one of a single missed muster into one of habitual non-attendance, which would have been impossible to defend before any Company tribunal. Coupled with his suggestion that he would only attend when everyone else did, the admission undermines the protest's framing of him as an ordinarily compliant subject suddenly singled out for persecution, since by his own words he was nothing of the kind.

The execution of the recognisance on 5 November, with Thomlinson and Parsons standing as sureties in ten pounds for his good behaviour and appearance, indicates that overnight Griffith had concluded that confinement was less attractive than compliance. The same procedural mechanism that he had previously refused, the finding of sureties, was now accepted within a day, with two named men of the island taking on the financial risk. The episode demonstrates how effectively the threat of indefinite confinement could secure a recognisance once the initial defiance had been allowed to spend itself.

Speculations

The discrepancy between Griffith's claim in his written protest that he had never before been guilty of any neglect, contempt of government, or misdemeanour, and his admission to Free that he had never been in the habit of coming to muster or doing any duty, suggests either that the protest had been drafted as a piece of advocacy aiming at London rather than as an accurate account, or that Griffith had a quite particular view of what counted as a neglect of duty. His position seems to have been that the obligation to attend musters did not apply to him in the same way as to others, and that his absences were therefore not transgressions but exercises of a perceived liberty.

The willingness of Thomlinson and Parsons to stand surety for ten pounds points to a small network of solvent men prepared to take on financial risk for a neighbour in a public quarrel with the council. Joseph Parsons appears earlier in these records as the matross who had been pushed down the stairs by Mrs Clavering, and his presence here as a surety for Griffith suggests that he was prepared to commit his own credit to support a man whose position he may have sympathised with or who had asked him as a friend. Such sureties were the social glue that allowed the council's binding-over procedure to function without an indefinite expansion of confinement.

91

83

To the Worshipfull, Governeour and Councell, the humble Petetion of George Carne. Humbly Sheweth

That Whereas your Petetioner much to her Difsattisfac= =tion. and disagreeable to her Temper alltogether Sebmissive to the Governments Confteteuted by the Right Hon.ble Companys Lords Proprie tors of this theer Ifland, and of an Oblieding Deportment to his Neeghbours, for thefe Ten years paft, of being an Inhabetant amongst them, that he is Oblieged through the unhappy heumour of M.r Dan= niell Griffith, to that defenseon of himselfe wheich he Sould Never have Imagined a Person Endewed with your Naturall parts, a fellow Country Man, (though it's to be feared we participate more of the Frailties then Vertues of the Welft) Nay it may be said a Well Meaning Man Could have Oblidged him to.

The Worshipfull Governour and Councell Calling the said Daniell Griffith to account, as your Petetioner is duly Sattisfied of. and which before a Publick Justiciary needs no perfecutarising of Wittnesses, for Some Defect of duty Incumbrant on him, as An Inhabetant, was pleased to Exparteate himselfe upon the good Usage your Petetioner had Received at the hands of the Government, but with a most Excagaratong Censure to the Worshipfull Bench. that it was allowed to a Roman Catholick. and to your Petetioner, an Enemy to all Government, which is to say, to a person, who by the Law of England, on severall Stateutes, not only under a Premanary, & Rendered ipfo facto, incapable of any Preferment whatsoever, and may be duly Conceived under that most Stained Character of an Universall. Villain, for he that is an Enemy as was Express to all Government must be a Person well consigned to all Faction and given Over to all Desolate Practices, But it's your Petetioners Sattis= =faction that he has Lived a Sufficcent time it's to better Esteemed then a One of such a Monstrous Character, and it's Wonderfull. who Seems a Proficcent in the Law should be guelty of such Scandelous Affperteon where Such Vaft damages have been awarded.

Further your Petetioner begs leave upon your Pateince to Query what advantage Can the said Griffith Recieve if your Pete= =tioner is honnoured. with Some Favours he has not an adequate does it not shew a Vast Porteon of Shagrene and Mefdifposed temper, to Claim that on Propriety, which is but a bare Benevolence to his Neeghbour, but it is plain to Demonstrate he has not Wanted, in Seg= =nall Favours in his Time though he is pleased to Atterbeute them to Another hand, yett there was Nothing done in his Cafe but what was acted with the Confent of the Councell, [...] his time Reducct as y.r Petetioner though unwilling is Oblieged to Declare to the Per cum ftance of a Private Centonell, a Condeteon not alltogether the most Hon.ble

To the Worshipful Governor and Council, the humble petition of George Carne. He humbly showed the following.

For these ten years past, as an inhabitant among them, Carne had been entirely submissive to the governments set in place by the Honourable Company, lords proprietors of the island, and had carried himself obligingly towards his neighbours, though such conduct was contrary to his own temperament and not always agreeable to him. He was now compelled, by the unhappy humour of Mr Daniell Griffith, into a defence of himself that he had never imagined would be drawn from him by a man of Griffith's natural abilities, a fellow countryman, though it might be feared that the two of them shared more of the weaknesses than the virtues of the Welsh. Even a well-meaning man, Carne observed, could scarcely have driven him to this.

The Governor and Council, in calling Griffith to account for some neglect of duty as an inhabitant, a matter on which Carne needed to call no witnesses before a public bench, had been pleased to dwell on the good treatment Carne had received from the government. Griffith had taken offence at this and had told the bench, in highly exaggerated terms, that such treatment had been extended to a Roman Catholic and to one who was an enemy to all government. By the laws of England, Carne observed, that description applied to a person under a praemunire and rendered by statute incapable of any office or preferment, and amounted in plain terms to the character of a thoroughgoing villain. A man called an enemy to all government in such absolute language must, by Griffith's own logic, be given over to faction and every kind of ruinous practice.

It was a comfort to Carne that he had lived long enough on the island to be better esteemed than that, and it was surprising that a man who set himself up as something of a lawyer should have uttered so damaging a slander, in circumstances where the courts had often awarded heavy damages for less.

Carne further asked the council to consider what Griffith stood to gain even if it were true that Carne had been shown some courtesies that he himself had not received. Did it not reveal a great deal of bad temper and ill nature to claim as a matter of right what was at best the goodwill of a neighbour? In any case Griffith himself had been the object of marked favours in his time, though he chose to credit them to some other source. Nothing had been done in his case except with the consent of the council, at a time when his own station, as Carne felt himself obliged, however unwillingly, to mention, had been no higher than that of a private sentinel, a position not of the most honourable kind [...]

Interpretations

The Carne petition opened a second front in the Griffith dispute from the side of the man Griffith had named. By coming forward at his own initiative to answer the suggestion that he had received irregular favours as a Roman Catholic, Carne placed his own version of his standing on the council's record. The petition shifted the legal weight onto Griffith by invoking the English doctrines of praemunire and statutory incapacity that applied to a genuine enemy of the state, and then pointed out that Griffith's loose description of a settled inhabitant as a universal villain would have supported a substantial action for defamation in another forum.

The reference to Griffith's former rank as a private sentinel introduced a piece of biographical evidence that undercut his claim to a station above the common muster. The petition did not labour the point, but the disclosure that the protestor had once been a private soldier on the island recast his current pretensions to gentlemanly exemption in a humbler light, and would have been read alongside his protest by any director in London. Carne presented the information with the standard formula of unwilling disclosure, by which awkward facts are placed on the record while the writer maintains an appearance of reluctance.

Speculations

The reference to the supposed weaknesses of the Welsh, set against Carne's own description of himself as Griffith's countryman, was an unusual aside in a formal petition. It pointed either to a moment of personal feeling breaking through the formal language, or to a calculated reminder that the two men shared an origin that should have inclined them to civility rather than confrontation. By acknowledging their common background and at the same time distinguishing his own character from Griffith's, Carne pre-empted any suggestion of foreign bias on his part and added a personal edge to his complaint.

The careful framing of his own status, with the petition denying any privilege beyond ordinary neighbourly kindness and attributing whatever indulgences he enjoyed to the consent of the council, suggested that Carne anticipated unease in London about any local accommodation of a Catholic resident in a Company station. By presenting such favours as he had received as the formal acts of the local administration rather than personal exemptions, he transferred responsibility for them to the body that had granted them and built a documentary defence against any later inquiry.

92

84

hon.ble for a pretender to Quallety, or Exemptong not Expired, was taken from his Arms, and how Insinete Kind treatment that and others the like favours were the whole Island may be presumed Competent Juedges these being Matters of good Usage, and not Matters of Law, which Latter on this Smale Compound Yields not that Fructeferous Harvest and a Sedulous and Innocent application to a Planters Liveing.

Your Petetioner presumes it hath not been altogether though the Government wants no Defence for Actions of this Nature with out a Foundation. why Some Obligations Ever to be Acknowledged were Conferd on him, Since the late Gentleman Stephen Poirier Esq.r whom M.r Griffith Seems to adopt his Pattern, and whose Memory in this Act he must Reflect on, was the person joynt with the Rest of the Councell allowed those Specifyed by him favours on Confederation of his Marriage with the prsudent Governeours Wedow his haveing been in the Right Hon.ble Companys Service in a Stateon farr Remoate from his Compettetor, and who (though not free from defects more Effpeci= =ally long since) has lately been Mentioned with Some difference to his Requests, and Reputation in England by them factable to the Character of a Gentleman, and by their allowance a Free Mer= chant, but that M.r Griffiths Should depend upon Such brain Sick Fantoms, when he ought to Remember the Letter under his Own hand Read in open Court, where being the only person these Ten Years that Ever have Contended with of the people, what Success he had the Publick Records can Testifece. But not to Derecate from the Threed of the Main Points, your Petetioners Reputation is, what is not only his but the Function of all Honnest Men to Support, therefore well give a Weak brother as Little Offence as may be, and most heumbly Crave Justice of you the Worshipfull the Governour and Councell, prayeing that he the said Daniell Griffith may be Summoned before you, and made to Recant, and Prove the Extravegancy of his Veolent Affperteon Detrimentall to your Petetioners fair (as he hopes make appear) Cha= ractert, Person, and Famely, and Such allowance of Damage as Either you, or a Feurther Course of Law, by you admeitted, may be allowed, and as in deuty bound Shall Ever pray.

November. 8.th 1707.

Whereas William French Serjeant was Drunk the. 5.th Inftant and being the first day he Mounted his Geuard he was Confined by Orders of the Governour, and has been Confined Ever since to this day and the Governour gave him a Severe check, and fined him Five Shillings to the Church, and if Ever he be Drunk again when on his Geuard he is to Loofe his Serjeants place.

Such an honour as the wearing of a sword was hardly suited to a pretender to quality whose exemption had run out, and his arms had been taken from him. As to the kind treatment shown to Carne in this and in similar favours, the whole island might fairly be presumed competent to judge, since these were matters of good usage between neighbours and not matters of law, and law on this small settlement did not yield as fruitful a harvest as patient and honest application to a planter's living.

Carne presumed it would not be thought, even though the government needed no defence for actions of this kind, that the obligations conferred on him had been granted without a foundation, obligations he would always acknowledge. The late Mr Stephen Poirier, esquire, whose pattern Griffith now seemed to adopt and on whose memory in this act he must reflect, had been the person who, jointly with the rest of the council, had allowed the favours Griffith now objected to. They had been granted in consideration of Carne's marriage to the late prudent Governor's widow, and of his having been in the Honourable Company's service in a station far removed from that of his present opponent. Carne, though not free of defects, especially in years long past, had lately been mentioned with some respect in his requests and his reputation in England by those qualified to recognise the character of a gentleman, and by their allowance was a free merchant. That Griffith should rely on such brain-sick fantasies was the more strange when he ought to have remembered the letter under his own hand, read in open court, since he had been the only one of the people in these ten years who had ever contended with Carne, and the public records would testify what success he had met with.

Not to depart from the main points, Carne reminded the council that his reputation was something not only his own to defend but the duty of every honest man to support. He would therefore give a weak brother as little offence as he could, and most humbly craved justice of the Worshipful Governor and Council. He prayed that Daniell Griffith be summoned before them and made to recant and to prove the extravagance of his violent aspersion, so damaging to Carne's fair character, as he hoped to make appear, and to his person and family, with such allowance of damages as the council or any further course of law admitted by them might award. As in duty bound he would ever pray.

8 November 1707.

Sergeant William French had been drunk on 5 November, on the first day he mounted his guard. He had been confined by Goodwin's orders, and had remained in confinement ever since until this day. Goodwin gave him a severe check and fined him five shillings to the church, and warned him that if he were ever drunk again when on guard he would lose his sergeant's place.

Interpretations

The closing passages of Carne's petition draw together the documentary case against Griffith with care. By citing a letter under Griffith's own hand, read in open court, in which the very favours now objected to had once been acknowledged, Carne placed on the council's record a piece of evidence that effectively destroyed the public version of Griffith's grievance. The petition then asked for the standard remedies of slander, namely a summons, a forced recantation and an award of damages, in language that left open the possibility of further legal proceedings if the council itself declined to act. The document is the work of a litigant who understood that the council's record would itself be the principal exhibit before any London tribunal.

The detail that Carne's favours had been granted in consideration of his marriage to the late prudent Governor's widow gives an unexpected glimpse of his standing on the island. The widow in question must be the widow of an earlier Governor, predating Poirier, and the council's recognition of that connection in the form of indulgences to her new husband illustrates how the personal history of senior officials continued to shape local privilege long after their tenure had ended. Carne's reference to his prior Company service in a station far removed from Griffith's added a second strand of justification, by which his treatment was tied to recognised service rather than to religion.

The French disciplinary entry, slipped in immediately after the high politics of the Carne petition, illustrates the council's continuing routine business. A sergeant drunk on his first day of guard duty had been confined since the night of his offence, fined five shillings to the church, and warned that any repetition would cost him his rank. The terse handling of the matter, with the lighter financial penalty offset by a heavy notional threat to office, shows how the council preserved garrison discipline by binding a serving non-commissioned officer to his good conduct on threat of demotion rather than by escalating the immediate punishment.

Speculations

The reference to Carne's reputation in England being lately mentioned with some respect by those competent to recognise the character of a gentleman, and his allowance as a free merchant by them, suggests Carne held a written acknowledgment from London that he expected the council to take into account. The careful phrasing avoided any specific claim to a rank or commission, but indicated that his status had been recently confirmed from outside the island, which would have made any local determination against him difficult to sustain on review. The petition was building a record that London would find hard to overturn.

The decision of the council to confine French from the night of his offence on 5 November to the consultation of 8 November, before imposing only a five shilling fine, points to a deliberate use of pretrial confinement as part of the punishment itself. The actual money penalty was modest, but the three days in detention before sentence served as the substantive disciplinary measure. French would have been released understanding that a further offence would cost him his place, and the council preserved his service while making the price of further indulgence in drink unmistakeable.

93

85

Island St Helena.

Att A Consultation. held on Tuesday the. 18.th day of November. 1707. Att Fort James.

Pres.t Thom.s Goodwin, Governour Edward Mashborne Dep.ty Govern.r William Marsden. 3. in Councill.

Whereas Robert Swallow free planter made Complaint against Jonathan Dufton free planter Executor of the laft Well and Testament of William Dufton deceased for not allowing him his due Share of the aforesaid William Dufton deceased Land, According to the Custom of the Ifland, but gives the said Swallow all the worft part of the Land whereeupon the said Jonathan Dufton was Summoned to appear this Day before Governour and Councill who accordingly. did. and Saith that the said Swallow choosed the said Land, and therefore the said Dufton Leaves it to be tryed by the Countrey Next Quater Sefsions.

It is Ordered.

That the abovesaid Matter be Referred till the Next Quater Sefsi= ons, as likewife the Defference between M.r Carne and M.r Griffith.

Orlando Bagley Requested the Governour and Councill that he might hire a parcell of the Right Hon.ble Companys Wafte Land Lyeing between the Lands, that he before Rents of the Hon.ble Company, and Lands in Powells Valley

It is Ordered.

That the said Orlando Bagley Requeft be granted. the Rent to Commence from the. 25.th December Next, and the Land be Meafured accordingly.

The Governour and Councill having this Day Confedered the prizes of Provifeons of the produce of the Right Hon.ble Companys plantateons, upon the said Island St Helena, which are as followeth.

Blacks Labour bringing said provifeons down to the Fort at 6 pence a Turn except Yams, and Beefe which is Reckoned in the price. 6 Shellings for a hundred weight of Yams 25 Shellings for a hundred weight of Beefe 10 pence for a pound of Better 4 pence for a pound of Porke 4. Shellings

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 18 November 1707 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

Robert Swallow, free planter, complained against Jonathan Duston, free planter and executor of the last will and testament of William Duston, deceased, for failing to allow him his due share of the deceased's land according to the custom of the island, and instead giving him only the worst part of it. Duston was summoned to appear this day before the Governor and Council, and did so. He said that Swallow had himself chosen the land in question, and was content to have the matter tried by the country at the next quarter sessions.

It was ordered that the matter be referred to the next quarter sessions, as was likewise the difference between Carne and Griffith.

Orlando Bagley asked the Governor and Council that he be allowed to hire a parcel of the Honourable Company's waste land lying between the lands he already rented from the Company and the lands in Powell's Valley.

It was ordered that Bagley's request be granted, the rent to commence from 25 December next, and the land to be measured accordingly.

The Governor and Council having this day considered the prices of provisions produced on the Honourable Company's plantations on St Helena, the rates were as follows.

Slaves' labour bringing the provisions down to the Fort was charged at sixpence a turn, except for yams and beef, where the price was reckoned in the rate itself.

Six shillings for a hundred weight of yams.

Twenty five shillings for a hundred weight of beef.

Ten pence for a pound of butter.

Fourpence for a pound of pork.

Four shillings [...]

Interpretations

The referral of the Swallow and Duston dispute to the next quarter sessions, alongside the explicit linking of the Carne and Griffith matter to the same future hearing, shows the council distinguishing between the routine business it could dispose of in consultation and the more substantial controversies that required a fuller court. By holding both matters for the quarter sessions, the council preserved the more searching procedure of the country bench, with its capacity to call a jury, for cases involving either a contested distribution of an estate or a charge of slander between substantial residents. The pairing of the two referrals in a single order also linked them as parallel exercises in deferral, which spread the council's authority across both formal sittings and quarter sessions without conceding ground in either.

The published schedule of provision prices reveals the Company's plantation operating as a regulated commissary for the settlement. The fixing of a flat rate of sixpence a turn for slave labour bringing produce down to the Fort, and the integration of that labour cost into the headline price for yams and beef, shows that internal transport was a recognised component of the delivered price rather than a separate charge. The structure operated as a kind of administered market in which the most basic foodstuffs of the island, yams, beef, butter and pork, all had set rates that the council had reviewed and confirmed at a single sitting.

Speculations

The willingness of Duston to refer the land share dispute to a country jury at the next quarter sessions, rather than press for an immediate decision by the council, suggests confidence that local opinion would support his account of Swallow having chosen the disputed parcel himself. A litigant who expected to lose before a jury would have pressed for a direct ruling by the council on the documents and the will, while one who expected to win could safely defer the matter to a wider hearing. Duston's posture indicates that the customary practice on the island had been more flexible than Swallow's complaint suggested, and that planters at large would recognise the executor's account.

The integration of slave labour costs into the delivered price of yams and beef, while keeping a separate sixpence a turn charge for all other items, points to a calculation that the bulky staples warranted a fixed all-in price for the buyer's convenience. Yams and beef would have been ordered in standard hundreDwights, so building the transport cost into the price simplified the buyer's accounting and concealed the internal cost structure within a single headline rate. For lighter goods, where quantities varied, the separate per-turn charge gave the council and its commissary a transparent way of recovering the actual movement cost without inflating the apparent unit price of the goods themselves.

94

86

4 Shellings for a Bushell of Potato's 16 pence for a Dunghill Fowle. 5 Shellings for a Tueurkey 6 pence p̈ Some for Green trade 5 Shellings for a Goofe 8 Shellings for a Goate 3 Shellings for a Roafting pigg 10 pence for a pound of Bacon 6 pence for a Gallon of Milk 20 Shellings for a Sheepe 6 pence for a pound of Veale 6 pence for a French Cheefe 4 pence a pound New Milk Cheese 9 Shellings for a Bufhell of Beans 2 Pence a pound for Reunniong hoggs

Tho: Goodwin Edw: Mashborne W.m Marsden

Island St Helena Att A Consultation. held on Wens= =day the. 26.th November. 1707 Att Fort James.

Pres.t Thomas Goodwin Governour Edward Mashborne Dep.ty Govern.r William Marsden. 3. in Councill

Whereas the Councill bookes have not for Some time been Segned for a great While together which is thought to have been the Neglect of the Clarkes of the Councill, So that Now perceifong the said books they well, seem letle facelityes since the late Governours hand are not to any for above a Year Sence, Therefore,

It is Ordered.

That for the feuture the Clarke alwayes write fair all Confultations against the Next Councill Day. and prefent them to be Segned.

M.r Alexander the prefent Clarke Says for himself, that when he came to the place the books was So fart behind hand that

Fourpence for a bushell of potatoes. Sixteen pence for a dunghill fowl. Five shillings for a turkey. Sixpence per [...] for green trade. Five shillings for a goose. Eight shillings for a goat. Three shillings for a roasting pig. Tenpence for a pound of bacon. Sixpence for a gallon of milk. Twenty shillings for a sheep. Sixpence for a pound of veal. Sixpence for a French cheese. Fourpence a pound for new milk cheese. Nine shillings for a bushell of beans. Twopence a pound for running hogs.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Wednesday 26 November 1707 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

The council books had not been signed for a great while together. The omission was thought to have been the neglect of the clerks of the council, and it now appeared that no signature of the late Governor had been entered for above a year past.

It was ordered that in future the clerk always write fair every consultation against the next council day, and present it to be signed.

Mr Alexander, the present clerk, said in his own defence that when he had come to the place the books had been so far behindhand that [...]

Interpretations

The completion of the price schedule, with separate rates for fowls, turkeys, geese, goats, pigs, bacon, milk, sheep, veal, French and new milk cheese, beans and running hogs, gives a striking picture of the variety of provisions produced or available on the island in late 1707. The distinction between French cheese and new milk cheese at different prices points to an established trade in both an imported or settler-made hard cheese and a locally produced fresh cheese, with the lower price for the local article suggesting that homemade production was either of lower quality or more plentiful. The price of running hogs at twopence a pound by live weight, separate from the fourpence rate for pork by the pound after slaughter, distinguishes the wholesale rate for a live animal from the retail rate for prepared meat.

The order on the signing of the council books reveals a serious administrative lapse under the previous Governor. No consultation had been signed for more than a year before Poirier's death, which meant that a substantial body of council orders had been entered in the books but not authenticated by the senior signatures that would have given them their full evidentiary weight. The new instruction that the clerk write each consultation up fair against the next council day, and present it for signature at that sitting, restored the practice of contemporaneous authentication and closed off the possibility of any later challenge to the validity of orders made under the previous administration.

Speculations

The detailed differentiation in the price schedule, with fixed rates for items as specific as a roasting pig and a French cheese, suggests that the council was setting an administered tariff rather than describing a market. The fixed prices would have applied to transactions involving the Company's plantation produce, and probably governed sales between the plantation and the Fort table, as well as setting reference rates for sales to private buyers. The schedule reads as a working document for an internal commissary rather than a survey of the prevailing market, which makes its publication in the council books a piece of fiscal regulation rather than mere record-keeping.

Alexander's plea that the books had been left so far behind when he arrived points to a structural failure in the late Governor's administration rather than to any single clerk's neglect. The combination of unsigned consultations, missing general letters and decaying wills described in earlier entries suggests that Poirier had allowed the documentary spine of the administration to weaken across his last years, and the new Governor's repeated returns to the same theme of record-keeping indicate that one of the central tasks of the new regime would be the reconstruction of a credible paper record. The clerk's defence, presented in the council itself, was the first round of an inquiry that would attribute responsibility for the deficiencies of the past.

95

87

he Could not gett them foreeward. till now with afsiftance allowed and do.s not doubt but Shall keep them So for the feuture.

Tho: Goodwin Edw: Mashborne W.m Marsden

Island St Helena. Att A Consultation. held on Tuesday the. 2.d day of December. 1707. Att Fort James.

Pres.t Thomas Goodwin Governour. Edward Mashborne Dep.ty Govern.r William Marsden. 3. in Councill

Whereas M.r Edward Mashborne Deputy Governeur having Occafion for another Whyte Man to help John Leumbar, in the Loo= =keing after the Hon.ble Comp.as Negroes Cattle &c.a have Sent for Samuell Joffey Montrofs, who undertakes the Imploy, at the Sallarry he now hath, but if he Should not Like of this Bufsenefs then to be in his Imploy of Montrofs again.

And being in want of another Person to fell up the Vacancy of Montrofs have Sent for the Gunner to make his Choice of Such a person, who Chofe John Hayfe Souldicier.

It is Ordered.

That the said John Hayfe be as Montrofs and have addetionall Sallarry Accordingly.

The R.t Hon.ble Comp.a Stock of Neat Cattle Increafsing to Such a Number by the great quantety the Late Governour Lately bought That their Paftueres befedes that Letle Common there is well not Maintaen them, Therefore tis thought fitt for the said Hon.ble Comp.a Benefitt and better Maintainance of theer said Cattle, that we go on Theurfday Next to Veew the Common Lyeing Negh the Slep Reek, In order of Surveying and fenceing the Sa[m]e in for a Pafture which well preferve the Lives of Severall head of Cattle.

Matthew Bazett made Complaint that he has Suffered Damage by Gilbert Cotgraves doggs. who he says has Killed Severall of his Hoggs.

Whereeupon. the said Gilbert Cotgrave being Summon ed appeared and denys the said Bazetts Complaint.

Then the said Bazetts Evedences were Called and Sworn. Ifaack

The clerk said he could not get the books forward until now, with the assistance allowed him, and did not doubt he would keep them up in future.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 2 December 1707 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

Mashborne, Deputy Governor, had occasion for another white man to help John Lumber in looking after the Honourable Company's slaves, cattle and other stock. He had sent for Samuel Jeffrey, matross, who undertook the work at the salary he then had, but on the understanding that if he did not take to the business he would return to his post as matross.

A replacement was now needed to fill the vacancy left by Jeffrey, and the gunner was sent for to choose a suitable man. He chose John Hayes, soldier.

It was ordered that Hayes serve as matross with the additional salary attached to that rank.

The Honourable Company's stock of neat cattle had increased to such a number, through the large purchases lately made by Poirier, that the pastures, along with the small common available, would not maintain them. It was therefore thought fit, for the Honourable Company's benefit and for the better maintenance of its cattle, that the council go on Thursday next to view the common lying near the Steep Reek, with a view to surveying and fencing it in as a pasture, which would preserve the lives of several head of cattle.

Matthew Bazett complained that he had suffered damage by Gilbert Cotgrave's dogs, which he said had killed several of his hogs.

Cotgrave was summoned, appeared and denied the complaint.

Bazett's witnesses were then called and sworn.

Isaac [...]

Interpretations

The personnel chain set in motion at Mashborne's request shows how an order at one level produced a series of consequential appointments. The need for a second white overseer at the plantation drew Jeffrey from his matross post, with a conditional right of return preserved in case the new work did not suit him. The resulting vacancy in the matross ranks was filled by Hayes on the gunner's choice, with the additional pay attached to the rank rather than to the man. The council was managing the garrison establishment as a flexible pool of men whose specific assignments could be shifted to suit operational needs, with pay following the post rather than the individual.

The cattle problem reveals the consequence of the late Governor's purchasing pattern. Poirier's large recent acquisitions had increased the Company herd to a level that the existing pastures could not support, and the new administration was now confronting the need to enclose further common land to keep the animals alive. The reference to the Steep Reek common, to be viewed on Thursday with an eye to fencing and survey, illustrates how the council was extending the Company's effective grazing footprint in response to a stock level it had inherited rather than created. The order to view in person rather than decide on the documents reflects the practice already seen on the drift way disputes, with physical inspection treated as the most reliable basis for land decisions.

Speculations

The conditional appointment of Jeffrey, with an explicit right of return to his matross post if the plantation work did not suit, suggests that the council was unsure whether he would take to overseeing slaves and stock, and was unwilling to lose his services entirely if he found the new role uncongenial. A safety net of this kind would have been needed to persuade an experienced matross to undertake plantation duty, and indicates that the council recognised differences of temperament among the garrison's men that bore on their suitability for particular tasks. The reservation also kept the gunner's establishment whole in the event of a failed transfer.

The decision to fence in part of the common near the Steep Reek to support an over-large herd suggests the council had decided to absorb rather than reverse the consequences of Poirier's purchasing. Selling off the surplus cattle would have been the obvious alternative, but would have created its own administrative trouble and might have produced losses on stock recently bought. By expanding the available pasture instead, the council preserved the herd at its present size and converted a problem of overstocking into a project of land enclosure, while incidentally reducing the area of common available to the freemen's stock.

96

88

Ifaack Leech says that he knows nothing of the Matter any More, then that M.rs Peurling Defired him to write a Noate to the said Gilbert Cotgrave, to defire him to take Care of his doggs for the feuture for that they were Seen to Worry Some of her Hoggs.

Benjamen Pledgerd says that the Same Night M.r Desfountain was bueried he and Mingo theer black heard a Hogg Cry, and goeing with him with a Crow and tibe with Intent to Kill the dogg, and Comeing very Nigh the Hogg Saw the said Gilbert Cotgraves dogg, on a Hogg of M.r Bazetts and afsoon as the Dogg saw them he Lett Loose the Hogg and Run Homewards.

Mary Pledgerd Sworn Saith, that about three Months ago She Saw Gilbert Cotgraves doggs. as She thinks being very Like his Run after Some of M.rs Peurlings hoggs on the Geull, a Letle below Sextons ground and that Jacob Miller beat them off.

Jacob Miller Sworn Saith. that as he was paffeing by a place Called Sextons greund, faw a dogg of a darkifh Colour, and a Whitifh Betch on Some of M.rs Peurlings hoggs, where eupon beat them off, which Run toward Gilbert Cotgraves house, and Says he is almoft Pofsetive they were both his.

It is Ordered.

That the said Gilbert Cotgrave, do forthwith hang his doggs he haveing been catch on a Hogg, and he himself forewarned. they ded Mefcheef to hoggs, and pay Charges off Councell.

Tho: Goodwin Edw: Mashborne W.m Marsden

Island St Helena Att A Consultation. held on Wednsday the. 17.th Day of December. 1707. Att Fort James.

Pres.t Tho: Goodwin, Governour Edward Mashborne Dep.ty gov.r William Marsden. 3. in Coun:

Whereas this day in the Eveneng about. 6. of the clock. we the Governour and Councell received a Requeett p̈ the Shyp Northumberland from our Right Hon.ble Mafterr the Uneted East India Company with Severall other Letters, which we the said Governour and Councell are Now Mett to open and read wherein amongft other Matters, we finde One

Isaac Leech said he knew nothing more of the matter than that Mrs Purling had asked him to write a note to Gilbert Cotgrave, asking him to take care of his dogs in future, since they had been seen to worry some of her hogs.

Benjamin Pledger said that on the night Mr Desfontaines was buried, he and his slave Mingo heard a hog cry. Going out with a crow and tipstaff with intent to kill the dog, and coming very near the hog, they saw Cotgrave's dog upon a hog of Bazett's. As soon as the dog saw them it let go of the hog and ran off towards home.

Mary Pledger, sworn, said that about three months ago she had seen what she believed to be Cotgrave's dogs, being very like his, running after some of Mrs Purling's hogs on the gull, a little below Sexton's ground, and that Jacob Miller had beaten them off.

Jacob Miller, sworn, said that as he was passing by a place called Sexton's ground he had seen a dog of a darkish colour and a whitish bitch upon some of Mrs Purling's hogs. He had beaten them off, and they had run towards Cotgrave's house. He was almost certain both belonged to Cotgrave.

It was ordered that Cotgrave forthwith hang his dogs, having been caught on a hog, and having himself been forewarned that they were doing mischief to hogs. He was to pay council charges.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Wednesday 17 December 1707 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

About six o'clock this evening the Governor and Council had received a request by the ship Northumberland from the Honourable Masters, the United East India Company, with several other letters. They were now met to open and read them. Among other matters they found one [...]

Interpretations

The disposition of the Cotgrave case follows a recognisable pattern of escalating warning leading to forfeiture. Mrs Purling had earlier sent a written note asking Cotgrave to take care of his dogs after they had been seen to worry her hogs, and the present complaint by Bazett, supported by a direct sighting of one of Cotgrave's dogs on a hog, brought the matter to a head. The order that Cotgrave hang the dogs himself, rather than have them destroyed by an officer, placed the duty of execution on the owner, which converted the punishment into a personal admission of fault.

The witness evidence shows the council reconstructing the dogs' habits through testimony from several adjoining holdings over a three month period. Mary Pledger and Jacob Miller placed dogs answering to the description of Cotgrave's on hogs at Sexton's ground, Benjamin Pledger and his slave caught a dog on Bazett's hog on a specific night, and Isaac Leech provided the documentary trail of Mrs Purling's earlier warning. Taken together the witnesses built a record that converted the present incident from a single complaint into proof of a continuing nuisance, which justified the loss of the dogs rather than mere compensation for the immediate damage.

Speculations

The dating of Benjamin Pledger's sighting to the night of Mr Desfontaines's funeral is the kind of incidental anchor that gave his testimony particular weight in a settlement where most days were undifferentiated. By locating the sighting against a memorable public event, Pledger gave the council a date that could be checked against other records and against the recollections of other witnesses. The detail also suggests that the burial of so prominent a man would have been attended by enough of the community that anyone wishing to question Pledger's account could readily have placed his movements that evening.

The arrival of the Northumberland in the evening, with the council meeting to open the dispatches the same night, indicates that letters from the directors were treated as too important to leave until the following day. The decision to open and read the letters at six in the evening, rather than wait for a regular morning consultation, suggests that the council expected matter requiring immediate response, perhaps concerning the late Governor's affairs, the audit set in motion by his death, or instructions following the directors' receipt of earlier reports from the island.

97

89

One Christian Fredrick Vogell, to be Engineer of this Ifland, One Francis Funge Armourer, allfo two Mafons George Northern. and Nicholas Shreeve One Serjeant. and Ten Souldieers.

It is Ordered.

That Every One after Refrefhment be Imployed According to theer Seve= rall agreements with our Hon.ble Mafters. Tho: Goodwin Edw: Mashborne W.m Marsden

Island St Helena. Att A Consultation. held on Friday the. 19.th day of December. 1707. Att Fort James.

Pres.t Thomas Goodwin, Governour Edward Mashborne Dep.ty Govern.r William Marsden. 3. in Councill

The said Two Mafons. Voz.tt Northern and Shreeve as allfo Francis Funge Armourer makes demand for theer diet at the Companys Charge Sayeng it is According to their agreement with them in England but for doing No Such agreement on the Generall Letter, but Confedering that if the aforesaid persons has not theer diet allowed them, it may be a Means of Loofeing Severall days works in theer getting of Vectualls & bringing the Same out of the Countrey have thought it very Necefsary for the Bennefett of the said Hon.ble Company to allow the said Two Mafons, and Armourer their diet at the Companys Charge but with this Provifo. That in Cafe the said Hon.ble Company do.s nor doth not allow & Approve of theer diet as aforesaid That then the said Francis Funge, George Northern and Nicholas Shreeve do promise and Engage to pay the Sum of Ten pownds p̈ annum Each out of theer Sallary as the Same becomes due for theer diet as aforesaid, and give theer Obligateons Accordingly.

To prevent any Defpeutes among the Officerr and others the Companys Servants that diet at theer Charge that it is thought fett, and

Ordered

They and Each of them are to take place at the Generall Table as followeth. after

By the dispatches it was learned that Christian Frederick Vogell was sent to be engineer of the island, Francis Funge was sent as armourer, with two masons named George Northern and Nicholas Shreeve, one sergeant and ten soldiers.

It was ordered that each, after refreshment, be employed according to his several agreement with the Honourable Masters.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Friday 19 December 1707 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

The two masons Northern and Shreeve, together with Francis Funge, the armourer, asked that their diet be provided at the Company's charge, saying that this was their agreement with the Company in England. There being no such agreement on record in the general letter, but considering that if these men were not allowed their diet, several days' work might be lost while they fetched their provisions out of the country, the council judged it very necessary, for the benefit of the Honourable Company, to allow the two masons and the armourer their diet at the Company's charge. This was on the proviso that, if the Honourable Company did not allow and approve their diet on those terms, Funge, Northern and Shreeve each promised and engaged to pay ten pounds a year out of his salary, as it became due, for the diet, and to give bonds to that effect.

To prevent any disputes among the officers and other Company servants who dined at the Company's charge, it was thought fit, and ordered, that they and each of them take their place at the general table as followed [...]

Interpretations

The arrival of the Northumberland represents a substantial reinforcement of the island's technical and military establishment. An engineer, an armourer, two masons, a sergeant and ten soldiers landed in a single shipment, transforming the manpower base on which the new administration would carry forward its programme of fortification repair. Vogell's title of engineer placed him alongside Newman, who had advised on the Lemon Valley works in September, and indicates that the directors were prepared to spend significantly on specialist personnel to defend the island. The arrival of named masons by Company contract also reduced the council's dependence on the small group of local masons, whose pricing had become a matter of public negotiation.

The handling of the diet question for the three skilled tradesmen shows the council managing a probable gap between what the men had been told in England and what the written letter recorded. Faced with their claim of an oral agreement, and recognising that requiring them to fetch their own provisions from the country would cost days of skilled labour each week, the council adopted the practical course of granting the diet conditionally, with a personal bond at ten pounds a year if the directors disallowed the concession. The arrangement protected the Company against any ruling from London while preserving the men's productive time on the works.

The order that all those dining at the general table take their place by an established precedence reveals the council's continuing concern with hierarchy. With new officers arriving, including an engineer who would rank highly on any list of skilled personnel, the council was anxious to set down in writing the order in which they would sit, so as to forestall the disputes over precedence that could otherwise have soured relations among men who shared a single dining room. The truncation of the entry at the moment the order of precedence was about to be given is characteristic of the documentary state of the consultation books described in earlier entries.

Speculations

The decision to bond Funge, Northern and Shreeve each in ten pounds a year against the possibility that the directors might disallow their diet, indicates that the council expected the question to be tested in London. By taking written bonds rather than relying on the men's word, the council ensured that any disallowance would be recoverable from the workers' own salaries, and that the Company would not be left to absorb the cost of an unsanctioned concession. The fact that all three men accepted the bond rather than work without diet suggests that they were confident the directors would in the end ratify what their recruiters had promised.

The simultaneous arrival of an engineer and a second mason or two masons points to a coordinated push from the directors to bring the island's fortifications up to current standards. The new Governor's first acts had included visible work at Lemon Valley and the alarm ridge, and the directors' response with specialist personnel suggests that the London board was prepared to underwrite a more ambitious programme. The presence of Vogell at the head of the technical contingent, with masons under his direction and an armourer to maintain the weapons, gave the new administration both the manpower and the expertise to undertake substantial defensive construction in the coming year.

98

90

After the Governour and Councell, are to take place Voz.tt

M.r Joshua Thomlinson Minister. M.r C: F: Vagell Engineer. Thomas Sanderson Ensign. John Alecander Clark Councill. Matthew Bazett Store Keepers Afsistance. Ed. Kempton Surgeon, The Serjeant of the Geuard Thomas Free Writer Newman Fran: Funge Armourer John Palen Overseer of y.e Workmen Geo: Northern ⎫ Nich: Shreeve ⎬ Mafons Nath: Collins afsistant to the Armourer for the prefent. befedes the Governours Family

Whereas the Hon.ble Court of Mannagers for affairs &c.a having by the Shyp Northumberland Cap.tn Henry Dickenson Sent over a Coppy of the Oath Adminiftered to all their Servants according to the Charter of Uncon. of the said Company. and for that Severall people of this Ifland have Seem'd to hint that we have not taken an Oath of True Judgment, in the Severall, perticular affairs which Comes before us and Councell.

Therefore. we the said Governour and Councell of the said Ifland with the Clark of our Councell. and a Writer do Every One of us Take the said Oath as follows

I Thomas Goodwin, having by the favour of the R.t Hon.ble Englefh United East India Company. and the Death of the late Governour Poirier Succeed[ed] in this place as Governour of the Ifland of S.t Helena for the affairs of the said United Company Do Swear that I well be true and Faithfull, to the said Company and well duly and faithfully Execute and Difcharge the said Office and place of Governour to the uttmoft of my Skell and power and be Indefferent and Equall in my Judgment in all Caufes that Comes before me between party and party. So help me God.

Lecten.t Edward Mashborne Deputy Governour and M.r William Marsden. 3. in Councill, took the Same Oath with the Defference of places.

I John Alexander being Elected Unto the Office of Clarke of the Councell. for the Affaiers of the United English Company Tradeing to the East Indies do Swear that I well be true and faithfull to the said Englefh Company. and well duly and faithfully Execute

After the Governor and Council were to take their places, the order was as follows.

Mr Joshua Thomlinson, minister. Mr C F Vogell, engineer. Thomas Sanderson, ensign. John Alexander, clerk of the council. Matthew Bazett, storekeeper's assistant. Edmond Kempton, surgeon. The sergeant of the guard. Thomas Free, writer. Newman. Francis Funge, armourer. John Palen, overseer of the workmen. George Northern and Nicholas Shreeve, masons. Nathaniel Collins, assistant to the armourer for the present. Besides the Governor's family.

The Honourable Court of Managers, by the ship Northumberland, Captain Henry Dickinson, had sent a copy of the oath administered to all the Company's servants according to the Charter of Union of the said Company. Several people on the island had hinted that the Council had not taken an oath of true judgment in the several particular matters that came before it.

The Governor and Council, with the clerk of the council and a writer, therefore each took the oath as followed.

I, Thomas Goodwin, having by the favour of the Honourable English United East India Company and by the death of the late Governor Poirier succeeded to this place as Governor of the Island of St Helena for the affairs of the said United Company, do swear that I will be true and faithful to the Company and will duly and faithfully execute and discharge the said office and place of Governor to the utmost of my skill and power, and be indifferent and equal in my judgment in all causes that come before me between party and party. So help me God.

Lieutenant Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor, and Mr William Marsden, third in council, took the same oath with the difference of titles.

I, John Alexander, being elected to the office of clerk of the council for the affairs of the United English Company trading to the East Indies, do swear that I will be true and faithful to the said English Company, and will duly and faithfully execute [...]

Interpretations

The order of precedence at the general table reveals the formal hierarchy of the new administration in concrete form. The minister Thomlinson came first after the Governor and Council, ahead of the engineer Vogell, which placed religious office above technical rank in the ceremonial order even where the engineer's salary and importance to the works programme were considerable. Below the engineer came the ensign, the clerk, the storekeeper's assistant and the surgeon, with the sergeant of the guard placed above the writer, the armourer, the overseer of the workmen and the masons. The single line for the Governor's family at the foot of the list preserved a place for those whose status depended on their connection to the Governor rather than on their own office.

The administration of the oath of true judgment, prompted by hints from people on the island that the council had not taken any such oath, was the directors' response to a question of standing rather than a matter of substantive law. By sending out a copy of the form prescribed under the Charter of Union, the Honourable Masters supplied the council with a documented basis for the authority it had been exercising. The careful recording of each office holder taking the oath in turn, with the precise wording of the Governor's version transcribed in full, produced a record that could be presented to any future complainant in answer to the same hint.

Speculations

The fact that the directors thought it necessary to send out a printed or copied oath, in response to local doubts about the council's authority, suggests that someone on the island had been writing to London on the subject in the previous year. Griffith's protest, with its references to law, statute and the Charter, was framed in a way that suggests an awareness of these very questions, and his earlier remark that he knew his business as well as Mashborne pointed to a man who studied the documents on which the council's powers rested. Whether or not Griffith himself was the source, the timing of the oath's arrival is consistent with a directors' response to challenges of the council's procedure raised from within the settlement.

The administration of the same oath to the clerk and to the writer Thomas Free, alongside the Governor and councillors, treats the documentary functions of the administration as integral to the oath-bound business of the Company. By including the men who actually wrote the books in the oath, the council ensured that no one taking part in the production of its records could later disclaim responsibility for their content. The structure of accountability extended beyond the decision-makers to the office staff who turned decisions into the permanent written record on which the settlement's governance depended.

99

91

And difcharge the said Office and place of Truft to the utmoft of my Skill and power, and that I well not Difcover any the Secrets of the Company and that I well not difcover the Publique. and perticeular Concerns under my Care. Nor Carrieye into the Countrey with me any. of the papers, or things Smitted to my Care without Leave of the Governour for the time being. So help me God.

M.r Thomas Free Writer took an Oath alfo to the same Effect.

Tho: Goodwin Edw: Mashborne W.m Marsden

Island St Helena. December the. 20.th 1707.

Whereas the Governour hath been Informed that Cap.tn Delagarner Pafsenger on board of the Shyp. Northumberland Cap.t. Dic= kinfon Commander. and one M.r William Lovegrove Mid Shyp Man on board said Shyp have at divers and Sundry times on board said Shyp had many. hegh words, and Even to Challendoeng and Threatning Each other to Stroke beat and Confequiently wound One or the other, and that upon the words and quarrell. that arofe betwixt them the said Delagarner had a paier of Piftolls Loaded in his Pockett to defend himself upon the said William Lovegrove Threatning as aforesaid to beat. and Strike the said Delagarner, who being both Sent for. with a Defign of the Governour and Councell. to make them Friends to pre= vent Mefcheef, but findeing all our good Intentions and friendly perfwa= fions to prove Endlefs, Have and do think it very proper, both for the good Quiet of this Ifland and prefervation of the Queens peace to bind both perfons aforesaid to the Peace in a Recompnezance as followeth.

We Edward Mashborne Deputy Governour of said Ifland, and M.r George Carne do hereby Enter into a Recovgnizance of Ten pounds in good and Lawfull Money payable to the Reght Hon.ble Company for the good behaveour of the aforesaid Cap.t. Delagarner, towards all her Majeftys Liedge People and Effpeccially towards the said M.r Welleam Lovegrove when Ever demanded. In Wittness whereof we have hereunto Sett our hands this. 20.th day of December. 1707. Edw.d Mashborne George Carne. Likewise

I, John Alexander, do swear that I will discharge the said office and place of trust to the utmost of my skill and power, that I will not reveal any of the Company's secrets, that I will not disclose the public or particular concerns under my care, nor carry into the country with me any of the papers or things committed to my care without leave of the Governor for the time being. So help me God.

Mr Thomas Free, writer, took an oath to the same effect.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Island of St Helena

20 December 1707.

Goodwin had been informed that Captain Delagarner, passenger on board the Northumberland, Captain Dickinson commander, and Mr William Lovegrove, midshipman on the same ship, had at various times during the voyage exchanged many heated words, even to the point of challenging and threatening each other with blows and consequent injury. Out of the quarrel that had risen between them, Delagarner had been carrying a pair of loaded pistols in his pockets to defend himself against Lovegrove's threats to strike and beat him.

Both men were sent for, with the Governor and Council intending to reconcile them and prevent mischief. The council's good intentions and friendly persuasions proving fruitless, it was thought proper, both for the quiet of the island and for the preservation of the Queen's peace, to bind both men to keep the peace by recognisance, as follows.

Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor of the island, and Mr George Carne, entered into a recognisance of ten pounds in good and lawful money, payable to the Honourable Company, for the good behaviour of Captain Delagarner towards all Her Majesty's liege people, and especially towards Mr William Lovegrove, whenever demanded. In witness whereof they set their hands on 20 December 1707.

Edward Mashborne. George Carne.

Likewise [...]

Interpretations

The clerk's oath addresses the documentary discipline of the administration with a precision that the Governor's oath did not. The undertaking not to disclose Company secrets and not to carry papers into the country without leave of the Governor speaks to the practical exposure of an officer who handled the settlement's most sensitive material. The reference to taking papers into the country, rather than out of the office, suggests the clerk's residence lay outside the Fort, and that the regular handling of papers between office and home required formal control to ensure none of them passed into private storage or was lost.

The Delagarner and Lovegrove case shows the council asserting its peace-keeping jurisdiction over disputes that had originated at sea but threatened to become a problem on land. A passenger and a midshipman who had quarrelled throughout the voyage, with one of them habitually armed with loaded pistols, were unlikely to settle on the island once disembarked. By binding both men to keep the peace before any actual blow had fallen, the council intervened pre-emptively on the strength of reported threats, using the recognisance procedure familiar from earlier cases on the island. The reach of the council into shipboard quarrels treats the harbour as part of its jurisdiction.

The choice of George Carne as a surety for Captain Delagarner deserves notice. Carne was a Roman Catholic, recently the subject of Griffith's protest, and he was now standing in a public bond of ten pounds for the good behaviour of a newcomer to the island. His acceptance as surety, with the Deputy Governor Mashborne as his fellow bailor, demonstrates that whatever Griffith's complaints, Carne's standing as a man of substance willing to commit his own credit on behalf of an officer was unimpaired in the council's eyes.

Speculations

The fact that all of the Council's good intentions and friendly persuasions had proved fruitless before the recognisance was imposed suggests the quarrel between Delagarner and Lovegrove had a depth that an evening's mediation in the Fort hall could not bridge. Two months at sea in the same ship with daily provocations, an officer carrying loaded pistols for self-defence, and a midshipman willing to threaten a captain with blows, point to a substantive grievance rather than a fit of temper. The council's resort to formal bonds within hours of meeting the two men reflects a judgment that the matter was beyond informal settlement.

The pairing of Mashborne and Carne as sureties for Delagarner indicates that the Captain had landed on the island with no local connection of his own who could vouch for him. By accepting the Deputy Governor and a leading civilian inhabitant as his bailors, the council brought him within the local network of obligation that the recognisance procedure depended on. The arrangement also gave Mashborne and Carne a personal financial interest in seeing the peace kept, which was the very mechanism by which the procedure produced its disciplinary effect.

100

92

Likewife.

I Henry Dickinson Commander of the good Shyp Northumberland, do hereby Enter into a Recognezance of Ten pownds in good and Currant Money of England, for the good Behaveour of the before Named M.r William Lovegrove towards all her Majefty Leedge People and Effpeccially Cap.tn Alexander Delagarner whele and dureing the Stay of Perfons beforenamed & Shyps Stay at said Ifland. In Wittness whereof I have here unto Sett my hand this 20. day of December. 1707. Henry Dickinson

Tho: Goodwin Edw: Mashborne

Island St Helena. Att A Consultation. held on Tuesday the. 23. day of December. 1707. Att Fort James.

Pres.t Thomas Goodwin, Governour Edward Mashborne Dep.ty Govern.r William Marsden. 3. in Councill

Whereas William French Serjeant and Thomas French his Son Montrofs, with the said William Frenchs Famely defires they may have Leave and Liecence to take Pafsage on board the Shyp Northumberland bound for Bencoolen the said French and Son Offe= =rong to go in the Companies Service.

It is Agreed and Ordered.

That the said William French with his whole Famelly hath Leave and Leberty, to go off the said Ifland According to his defire.

Henry Webley Free Planter Petetioned to us that we would grant him and his Wefe Leave and Leberty. alfo to go off the said Ifland in the said Shyp Northumberland bound to Bencoolen as aforesaid.

It is Ordered.

That the said Henry Webley with his Wefe take pafsage on said Shyp according to their Defire. Gabriell

Likewise, Henry Dickinson, commander of the good ship Northumberland, hereby entered into a recognisance of ten pounds in good and current money of England, for the good behaviour of the said Mr William Lovegrove towards all Her Majesty's liege people, and especially towards Captain Alexander Delagarner, during the stay of the persons named and of the ship at the island. In witness whereof he set his hand on 20 December 1707.

Henry Dickinson.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne.

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 23 December 1707 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

Sergeant William French and his son Thomas French, matross, together with the rest of William French's family, asked leave and licence to take passage on board the Northumberland, bound for Bencoolen. The father and son offered to enter the Company's service.

It was agreed and ordered that William French, with his whole family, have leave and liberty to go off the island as he desired.

Henry Webley, free planter, petitioned the council to grant him and his wife leave and liberty to go off the island in the Northumberland, bound for Bencoolen as stated.

It was ordered that Webley and his wife take passage on the ship as they desired.

Gabriel [...]

Interpretations

The Dickinson recognisance reversed the customary structure of the bond by putting the ship's master in the position of surety for one of his own crew. Where Mashborne and Carne had stood for the passenger Delagarner, Dickinson alone stood for the midshipman Lovegrove, in the sum of ten pounds in money of England rather than money of the island. The use of English rather than colonial currency reflected the fact that the bond would be answerable to the Company in London if forfeited, and the choice of Dickinson as sole surety placed the responsibility for keeping his crewman in order on the master under whose authority Lovegrove served.

The two passages granted on 23 December showed how the Northumberland's onward voyage to Bencoolen was being used as a recruitment opportunity, in the same way that the Rochester had been used the previous June. The Frenchs, with the sergeant's whole family, were leaving the island to enter Company service at the further post, taking advantage of a passing ship to convert a settled position into a new engagement. Webley's case was closer to ordinary migration, with a planter and his wife taking passage without any stated intention of further Company employment. The council acted as the gatekeeper for all such departures, granting leave on petition rather than allowing free movement.

Speculations

The decision of Sergeant William French to leave the island with his whole family, only weeks after the council had threatened him with the loss of his sergeant's place for being drunk on guard, suggested that the disciplinary incident might have been part of a wider decision to seek a fresh start elsewhere. A man under formal warning that further misconduct would cost him his rank had every reason to consider a transfer to a different station, and the Northumberland's sailing to Bencoolen presented an immediate opportunity. The agreement of his son Thomas, also a matross, to enlist for the eastern station gave the family a coordinated move rather than a single departure.

The simultaneous decisions of the French family and the Webleys to leave the island on the same ship pointed to a broader pattern of movement that the new administration's tightening of discipline and accounting might have encouraged. Where the previous Governor's loose habits of record-keeping and personal indulgence might have suited residents who valued informality, the new regime's emphasis on inventories, fines and formal procedure could have made the island less congenial for those who preferred a less regulated life. The willingness of established residents to take a long sea passage to an eastern factory rather than continue under the new arrangements was a quiet measure of the change.

101

93

Gabriell Powell. Free Planter made Complaint to us That M.r Griffith, has Some of his Land Enclofed into his Own Land, which he the said Powell bought of George Hofhefson, The said M.r Griffith alledges and says that the Land was So Enclofed and fenced, by his Predecefsour James Reder Deceased, and that he is Ignorant of the Matter.

After hearing of Wittnesses and Severall debates, It's thought fitt to avoed all defpates, and to Make the said Griffiths & Powell friendly and Eafey upon the Matter, that we go and Veew the said Land, Now in Defpeute, to End feuture Cofts and charges.

George Dwight free Planter haveing made a Covenant formerly with Governour Poirien Executor of Sarah Eafton deceased to pay the Children. 50.s Hannd. for the Labour of a Black Man which he thought was half the said Sarah Sensnegs, and the other ½ his Wefes But Conceiving Now that the said Black is wholy his Own he having been given to his Wefe by her former Heufband John Bartlee, as may More plainly Appear by his Laft Well and Testament which we Having Read and percefed.

It is Ordered.

That the said George Dwight have the said Black till the said Sarah Eaftons two Cheildren that are Now with him, Come of Age, he Maen taineing them. and Lookeing after their Stock of Cattle for their Milk. Tho: Goodwin Edw: Mashborne W.m Marsden

Island St Helena Att A Consultation. held on Wednsday the . 24.th day of December. 1707. Att Fort James.

Pres.t Thomas Goodwin Governour Edward Mashborne Dep.ty Govern.r William Marsden. 3. in Councill

This Day wee Received Two Letters from the Hon.ble S.r Nicholas Waite Kn.t Gen.ll and Councell, of India from Bombay one p̈ the Shyp Arabea Merchant Cap.tn Edward Perrior. Commander, dated the. 26.th December. 1706. which gives us advice of Two Tons of Goa Arrack, and the other by the Shyp Eeurope Cap.tn Heumphry Bryant Commander dated the

Gabriel Powell, free planter, complained to the council that Mr Griffith had enclosed some of his land within his own, the land in question being that which Powell had bought of George Hoskison. Griffith alleged that the land had been so enclosed and fenced by his predecessor James Reder, deceased, and that he was ignorant of the matter.

After the witnesses were heard and several debates had taken place, it was thought fit, to avoid all disputes and to set Griffith and Powell at ease in the matter, that the council go and view the land in dispute, in order to end further costs and charges.

George Dwight, free planter, had formerly made a covenant with Governor Poirier, executor of Sarah Easton, deceased, to pay the children fifty shillings a year for the labour of a black man. He had at the time thought that half of this slave's services belonged to the said Sarah and the other half to his own wife. He now conceived, however, that the slave was wholly his own, having been given to his wife by her former husband, John Bartlee, as appeared more plainly by Bartlee's last will and testament, which the council had read and perused.

It was ordered that Dwight have the slave until Sarah Easton's two children, now living with him, came of age, on condition that he maintain them and look after their stock of cattle for their milk.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Wednesday 24 December 1707 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

This day the council received two letters from the Honourable Sir Nicholas Waite, knight, General, and the Council of India, at Bombay. One letter, brought by the ship Arabia Merchant, Captain Edward Perrior commander, was dated 26 December 1706, and gave advice of two tons of Goa arrack. The other, brought by the ship Europe, Captain Humphrey Bryant commander, was dated [...]

Interpretations

The Powell and Griffith boundary dispute was treated in the same way as earlier land disagreements between planters, with the council declining to decide the matter on the conflicting testimony alone and proposing a physical view of the disputed enclosure. Griffith's defence that the enclosure had been made by his predecessor James Reder deceased, and that he himself was ignorant of the encroachment, offered him a route out of personal responsibility that the council appears to have been willing to entertain. The arrangement converted what could have been an adversarial finding into a cooperative inspection, with the explicit purpose of ending further costs and charges.

The Dwight settlement reveals the careful interlocking of slave ownership, inheritance and child maintenance. A slave originally treated as half belonging to the deceased Sarah and half to Dwight's wife was now claimed wholly by Dwight on the strength of a will from his wife's first husband. The council's order resolved the question by leaving the slave with Dwight until the two children of Sarah came of age, in exchange for their maintenance and the care of their stock for the milk it produced. The structure of the arrangement effectively converted a dispute over title into a guardianship in which the use of the slave's labour was the consideration for the children's keep.

The arrival of letters from Sir Nicholas Waite at Bombay, advising of two tons of Goa arrack and matters in a second despatch, places St Helena within the wider network of Company stations whose correspondence flowed through the island. The advance notice of arrack arriving on the next ship would have given the council time to make storage arrangements and decide on its disposal, while the simultaneous receipt of two separate letters from the same hand on different ships shows how dispatches were duplicated to increase the chance of one reaching its destination.

Speculations

The willingness of the council to accept Griffith's defence that the encroachment had been made by Reder deceased, and to propose a view of the land rather than press the question of present occupation, suggests a deliberate effort to avoid further escalation with a man already under recognisance for the muster offence and protest. With his quarter sessions appearance still ahead, and the Carne defamation matter pending, the council had reason to handle Griffith's present case in a way that left his honour intact. Inspecting the ground gave a procedural form to that consideration, even if the eventual finding might still go against him.

The Dwight order, by tying the children's welfare to the labour of the slave under their stepfather's roof, points to a familiar pattern by which the council preferred to keep orphans within an existing household rather than appoint new guardians. The slave's labour generated the means for the children's maintenance, the stepfather's interest in the slave coincided with their material interest in being looked after, and the children's eventual majority would resolve all parties' rights at once. The settlement was efficient in administrative terms even where it left the long-term ownership of the slave undetermined.

102

94

the 17th March 1704: ad[vi]sing us also of Six Butts of Goa A[rrack], all Consigned to us the Govern[ou]r and Councell for Account of the Un[ited] Trade of the Hon[bl]e English Company which are ordered to be brought on Shoar asoon as Conveniently.

Whereas the Commanders of the severall Ships now Rideing in the Road, made it their Request that none of there Ships Company be Per= mitted to go up into the Countrey, to Prevent there being absent at any time and Especcially, when ready to Sail (which dont know how soon) without Leave forst Obtained of their Respective Commanders Signefied to the Governour.

Upon which It is Ordered:

That no Person belonging to the said Commanders be Permitted as afor[e]said. And to prevent any Clandestine way or Meanes to go up into the Countrey, aforesaid that a Guard of Some Souldiers be ordered and placed at the [Upper] End of the houses Accordingly.

[Tho:] Goodwin [Edw:] [Mashborne] W[m] Marsden

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation, held on Satturday the 27th day of December 1707 att Fort James.

Pres[t] Thomas Goodwin, Governour Edward Mashborne Dep[ty] Govern[r] William Marsden 3[r] on Councell:

Whereas the Commanders of the severall Returning Ships now in the Road did on the 24th Instant (att the Request of the Govern[r]) Pro= miesed this day to Acquaint him when they would Sayle from this Port and Island their time Limited by the Seprell Managers being [farr] Spent, But since they have not appeared to give the Satisfaction Requi= site in the said affair. For which Reason the Governour Thought fitt to Ask the advice of the Rest of the Councell that Such Measures May be taken for the Speedy Sayling of said Ships, All which being Maturely Weighed, do verely [Believe] that if these Shipps do not Depart on a very Short time, that they will Loose their Convoy where Ever Appointed.

Therefore it is Ordered:

That all and Every one of the said Commanders be Requested to

The second letter, dated 17 March 1704, also gave notice of six butts of Goa arrack. All the arrack, in both shipments, was consigned to the Governor and Council for the account of the United Trade of the Honourable English Company, and was ordered to be brought ashore as conveniently as could be done.

The commanders of the several ships then lying in the road requested that none of their ships' companies be permitted to go up into the country. They wished to prevent any man being absent at the time of sailing, which they could not say how soon would be, without leave first obtained from his commander and signified to the Governor.

It was ordered that no person belonging to any of the commanders be permitted to go up into the country as stated, and to prevent any clandestine means of going up that a guard of soldiers be placed at the upper end of the houses accordingly.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Saturday 27 December 1707 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

The commanders of the several returning ships then in the road had on 24 December, at Goodwin's request, promised to acquaint him on this day with the date on which they would sail from the port and island. The time set for their departure by the Court of Managers was far spent. They had since failed to appear and give the necessary information. Goodwin therefore thought fit to ask the advice of the rest of the council, so that measures might be taken to procure the speedy sailing of the ships. After full consideration, the council was firmly persuaded that if the ships did not depart in a very short time they would lose their convoy, wherever it had been appointed.

It was therefore ordered that each of the said commanders be requested to [...]

Interpretations

The order against shore leave for the ships' companies illustrates how the council placed its land-side authority at the service of the masters' need to keep their crews together. A guard of soldiers stationed at the upper end of the houses was being used not to defend the settlement but to prevent sailors from slipping inland to evade an imminent recall to their ships. The arrangement converted the council's police power into an instrument of shipboard discipline, with the masters as effective petitioners and the council acting on their behalf against their own seamen.

The unanswered request to the commanders to declare their sailing date reveals the friction between Company headquarters in London and individual masters on station. The Court of Managers had set a time for departure that was now far spent, but the commanders themselves were equivocating and had failed to attend on the appointed day to give a firm date. The council's concern that the ships would lose their convoy if they did not soon depart points to the wider strategic context of the War of the Spanish Succession, in which Indiamen sailed home in escorted groups for protection against French commerce raiders. A ship that missed its convoy faced an unescorted passage and the loss of the directors' carefully arranged protection.

Speculations

The masters' reluctance to give a firm sailing date probably reflected a calculation that the longer they delayed, the more private trade and additional cargo they could load. Each ship was a small business in its own right, with the master's perquisites depending in part on what was carried and how, and a leisurely turnaround at St Helena gave time to negotiate side ventures that would have to be wound up before sailing. The Court of Managers in London had set a sailing date precisely because they anticipated this incentive, and the council's intervention represented the local arm of that metropolitan oversight catching up with the local practice.

The decision to station a soldier guard at the upper end of the houses, rather than rely on the natural barrier of the country itself, suggests that escape inland had become a recognised problem with each fleet that called. Sailors who could reach the country could disappear into the planters' households for the duration of a ship's stay, and emerge after she had sailed. By blocking the route inland with armed posts, the council made the masters' problem more soluble while ensuring that no man on the island would be picked up off a plantation by a frustrated commander seeking to make up his complement at the last moment.

103

95

to Appear this Eveneng to give us their Resoluteon for we are all very uneasey to See the Companies Affaires So Slowly Carried on.

Then the said Commanders Appeared Accordingly, who said that they were as farr from Giveing their Opinions as before the Sea haveing been rough Ever Since Some Said that they would Sail to Morrow Some another Day and So very Various in their Opinions but it was Concluded by most that they might Sail about Satturday Next.

Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] [Mashborne] W[m] Marsden

Island St Helena.

Att a Consultation, held on Tuesday the 30th day of December 1707. Att Fort James.

Pres[t] Thomas Goodwin, Governour Edward Mashborne Dep[ty] Governour William Marsden. 3[r] on Councell

Whereas we finde that Severall of the Planters Sell Beefe to the Ship= ping without Leave, and Contrary to our Hon[ble] Masters former Orders of Reserving that Commodety to themselves, and that they do Sell at a Lower Price then hath ben Sold for Severall years Last Past Therefore it is.

Ordered:

That an Advertizement be forthwith Issued forth that no Person whatsoever Sell any Beefe or Live Cattle without Leave forst had from the Governour.

And whereas we understand that the said Inhabitants will (when Permitted) Sell their said Beefe for. 25. [li] [C][o]. And now that the Commanders may not think we use them hardly we do hereby.

Order:

That the R[t] Hon[ble] English United Companies Beefe be at the said Rate of. 25. [li] [C][o] for the present.

Island St Helena

By the Governour and Councell An Advertisement.

Whereas it hath bin the R[t] Hon[ble] English East India Company known

The commanders were asked to appear in the evening to give the council their decision, since the council was uneasy at the slow progress of the Company's affairs.

The commanders accordingly appeared, but said they were as far from giving their opinions as before. The sea had been rough ever since. Some said they would sail the next day, others another day, and the views differed widely. It was concluded by most that they might sail about the following Saturday.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 30 December 1707 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

It had come to the council's notice that several of the planters were selling beef to the shipping without leave, contrary to the Honourable Masters' previous orders reserving that commodity to themselves. The planters were selling at a lower price than had prevailed for several years past.

It was ordered that an advertisement be issued at once, declaring that no person was to sell any beef or live cattle without leave first obtained from the Governor.

The inhabitants, when permitted to sell, would be allowed to do so at twenty five pounds the hundreDwight. So that the commanders should not think they were being hardly dealt with, the council ordered that the Honourable English United Company's own beef should be sold at the same rate of twenty five pounds the hundreDwight for the present.

Island of St Helena

By the Governor and Council

An advertisement.

It had long been the known practice of the Honourable English East India Company [...]

Interpretations

The procurement of a sailing date from the masters reveals the limits of the council's authority over visiting commanders. After repeated requests for a firm date, the only answer the council could extract was a loose consensus on the following Saturday, with individual masters offering different days and citing the rough sea as their excuse. The council could withhold shore leave from sailors and station guards in the hills, but it could not compel masters to weigh anchor on a date that suited them. The recorded weakness of the response, with the council's uneasiness placed on the record but no further action taken, suggests an acknowledgment that the masters' own judgment governed the actual sailing.

The beef order shows the Company tightening its monopoly on a key commodity. The directors had reserved beef sales to the Company itself, and the planters had been undercutting that monopoly by selling directly to the shipping at lower prices. The council's response was twofold. By prohibiting any sale without prior leave, it restored the Company's gatekeeping over the trade. By fixing the price at which the Company itself would sell at twenty five pounds the hundreDwight, the same rate the planters had been allowed when permitted to sell, it ensured that the commanders saw a uniform price across all sellers, removing any incentive to seek out unauthorised supplies and undercutting any suggestion that the Company was exploiting its position.

Speculations

The fixing of Company beef at the same twenty five pound rate as the licensed planter sales, rather than at the higher rate the Company had previously charged, looks like a calculated concession to the visiting masters. With the ships waiting on their convoy and growing impatient at the wind and sea, raising prices on a key victualling supply at this moment would have given the commanders a fresh grievance and another reason to dally over their sailing. By matching the planters' rate, the council both kept the masters supplied at the price they expected and removed any complaint that the directors' monopoly was being used to gouge the shipping.

The information that planters had been selling beef at a lower price than had prevailed for several years past suggests that the local beef market had been moving against the Company. With cattle numbers high enough to need new pasture enclosed at the Steep Reek, and planters competing among themselves for shipboard sales, prices had fallen below the customary level. The Company's intervention to control the trade arrived at a moment when individual planters might have welcomed any rule that put a floor under their returns, even at the cost of needing council leave to sell, since the alternative was a continuing race to the bottom in private bargaining.

104

96

known and Published Orders, That no Inhabitants of this Island Should Sell Beefe unto Shipping But have Reserved that Commodety, only to them= selves, And now the Companies Stock being Greatly, Augmented by Buying a great Many, this Last year of the Said Inhabitants, and at great rates too, Therefore it is hereby.

Ordered:

That no Person or Persons do presume to Sell any Beefe or Live Cattle (Calves Excepted) To any Ship or Ships, Comander or Other Officer, Except Leave forst had and Obteyned from the Governour as they will Answer the Contrary, Signed by order of Governour and Councell at Fort James this 30th day of December 1707.

Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] [Mashborne] W[m] Marsden

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation, held on Tuesday the 30th day of December 1707. Att Fort James.

M[r] Carswell M[r] Cammell M[r] Opie Pres[t] Thomas Goodwin, Governour Cap[tn] Felton [Asistants] Edward Mashborne Dep[ty] Govern[r] [Rich:] Bennett William Marsden. 3[r] on Councell

Whereas Cap[tn] Humphry Bryant Commander of the Ship Europe now Rideing in the Road of St Hellena, made Complaint against One William Knight Boatswain of said Ship Alledging that he has behaved himselfe very Insolently and Mutineously towards the said Cap[tn] Bryant, as well as to his Predecessour for Severall Months, which Insufferable behaveour being no Longer to be born with all, was Some time Since Called before a Consultation of the Commanders of the Fleet, and findeing him to be a very Dangerous person and Consequently the said Ship not Safe, The said William Knight was Confined, And put fast on Irons, and whereas haveing Remained So till this time, the said Cap[tn] Humphry Bryant thought it very fitt and Necessary to have a Second Examination on this Island before Governour and Councell with the Commanders now present, believing that if the said William Knight Remained on board his Ship any Longer he might with the help and Assistance of Some Others, which he has in a Manner declared might prove of very ill Consequence, whereof It was thought fitt to Call the said Boatswaine to Answer what Should be alledged against him, who Accordingly was brought on Shoar, and Examined as followeth.

The said William Knight appeared and Denyed what the Said Captain.

It had been the Honourable English East India Company's well-known and published order that no inhabitant of the island should sell beef to the shipping, and that the commodity was reserved to the Company itself. The Company's stock having been greatly increased over the past year by purchases at high prices from the inhabitants themselves, it was now ordered that no person should presume to sell any beef or live cattle, calves excepted, to any ship, commander or other officer, except by leave first obtained from the Governor. Any breach of the order would have to be answered for.

Signed by order of the Governor and Council at Fort James on 30 December 1707.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 30 December 1707 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council. Mr Carswell, Mr Cammell, Mr Opie, Captain Felton and Mr Richard Bennett, assistants.

Captain Humphrey Bryant, commander of the ship Europe, then lying in the road of St Helena, complained against William Knight, boatswain of the said ship. Bryant alleged that Knight had behaved very insolently and mutinously towards him and towards his predecessor for several months, and that the behaviour was no longer to be borne. The matter had some time since been laid before a consultation of the commanders of the fleet, who had found Knight a very dangerous person whose continued presence on board made the ship unsafe. Knight had been confined and put fast in irons, and had remained so until this time.

Bryant thought it fit and necessary to have a second examination on the island, before the Governor and Council and with the commanders now present, believing that if Knight remained on board any longer he might, with the help of others on whom he had hinted he could rely, prove of very ill consequence. The council therefore thought fit to call the boatswain to answer what was alleged against him. Knight was brought ashore and examined as followed.

Knight appeared and denied what Captain [...]

Interpretations

The beef advertisement made explicit the reasoning behind the order issued in council the same day. By stating that the Company's stock had been greatly augmented by purchases at high prices from the inhabitants themselves, the notice signalled that the Company had paid the planters generously for the cattle it now owned, and was entitled to expect the inhabitants in turn to respect its monopoly on the resale to shipping. The carve-out for calves preserved a small private trade in young animals while reserving the substantial business of mature beef to the Company. The order's requirement of leave from the Governor before any sale created a permission system that put each transaction on the record.

The expanded composition of the consultation for the Knight examination is striking. The usual three-man council was joined by Mr Carswell, Mr Cammell, Mr Opie, Captain Felton and Mr Richard Bennett as assistants, transforming the bench into something closer to a maritime tribunal. The presence of the named ship's commanders alongside the council gave the proceedings the character of a joint inquiry by the local administration and the fleet, suited to a charge of mutinous conduct that combined a breach of shipboard discipline with a wider threat to the safety of the voyage. The choice of a land hearing rather than a shipboard court martial reflected both the available expertise on the island and the council's claim to jurisdiction over matters touching the safety of vessels in its road.

Speculations

The masters' decision to ask the council to examine Knight on shore, rather than dispose of him by their own authority at sea, suggests they were unwilling to act on their own without the backing of a properly constituted bench. A boatswain held in irons for months and then released into a long convoyed passage was a continuing risk, but a formal record made in the council books at St Helena, with the commanders themselves attending as assistants, gave them documentary cover for whatever disposition was made of him. The hearing was as much about creating an authoritative record as about establishing the facts, since the facts had already been the subject of an earlier consultation among the commanders themselves.

The reference to Knight's hints that he could rely on the help of others on board, taken together with his denial when called to answer, points to the difficulty of dealing with a senior petty officer whose authority among the crew gave him a base of potential support. A boatswain commanded the working of the ship, and a man in that office who proved disaffected could spread his discontent through the seamen. The masters' anxiety to have him removed from the Europe before the homeward passage reflected a calculation that the danger of carrying him in irons across an ocean was greater than the inconvenience of leaving him at St Helena under the council's care.

105

97

Captain hath Alledged against him.

And the said William Knight haveing Sent Two Letters to the Governour, Requireing that he might be Tryed, for that he had done Nothing Deserving Such Severe Punnishment as he Lay under being in Irons upon the Poop of Said Ship.

Cap[tn] Peirson Comander of the Ship Arabia. Sworn Saith that while he Lay at the Island of Maurushes, the said William Knight Boatswain of the Ship Europe told him that he would Acknowledge Cap[tn] Bryant to be Comander of said Ship with Severall more Scurrelous words, and further upon the Deponent telling him he would take him on board and put him in Irons, Said he would with. 40. Men take the said Cap[tn] Peirsons Ship from him.

Godfrey Hembling Chief Mate of said Ship being Sworn Saith as followeth.

May the. 12th 1707. Warping into N. W. harbour Maurushes the Boatswain being in the Long Boate, he not Observing the Cap[tns] Orders but following his own head Strong heumours insomuch that Business went not forward according to the Cap[tns] Intent, for which he gave the Boatswaine a Check when Came on board, who Returned the Cap[tn] very ill Language with Oathes and Curses, telling the Cap[tn] he Vallueed him not, Neither did he Look upon him as Comander of the Ship with other words very provoakeing.

October the. 3. att Sea being provoakt by Some unworthy Actions committed on board the Ship by Some of the Company, the Cap[tn] ordered the Companys Provisions to be boyled by the Cook in the [not] Furnace, and that no Kettles should be put upon the Hearth, at which Order was a Mutte= =ring among Some of the Company, who went after in a Tumeltious man= ner to gett Liberty to dress their Victuals themselves more Especcially the Boatswaine, who Swore he would put out the fire, and none at all should be drest, he going forward with a Bucket of Water in his hand but was prevented.

October the. 3[d]. In Table bay the Boatswain Came from on board another Ship Raveing Drunk or mad Swearing he would take the Long Boate and goe a Shore ordering her to be Maned, which Contradicted by the Mates and urged by him Swearing he would goe a Shoar if he took the boat by force from the Side, and the Reasons he gave for so doing declared he had no other intent but to affront the Captain who he was pleased to abuse with his Tongue, but in Conclusion the Mates being at Dinner he got the boat Mand and put from the Ship and so a Shoar notwithstanding we Called The

Knight denied what Captain Bryant had alleged against him.

Knight had sent two letters to Goodwin, asking that he be tried, since he claimed he had done nothing deserving such severe punishment as he was suffering, being in irons on the poop of the ship.

Captain Peirson, commander of the ship Arabia, sworn, said that while he lay at the island of Mauritius, Knight, boatswain of the Europe, told him that he would acknowledge Captain Bryant to be commander of that ship, with several other scurrilous words. On Peirson telling him he would take him on board his own ship and put him in irons, Knight replied that he would, with forty men, take Peirson's ship from him.

Godfrey Hembling, chief mate of the Europe, sworn, gave the following account.

On 12 May 1707, while the ship was warping into the north-west harbour at Mauritius, the boatswain was in the longboat. He did not observe Captain Bryant's orders, but followed his own headstrong humours, so that the work did not go forward as the captain intended. The captain gave the boatswain a check when he came on board, and Knight replied with very ill language, oaths and curses, telling the captain that he valued him not, neither did he look upon him as commander of the ship, with other very provoking words.

On 3 October at sea, the captain, provoked by some unworthy actions committed on board by some of the company, ordered the men's provisions to be boiled by the cook in the iron furnace, and forbade any kettles to be placed on the hearth. This order produced a muttering among some of the company, who went forward in a tumultuous manner to gain liberty to dress their food themselves. The boatswain in particular swore he would put out the fire, and that no food at all should be dressed. He went forward with a bucket of water in his hand, but was prevented.

On 3 October in Table Bay, the boatswain came from on board another ship, raving drunk or mad, swearing he would take the longboat and go ashore. He ordered her to be manned, and when the mates contradicted him, he swore he would go ashore if he had to take the boat by force from the side. The reasons he gave for so doing made it clear that his only intent was to affront the captain, whom he was pleased to abuse with his tongue. In the end, while the mates were at dinner, he had the boat manned and put off from the ship, and went ashore. Though they called [...]

Interpretations

The Knight examination shows the council operating as a maritime court of inquiry, taking sworn evidence from a fellow commander and the chief mate of the Europe on a series of dated incidents. The structure of Hembling's deposition, organised by precise dates and locations from Mauritius in May through to Table Bay in October, follows the form of a ship's log being recited under oath. By moving the proceedings ashore and entering the testimony in the council books, the masters secured a documentary record outside the ship's own papers, which would make it harder for any later complaint or counter-action by Knight to displace.

Knight's own posture, sending letters from his irons demanding to be tried, gave the proceedings a particular shape. He was not resisting the inquiry but inviting it, on the apparent calculation that an open hearing might produce a different result from continued confinement on the captain's authority alone. His denial of the allegations and his demand for trial together suggest he believed his treatment had outrun his offences and that a formal record would either vindicate him or at least bring his confinement to an end one way or another.

The substance of the depositions reveals a pattern of declared insubordination of an unusual sort. Knight's reported statement to Captain Peirson that he would not acknowledge Bryant as commander of the Europe, coupled with a boast that he could with forty men take Peirson's own ship from him, places his conduct on the boundary between insolence and mutiny in the technical sense. The cooking incident, with the boatswain advancing with a bucket to put out the galley fire and a tumultuous body of seamen behind him, was the kind of incident that East India Company commanders most feared in a homeward voyage, where the long passage gave time for any open challenge to authority to spread.

Speculations

The choice of cooking arrangements as the flash point reflects the central role of the galley fire in the daily routine of an Indiaman. The captain's order that all provisions be boiled by the cook in a single furnace, with no private kettles on the hearth, would have struck the men as a restriction on their customary autonomy over their own food, and the boatswain's response, going forward with a bucket of water, framed the protest as a refusal to allow any food at all to be cooked. The episode suggests that on this ship, as on others of the period, control of the galley was a recurring locus of disputes between officers and crew over the small liberties of shipboard life.

The detail that Knight went ashore from Table Bay while the mates were at dinner, having had the boat manned in their absence, illustrates how an experienced petty officer could exploit the rhythms of the ship's day to defeat his immediate superiors. By choosing the meal hour to launch his unauthorised expedition, Knight ensured that the mates' formal opposition had no immediate physical force behind it. The same shrewdness that made him a useful boatswain when cooperative made him a particularly dangerous one when not, and helps explain why the masters of the fleet had thought him too risky to carry home in his existing position even in irons.

106

98

the Boat again they being not out of hearing.

Wittness my hand this. 30th day of Decem[r] 1707 Godfrey Hembling

Robert Jacobs Sworn Saith that when at Persia William Knight Boatswain hindred the Companies goods to be hoisted in (being Drunk) for Some time.

When at Butchers Island said William Knight abused the Com= =mander in a very gross and grevious manner, went on Shoar and heel himself for Somedays, although the Ship Lay a Shoare.

In Warpeing into Mauriteus said William Knight in Car= ryeing out an Anchor went on board another Ship got Drunk came abodrde abused the Commander Grosely, telling him he was not Comander and Vallued him as Nothing also said he could have the boat with . 30. or. 40. Men when he pleased.

Some Provisions being Stolen the Cap[tn] Ordered the Ships Compa= =nies Provisions to be drest all in the Furnace by the Cooke & none to be drest on the hearth, upon which the s[d] William Knight Swore would put out the fire, that None should be Drest, had a Bucket of Water Ready but was prevented.

Att the Cape W[m] Knight Came drunk from another Ship, and tooke the Long boat from the Ships Side, notwithstanding was Strickly forbedden by the Mates, they being at Dinner, and Caused a great Disturbance on board

Wittness my hand this. 30th day Decem[r] . 1707. Robert Jacob.

George Stephens Sworn Saith that May y[e]. 12th. as we was Warping into Mauriteus, William Knight was on the Long boat carrying out a Warp, the Commander given him a Stricket charge, not to Carry the Anchor to farr for fear the Warp would not Reach the Ship, but following his own head Strong doeings Carried it to farr out, which was the hinderance of ow[r] not getting in that Night, which when Came on board the Commander giveing him a Check for not following his orders, he Swore at him and said he was no more Commander then the Gunn and that there was one boat Run away with already, and that he could have the Boat, and . 30. or. 40. Men when he pleased If not Ship and all.

October the. 3. Ditto Party did head the Ships Company, and told the Commander he would put out the fire, that was dressing his Victeals un= =less he should dress his as he pleased: also said he would Nayle the provisions up, and that he should have no more then them.

October

The mates called for the boat to come back, though they were not out of hearing.

Witness my hand on 30 December 1707. Godfrey Hembling.

Robert Jacobs, sworn, said that while at Persia, Knight, the boatswain, being drunk, hindered the Company's goods from being hoisted on board for some time.

When the ship was at Butchers Island, Knight grossly and grievously abused the commander, went ashore, and hid himself for several days, although the ship lay aground.

When warping into Mauritius, Knight, while carrying out an anchor, went on board another ship and got drunk. On returning, he grossly abused the commander, telling him he was no commander and that he valued him as nothing, and adding that he could have the boat with thirty or forty men whenever he pleased.

When some provisions had been stolen, the captain ordered all the ship's company's food to be dressed by the cook in the furnace, and none to be dressed on the hearth. Knight swore he would put out the fire, so that nothing should be dressed. He had a bucket of water ready, but was prevented.

At the Cape, Knight came drunk from another ship and took the longboat from the ship's side, in spite of being strictly forbidden by the mates. The mates were at dinner, and Knight caused a great disturbance on board.

Witness my hand on 30 December 1707. Robert Jacob.

George Stephens, sworn, said that on 12 May, as the ship was warping into Mauritius, Knight was in the longboat carrying out a warp. The commander had given him a strict charge not to carry the anchor too far out, for fear the warp would not reach the ship, but Knight followed his own headstrong inclinations and carried it out too far, which was the cause of their not getting in that night. When Knight came on board, the commander gave him a check for not following orders. Knight swore at him and said he was no more commander than the gun, that one boat had already run away, and that he could have the boat and thirty or forty men whenever he pleased, if not the ship as well.

On 3 October, the same party led the ship's company and told the commander that he would put out the fire that was dressing his food, unless he could dress his own as he pleased. He also said he would nail up the provisions, and that the captain should have no more than the men.

October [...]

Interpretations

The three depositions of Hembling, Jacobs and Stephens converge on the same incidents at the same dates, with consistent attribution of words and acts to Knight, which produced a record of unusual evidentiary weight. The matching of three independent accounts of the Mauritius warping, the cooking dispute on 3 October and the Table Bay boat incident, gave the council a body of testimony that no later inquiry could readily disturb. The careful dating, the citation of specific locations and the use of formulaic legal phrasing all served the function of preparing the record for whatever further use the Company chose to make of it.

The pattern of Knight's offences as recorded reveals a particular form of insubordination. The boatswain repeatedly framed his defiance as a denial of the captain's standing as commander, declaring him no more commander than the gun and that he, Knight, could raise thirty or forty men at will. This was not the casual insolence of a drunk petty officer but a deliberate challenge to the legal basis of the captain's authority, supported by boasts of an alternative following on board. In the legal categories of the period, such language moved from insubordination towards the territory of mutiny, which would have justified the masters' decision to escalate the matter to a formal hearing.

Speculations

The repeated involvement of drink in the offences, with Knight returning drunk from other ships at Mauritius and at the Cape, suggests that his pattern of insubordination was at least partly fuelled by visits to neighbouring vessels in the fleet where he found a more congenial audience. The masters' confederation in dealing with him through a joint consultation in advance of his confinement implies that the problem had been recognised across the fleet, and that his disaffection might have spread to other ships had it not been contained early. The earlier shipboard tribunal among the commanders, referred to in Bryant's opening complaint, had probably been called precisely because the threat was no longer confined to a single hull.

The threat to nail up the provisions, taken together with the bucket of water at the galley fire, points to an attempt to deny the captain control of victualling and so reduce him to a figurehead. The provisioning of the crew was a captain's prerogative in the period, and the symbolic gesture of physically sealing the provisions room would have signalled to the men that their food was now in the hands of those who could feed them, not the man who held the commission. Such gestures of practical takeover are characteristic of the early stages of shipboard collective action, and explain why the masters had judged Knight an immediate danger rather than merely a difficult subordinate.

107

99

October the. 31[st]. Ditto Party Came from on board Another Ship Swearing and telling the Officers on board he would have the Boat from the Side beat one of them that Refused going with him in the boat Saying where are your hearts you Doggs had I at any time beat you, you Might have Served me So, and when the Officers were at Dinner the said William Knight tooke the boat and went a Shoar without Leave.

Wittness my hand this. 30th day. Decem[r] 1707. Geo: Stephens.

Alexander Stewart Surgeon Sworn Saith that upon the day of on board Ship Europe then haled a Shoar att Butchers Island [neear] Bombay, (in order of Cleaning of her Bottom) William Knight Boatswain of said Ship being in Drink, did behave himself very Insolently towards Cap[tn] John Pocock, then Comander of s[d] Ship pretending that he Could and would Represent his unfair dealings to his Owners, This to a Person of known Integrety, was the more provoa= keing for being in the presence of Severall Gentlemen Strangers then on board, which made the said Cap[tn] Pocock reach him two or three Blows, I think it was with his Cane, but do not Justly Remember whether he Reached So farr as to touch him, Upon this the said William Knight Threatned he would go hang or Drown himself, and went a Shoar Immedeately, upon said uninhabited Island, where he Lurked Severall Days and Nights insomuch that it was feared by most, that he had made away with himself, Thus he Remained till the Ship was haled off again, and Ready to Sail, makeing onely a jest of the whole Matter on his Return.

Upon the day of on board Ditto Ship on the Road of J[ohanna] Remember that the said William Knight being on Drink behaved himself very abusively towards Cap[tn] Humphry Bryant then Mate of said Ship, who used very few words in Answer to him, Save Such as were pressing upon him to go down, to his Cabbin to Sleep: telling him he had Nothing to say to him at that time, who Answered that he had Somewhat however to say to him, refuseing at the Same time to go down, or be Silent, after which and Severall Scurrelous Expressions (which tho I have now forgott, do well Remember to have been very provoakeing) the said Cap[tn] Bryant Called him aft on the Quarter Deck, and gave him One Blow with his fest, on the head, upon which he tumbled down, and Sall on the Deck awake about halfe Quarter of One hour Refuseing to Speak to any body, after which he fell asleep in the Same place where he Lay for Somehours, that Afternoon, Next Day (So far as I know or ever heard of) being Sober he was in good health.

Upon the day of on board Ship Europe at Mau= riteus I heard the said William Knight on Drink use abundance of

On 31 October, the same party came from on board another ship, swearing and telling the officers on board that he would have the boat from the side. He beat one of them for refusing to go with him in the boat, saying, where are your hearts, you dogs, had I at any time beaten you, you might have served me so. When the officers were at dinner, Knight took the boat and went ashore without leave.

Witness my hand on 30 December 1707. Geo: Stephens.

Alexander Stewart, surgeon, sworn, said the following.

On board the Europe at Butchers Island near Bombay, when the ship was hauled ashore for the cleaning of her bottom, Knight, the boatswain, being in drink, behaved very insolently towards Captain John Pocock, then commander of the ship. Knight pretended that he could and would report the captain's unfair dealings to the owners. To a man of known integrity this was the more provoking, since the words were spoken in the presence of several gentlemen strangers then on board. Captain Pocock thereupon dealt Knight two or three blows, with his cane as the deponent thought, though he could not be sure whether the cane had actually reached as far as to touch him. Knight then threatened to go and hang or drown himself, and went ashore immediately on the uninhabited island. He lurked there for several days and nights, so that most believed he had made away with himself. He remained there until the ship was hauled off again and ready to sail, returning at last and making only a jest of the whole matter.

On board the same ship in the road of Johanna, Knight, being in drink, behaved very abusively towards Captain Humphrey Bryant, then mate of the ship. Bryant used very few words in answer, save those pressing upon Knight to go down to his cabin to sleep, telling him he had nothing to say to him at that time. Knight answered that he had something to say to him, and refused to go down or to be silent. After several scurrilous expressions, which the deponent had now forgotten but well remembered to have been very provoking, Bryant called Knight aft on the quarterdeck and gave him one blow with his fist on the head. Knight tumbled down and lay on the deck awake for about a quarter of an hour, refusing to speak. He then fell asleep where he lay for some hours that afternoon. The next day, so far as the deponent knew or ever heard, he was sober and in good health.

On board the Europe at Mauritius, the deponent heard Knight, being in drink, use abundance of [...]

Interpretations

The surgeon's deposition adds a different perspective to the case by acknowledging that Knight had been struck more than once by his commanders. The candid record of Captain Pocock reaching out with his cane, and of Bryant striking Knight a blow on the head with his fist, places on the council's books admissions that Knight had not been the only party to physical conduct in the disputes. The decision to include these details rather than suppress them strengthens the credibility of the wider record, since a deposition that placed only Knight at fault would have been open to the suspicion of partiality. By admitting the officers' blows while attributing them to extreme provocation, the surgeon's evidence anticipated the obvious counter-narrative that Knight might have offered.

Stewart's professional vocabulary, with its careful qualifications about what he could and could not be sure of, and its medical observations about Knight's state of consciousness after Bryant's blow, marks his deposition out from those of the other witnesses. The note that Knight lay awake for about a quarter of an hour and then slept for some hours, before being in good health the next day, reads as a surgeon's assessment for the record that no serious or lasting injury had resulted. Such an observation served the practical purpose of forestalling any later claim by Knight that he had been disabled or permanently damaged by his commander's blow.

Speculations

The Butchers Island episode, with Knight disappearing onto an uninhabited island for days and returning to make a jest of the whole matter, suggests a man whose grievances against his commanders had taken a theatrical edge. The threat to hang or drown himself, followed by a deliberate absence long enough to alarm the ship, and then a return treating the affair as a joke, points to a personality that used dramatic gestures as a way of pressing his complaints rather than seeking either reconciliation or open mutiny. The pattern fits with his later letters from confinement on the Europe, demanding to be tried as a way of forcing the question of his treatment back into the open.

The depositions in chronological order also trace the slow exhaustion of the officers' patience. The events at Butchers Island, in the road of Johanna and at Mauritius involved a series of relatively private outbursts that were dealt with by individual blows from the commander. By the time of the cooking dispute and the Table Bay incident, the same conduct was being directed at the fundamental structure of authority on the ship, with claims that Knight could raise thirty or forty men, threats to put out the galley fire and unauthorised commandeering of the longboat. The progression from drunken insolence to organised challenge explains why a course of indulgence had given way to confinement in irons and a formal hearing in council.

108

100

of Scurrilous and abusive Expressions, towards Cap[tn] Edward Person of the Arabia, which the said Cap[tn] Declared to have been Occasioned by his Rejecting to give Ear to his Reproachfull discourses of Cap[tn] Bryant directed to the said Cap[tn] Peirson, telling him that the said Cap[tn] Bryant was not Comander of the Ship and Such Like, which I believe Severall of the Ships Company heard, but being most part of the time between Decks I onely heard what the said Cap[tn] Peirson declared, and the abuses he Receved of said William Knight, who Neverthelefs the Cap[tn] then declined to putt in Irons, or deliver him to Cap[tn] Peirson for that end.

Upon the day of on board said Ship at Sea, I think it was between Mauretius and the Cape of good Hope I heard that the said William Knight followed by Some others of the Saylors, and brought up Some five or Six pieces of Dryd Fish which they threw down upon the Quarter Deck Table before the Cap[tn] makeing their Complaint that the allowance was Short, the Same day the Captain privately. desired to Intimate to him and others, that if they would Desist from makeing their Complaints, on a Tumeltuous Manner he would give Ear to them, and if any thing Short or Amiss in their provisions it Should be made up or Redrefsed In farr as Circumstan= ces would Reasonably allow, this advise met Rather with threatning than Complyance from him till a Second intimation of the Same thing, he and others thought fitt to use that Method, and if I Rightly Remember next day their allowance was augmented.

About this time One of the Saylors was found Stealing of Fish out of the great Cabbin, to the Number of twelve great Fishes at Once. upon which the Cap[tn] ordered that none should drefs Victu= =alls for hemselfe in private, but that all Should be done by the Ships Cooke, Upon this Occasion the Boatswain took up a Buckett and went towards the Fore Castle in presence of the Cap[tn] and most of the Ships Company threatning to put out the fire, that if he had not Liberty to dress his Victualls as he pleased, Neither should the Captain.

Upon the day of att the Cape of good Hope I Saw the said W[m]. Knight with Six or Seven more of the Ships Company come to M[r] Bowmans house, where the Cap[tn] Lodged, who being asked by him and the other Comanders of the English Ships then present, what they wanted or Came a Shoar in such a Manner for their Answer was they designed to Ship themselves, or go passengers where they could on the other Ships for England, Intendeing to Leave Ship Europe pretending they were not there used, at other Ships where, there was an allowance of Fresh Meat every day, whereas they had Fish days as well as Meat days, and produced Some peeces of dryed Fish pretending that So much was their days allowance thereof Some few hours before this M[r] Stephens there[d] Mate, acquainted the

Stewart said he had heard Knight, in drink, use a great deal of scurrilous and abusive language towards Captain Edward Peirson of the Arabia. Peirson had declared that this had been brought on by his own refusal to listen to Knight's reproachful talk against Captain Bryant. Knight had told Peirson that Bryant was not commander of the ship and other such things. Stewart believed that several of the ship's company had heard the same, but as he himself had been mostly between decks at the time, he only knew of it from what Peirson himself had said, and from the abuses Peirson had received from Knight. Peirson, however, declined to put Knight in irons, or to deliver him to Bryant for that purpose.

On board the same ship at sea, the deponent thought between Mauritius and the Cape of Good Hope, he had heard that Knight, followed by some of the other sailors, brought up five or six pieces of dried fish and threw them down on the quarterdeck table before Bryant, complaining that the allowance was short. That same day, Bryant privately let it be known to Knight and to the others that, if they would desist from making their complaints in a tumultuous manner, he would hear them, and that if anything were short or amiss in their provisions it should be made up or redressed as far as the circumstances reasonably allowed. The intimation met rather with threats than with compliance from Knight, until on a second message he and the others thought fit to adopt the suggested method. If the deponent remembered rightly, their allowance was increased the next day.

About this time, one of the sailors was found stealing fish out of the great cabin, to the number of twelve large fish at once. On this Bryant ordered that none should dress his food in private, but that all should be cooked by the ship's cook. On that occasion the boatswain took up a bucket and went towards the forecastle in the presence of the captain and most of the ship's company, threatening to put out the fire. He declared that if he had not liberty to dress his own food as he pleased, the captain should have none either.

At the Cape of Good Hope, the deponent saw Knight come to Mr Bowman's house, where Bryant was lodging, with six or seven more of the ship's company. Bryant and the other English commanders then present asked them what they wanted, or why they had come ashore in such a manner. They answered that they intended to ship themselves, or to go as passengers, on whatever other ships they could, for England. They proposed to leave the Europe, pretending that they were not used there as they were on other ships, where there was an allowance of fresh meat every day, whereas they had fish days as well as meat days. They produced some pieces of dried fish, pretending that this was their day's allowance of it. A few hours before this, Mr Stephens, the third mate, had acquainted the [...]

Interpretations

The surgeon's account introduces an additional layer to the dispute, namely a genuine complaint about provisioning underlying the boatswain's spectacular insubordination. The men brought dried fish onto the quarterdeck table to demonstrate the shortness of their allowance, and Bryant's private message that he would hear them if they desisted from tumultuous methods, followed by the apparent increase in their ration the next day, suggests that at least some part of their grievance had substance. The picture that emerges is more complicated than that of a simple mutinous boatswain leading a faction, since the original cause of the disturbance had been a perceived shortage of food that the captain himself eventually addressed.

The discovery that one of the sailors had stolen twelve large fish from the great cabin at once frames the captain's subsequent order on cooking in a different light. Knight's threat to put out the galley fire, recorded so dramatically in the earlier depositions, was a response to a fresh restriction imposed in the aftermath of a serious theft from the captain's own stores. The galley regulation, which the boatswain treated as an unbearable encroachment, may have looked to the captain as a reasonable security measure after a major loss of fish from the cabin. Both sides had grounds within their own frame of reference, even if their methods rapidly diverged.

The proposal at the Cape to ship themselves as passengers on other vessels for England, with the comparison of meat days and fish days against the practice of other ships, presents the grievance in its clearest legal form. By seeking to leave the Europe by formal transfer rather than by desertion, Knight and his companions were attempting to convert their dissatisfaction into a legitimate change of berth, supported by visible evidence of the inadequacy of their rations on the ship they wished to leave. The episode shows a more articulate and procedurally aware Knight than the earlier depositions might have suggested.

Speculations

Peirson's reported refusal to put Knight in irons, despite the abuse he had personally received, is a curious detail that points to disagreements among the masters themselves about how to handle the boatswain. A commander who declined to confine a fellow ship's petty officer who had abused him to his face may have been reluctant to take on the political problem of disciplining another captain's man, or may have judged that the trouble lay as much with Bryant's management as with Knight's conduct. Whatever the reason, Peirson's restraint sat oddly with his later sworn testimony against Knight, and suggests that the masters' collective approach to the case hardened over time.

The careful detail in Stewart's account, with its repeated note that the men's grievance about rations had eventually been met by an increase in the allowance, gives a glimpse of a deposition that was not simply prosecutorial. Stewart appears to have set down what he had actually seen, including facts that complicated the case against the boatswain. Whether this reflected the surgeon's professional habits of careful observation, or a private view that Knight had been less wholly at fault than the other witnesses described, the inclusion of these complicating details in the council's record makes the proceedings more credible than they would have been on the testimony of the commanders alone.

109

101

the Captain, that Said William Knight had gone a Shoar in the Long Boate, together with these Six, or Seven others, having taken the said Boate from the Ships Side Contrary to the Command and against the Will of the Mates then aboard, Surrepticiously while M[r] Godfrey Hembling Chief Mate was below at Dinner, which the said M[r] Hembling Confirmed afterwards in my hearing.

I have Since heard most of the English Comanders in Company. advised Cap[tn] Bryant, to putt said William Knight In Irons, & Carry him So home to England, declaring that had the Case So hapened to them they Should treate him a great deal Worse which Neverthelefs he decla[red] delaid to do, till their Universall joint advise came by way of protest against him in Name of the Hon[ble] Company and Owners of said Ship Upon which with advice of his Officers aboard, he putt him In Irons, on the poop where he now Remains.

Since which the Cap[tn] hath publiquely and privately by himself and others, demanded the Ships book of him, Viz[t]. the Account of Boat= swains Stores, Spent and Remaineing, the Accounts of goods Loaded and unloaded dureing the Voyage, who Returned answer that he might have Coppyes from thence. of Stores Expended, and Manifestor of goods Receved and delivered Since he Comanded the Ship pretendeing that the preceeding Accounts do not Concern him, and that he would not Surrender the Originall Books afser being at first that he had Sent them out of the Ship, but acknowledging afterwards that they are in the Ship, however Search being made they Could not be found and he persists to deny declareing where they are, and refuseth delivery of them.

This is the Sum of what I know or can Remember of this Affair as Circumstantially, and Impartially as I can Relate.

The foregoing Allegacions I assert to be true according to the best of my Knowledge and Remembrance tho I Cannot be possitive about the Respective dates further then that they were within the terms of our present Voyage on board Ship Europe from England to St Helena Alex[r] Stuart

Thomas Marley Souldier having Served his Contracted time with the R[t] Hon[ble] Company humbly Desired that we would be pleased to grant him Leave and Licence to Depart this Island in the Fleet now in the Road.

It is Ordered:

That the said Thomas Marley may take Pafsage on board Ship Jane Cap[tn] D[a]. Pennill Comand, paying his Debts before he Departs the Island Tho: Goodwin [Edw:] [Mashborne] W[m] Marsden

Island

Stewart said that Mr Stephens, the third mate, had told Bryant that Knight had gone ashore in the longboat, together with the six or seven others. They had taken the boat from the ship's side against the will of the mates then aboard, surreptitiously, while Mr Godfrey Hembling, chief mate, was below at dinner. Hembling had afterwards confirmed this in Stewart's hearing.

Stewart had since heard that most of the English commanders in the company had advised Bryant to put Knight in irons and carry him home to England in that condition. The commanders had declared that, had the case happened to them, they would have treated Knight a great deal worse. Bryant had nevertheless delayed acting until the commanders' united advice came in the form of a joint protest in the name of the Honourable Company and the owners of the ship. On receiving this protest, and with the advice of his own officers on board, he had put Knight in irons on the poop, where he still remained.

Since that time Bryant had publicly and privately demanded from Knight the ship's book, that is, the account of boatswain's stores spent and remaining, and the accounts of goods loaded and unloaded during the voyage. Knight had answered that Bryant might have copies of the accounts of stores expended and a manifest of goods received and delivered since he commanded the ship, but pretended that the earlier accounts did not concern him, and that he would not surrender the original books. He had at first said that he had sent them out of the ship, but afterwards admitted that they were on board. Search had been made and the books could not be found. Knight continued to deny knowledge of where they were, and refused to deliver them.

This was the sum of what Stewart knew or could remember of the matter, as circumstantially and impartially as he could relate it.

He asserted the foregoing allegations to be true to the best of his knowledge and remembrance, though he could not be positive about the dates beyond saying that all the events had taken place within the period of the present voyage on board the Europe from England to St Helena.

Alex: Stuart.

Thomas Marley, soldier, having served his contracted time with the Honourable Company, humbly asked the council to grant him leave and licence to depart the island in the fleet now in the road.

It was ordered that Marley take passage on board the ship Jane, Captain D. Pennill commander, on his paying his debts before he left the island.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Island [...]

Interpretations

The closing paragraphs of Stewart's deposition shift the case onto the question of the boatswain's books. Knight's refusal to surrender the boatswain's stores accounts and the manifest of goods loaded and unloaded, his initial claim that he had sent the books out of the ship, his later admission that they remained on board, and his persistent refusal to disclose their location, turned the matter from one of discipline into one of fraud or its concealment. A boatswain who would not produce the records of stores under his charge invited the inference that those records would reveal discrepancies, and his earlier intermittent drunkenness during the loading and unloading of cargo at Persia and Butchers Island took on a darker meaning in that light.

The cumulative effect of Stewart's evidence, with its admission that the commanders had advised Bryant against indulgence and had eventually joined in a formal protest before he acted, reveals how cautious the masters had been about confining one of their own number's petty officers. The pattern that emerges is of a captain reluctant to escalate, prompted to action only by the collective insistence of his peers, then taking the further step of putting Knight in irons with the support both of his own officers and of a documentary protest in the name of the Company and the owners. The procedural care taken to assemble layered authority for the confinement reflects the legal exposure that the masters of an Indiaman could face for a serious shipboard penalty.

The brief Marley order at the close of the entry returns the council to its routine business. A soldier whose contracted time had been served was granted leave to depart on a named ship, with the standard condition that he pay his debts before sailing. The condition gave creditors on the island an effective veto on the departure of any time-served soldier, since a man who could not clear his accounts could not embark, and the council in turn was spared the awkwardness of having absconded debtors carried away in its own ships.

Speculations

The dispute over the books fits the wider pattern of the new administration's emphasis on documentary control. Goodwin's council had spent much of the autumn reconstructing the local records after the disorder of Poirier's last years, and the same instinct that ordered the inventory of Company stock, the registration of wills and the redrafting of the Lufkin lease was now extended to the records of a visiting ship. By recording in the council books the precise sequence of demand, evasion and refusal regarding the boatswain's accounts, the council placed a marker that would support any later proceedings against Knight in London for failure to deliver up the ship's papers.

The decision of the masters to wait for a joint written protest before allowing Bryant to put his own boatswain in irons indicates the limits of an East India Company captain's independent authority over his own crew, even in matters of serious misconduct. The collective protest functioned as a kind of insurance, with the commanders sharing responsibility for an action that one of them might otherwise have been blamed for in London. The pattern reveals that the legal and political risk of severe shipboard discipline was real enough that captains preferred a documentary cover endorsed by their peers before they acted decisively.

110

102

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation held on Wednsday the 31st day of December 1707. Att Fort James

Pres[t] Thomas Goodwin, Governour John Carrswell Edward Mashborne Dep[ty] Govern[r] John Cammell William Marrsden. 3[r] on Councell John Opice } Asistants Pagton Nelson Rich[d] Pennell

Whereas yesterday the said Cap[tn] Bryant having not all his Evidence on Shoar, to the further Examination of William Knight he was Confined in the Fort till this day, and the said Evidences now Appearing was Sworne and Examined as followeth.

Samuell Bedlow Gunner of Ship Europe being Sworn Saith that he has often heard the Commander and Boatswain have Severall high words, but the Pticulers can't Remember, and has heard by Severall hands that the said Boatswain has disobeyd the Com= =manders Command, and in Some Measure knows it homself, but did not take no great Notice of any words that past between them.

Jacob Saunders Sworn Saith, that the. 3. October Some of the Ships Provision being Stolen the Cap[tn] ordered the Cook to See all the Ships Companys Victualls to be drest in the Furnice and not pri= vately, in Kettles upon which the Ships Company Came aft in a Cleman= clous Manner for Liberty to Dress theur Victualls as pleased, then the Boatswain Swearing if would not he would put the fire out and had a Buckett of Water Ready but was prevented.

October the. 31[st]. W[m]. Knight Comeing from aboard another Ship Drunk or Madd, Swore he would gee on Shoar, and so Ordered the Boat to be Mann[d], but was prevented by the Mater, we asked him what was the matter he said he would Speak with the Commander then on Shore but while the Mates were at Dinner took the Boate from the Ships Side and went on Shoar, he also Swore the Anchor Should not be Weighed till he had Something from under the Captains hand Jacob Saeunders

The said William Knight Defendant Replys that he is not prepar[d] for to make his defence wherefore Desires time tell to Morrow afternoon

Tho: Goodwin [Edw:] [Mashborne] W[m] Marrsden

Island

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Wednesday 31 December 1707 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council. John Carswell, John Cammell, John Opie, Pagton Nelson and Richard Pennell, assistants.

The previous day, Captain Bryant not having had all his witnesses on shore for the further examination of William Knight, Knight had been confined in the Fort until this day. The witnesses, now appearing, were sworn and examined as followed.

Samuel Bedlow, gunner of the Europe, sworn, said he had often heard the commander and the boatswain exchange heated words, but could not remember the particulars. He had heard from several quarters that the boatswain had disobeyed the commander's orders, and in some measure knew this himself, but had not taken much notice of any words that had passed between them.

Jacob Saunders, sworn, said that on 3 October, some of the ship's provisions having been stolen, the captain ordered the cook to see that all the ship's company's food was dressed in the furnace, and not privately in kettles. The ship's company came aft in a clamorous manner asking for liberty to dress their food as they pleased. Knight then swore that if they were refused he would put the fire out, and had a bucket of water ready, but was prevented.

On 31 October, Knight came from on board another ship drunk, or as though mad, and swore he would go ashore. He ordered the boat to be manned, but was prevented by the mates. When asked what was the matter, he said he wanted to speak with the commander, who was then on shore. While the mates were at dinner, he took the boat from the ship's side and went ashore. He also swore that the anchor should not be weighed until he had something from under the captain's hand.

Jacob Saunders.

Knight, the defendant, replied that he was not prepared to make his defence, and asked for time until the following afternoon.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Island [...]

Interpretations

The reconstituted council for 31 December retained the assistants drawn from among the visiting commanders, with the addition of Pagton Nelson and Richard Pennell. The continuing presence of the ship masters on the bench for a second day of evidence underlines the hybrid character of the proceedings, half council session and half admiralty hearing. The pause to confine Knight in the Fort overnight while the captain's remaining witnesses were brought ashore reflects how the inquiry was being conducted at the masters' pace, with the council providing the procedural framework but the commanders supplying both the evidence and the bench.

Bedlow's evidence is striking for what it does not say. As gunner of the Europe, he would have been one of the senior petty officers and a natural source of detailed testimony, yet his deposition records repeated heated words between captain and boatswain in vague terms and disclaims memory of the particulars. The pattern suggests a senior man unwilling to involve himself further in the prosecution of a colleague, while willing to give just enough to support the captain's case. The contrast with the detailed accounts of Hembling, Jacobs, Stephens and Stewart highlights how much depended on the witnesses' attitudes as well as their direct knowledge.

Saunders's evidence focused on the two most damaging episodes, the galley fire incident and the unauthorised boat trip at the Cape, and added a fresh detail in Knight's reported declaration that the anchor should not be weighed until he had something in writing from the captain. The threat to delay the sailing of the ship by withholding cooperation with weighing of the anchor was a direct claim on the operational power of the boatswain's office. By recording this assertion in evidence, the prosecution moved Knight's conduct further onto the ground of impeding the captain's command of the voyage, which carried weight against a defence framed around personal grievances.

Speculations

Knight's request for time until the following afternoon to prepare his defence suggests he was now treating the proceedings seriously enough to engage with them formally rather than simply protest. The earlier letters demanding trial had been gestures from confinement, but the request to delay his answer until he could prepare points to an attempt to mount a substantive case. Whether he intended to challenge the witnesses' accounts, to invoke the provisioning grievances Stewart had described, or to raise the missing books in some procedural way, the request indicates that the inquiry had reached a stage where his own response would be heard rather than simply his demand for one.

The careful insertion of the date 31 October as the day of the Cape Town incident, with the additional detail about the anchor, looks like a piece of evidence positioned to forestall any defence that the unauthorised boat trip had been a personal absence rather than an obstruction of the ship's business. If Knight had said the anchor should not be weighed until he had a written undertaking from the captain, his absence on shore became an instrument of pressure on the sailing of the ship rather than a private excursion, and the case against him correspondingly strengthened. The witnesses' coordinated emphasis on this detail suggests it had become the linchpin of the captain's case.

111

103

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation, held on Friday the 2. day of Janruary 1707/8 Att Fort James

Pres[t] Thomas Goodwin, Governour Edward Mashborne Dep[ty] Govern[r] William Marrsden. 3[r] on Councell

Cap[tn] John Carrswell Cap[tn] John Cammell } Asistants Cap[tn] Payton Nelson Cap[tn] Rich[d] Pennell

Whereas in a Consultation, held the. 31[st] of December Last William Knight boatswain of the Ship Europe was Called before us in order of Determining the Complaint and Crime alledged against him by the Comander of said Ship, at which time the said Boatswain Re= played that he was not fully prepared to make his Defence, wherefore prayed that he might have Some given him to give in his Reply which was granted him, as also at his Request this day the following Evidences in his behalf were Sumoned to appear on Shoar, who accordingly did.

And the Boatswain Delivered the following premifses.

To the Worshipfull, Governour and Councell of St Helena.

The Case of W[m] Knight Boatswain of the Europe Cap[tn] Heumphry Bryant Comander.

Whereas Cap[tn] Peirson Comander of the Arabia has given Oath that I William Knight did at Molustas Say that I had. 40. Men on board the Ship at my Command to carry away his Ship & the Europe.

In Answer to this the Arabia Came into Molustas three Weekes before us, and without a Redeller, we warpd into Molustas, my Captain afked me why I Carryed the Warp So farr out, I told him that I thought it would reach the board but it did not, and Since it was done I Could not help it, Cap[tn] Peirson of the Arabia was then Come on board of our Ship, and told me I was a beast, and Spat in my face, and told my Comand that if he would Send me aboard his Ship he would put me in Irons, and Carry me to England with that I Said that he had Nothing to do here and that I had Commanded forty better Men then he these are the very words I Said and no other.

Now as to my Own Commander.

At Sea it hapned that there was a pig Lost, and all the Ships Company was Charged with it, but Pus[h] not finde that any one had it, but it was thought that the Sow had eat it, So to be Reckoned that as Ships provision Stole, So ordered

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Friday 2 January 1708 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council. Captain John Carswell, Captain John Cammell, Captain Payton Nelson and Captain Richard Pennell, assistants.

At the consultation held on 31 December last, William Knight, boatswain of the Europe, had been called before the bench to determine the complaint and charge laid against him by the commander of the ship. Knight had then replied that he was not fully prepared to make his defence, and prayed that he be given time to put in his reply. This had been granted. At his request the following witnesses on his behalf had also been summoned to appear ashore on this day, and did so.

Knight delivered the following document.

To the Worshipful Governor and Council of St Helena.

The case of William Knight, boatswain of the Europe, Captain Humphrey Bryant commander.

Captain Peirson, commander of the Arabia, had given oath that the writer, William Knight, had said at Mauritius that he had forty men on board his ship at his command to carry away both Peirson's ship and the Europe.

In answer to this, the Arabia had come into Mauritius three weeks before the Europe, and there being no pilot, the Europe had warped into Mauritius. Bryant had asked him why he had carried the warp so far out. He had answered that he had thought it would reach on board, but it had not, and now that it was done he could not help it. Peirson, then on board the Europe, had told him he was a beast and had spat in his face. Peirson had then told Bryant that if he would send Knight on board the Arabia, he would put him in irons and carry him to England. To this Knight had said that Peirson had nothing to do there, and that he had commanded forty better men than Peirson. These were the very words he had said and no others.

As to his own commander, the case stood as followed.

At sea, a pig had been lost. All the ship's company had been charged with it, but it could not be found that any one of them had it, and it was thought that the sow had eaten it. The captain had nevertheless reckoned it as ship's provision stolen, and so ordered [...]

Interpretations

Knight's written defence opens with an effort to recast his most damaging statement at Mauritius. By framing his words as a retort to Peirson's gross provocation, including being called a beast and spat in the face, he turned the threat to take Peirson's ship with forty men into a wounded reply rather than a deliberate boast of mutinous intent. The claim that he had commanded forty better men than Peirson is offered as a statement about his own past authority and standing, not as a present threat against the ships in Mauritius. The reframing depends on the context Knight supplies, namely the spitting and the contemptuous dismissal, neither of which appears in the prosecution's depositions.

The procedural development is also significant. Knight is now operating not as a defendant in irons demanding a hearing, but as a litigant before the bench, having secured time to prepare, the right to call witnesses on his own behalf and the opportunity to deliver a written case. The transformation reflects the council's commitment to the form of a proper inquiry, which gave Knight a substantive defence to mount and the masters a record sturdy enough to withstand later review. The cost to the prosecution was that Knight now had a platform on which to challenge their account, and his written statement is plainly drafted to do exactly that.

The opening of his explanation of the dispute with his own captain over a lost pig signals the line he intended to take throughout. By emphasising that no individual had been found responsible, that the most likely explanation was the sow eating her own young, but that the captain had counted the animal as stolen provision anyway, Knight prepared the ground for an argument that the cooking restriction had been imposed on an unjust basis. The order over the galley, which had been the most theatrical of his recorded offences, was being recast as a response to a captain's unreasonable measures against the crew.

Speculations

Knight's careful insistence that these were the very words he had said and no others, in his account of the Mauritius exchange with Peirson, suggests that he had given considerable thought overnight to the precise framing of his denial. The strategy of admitting the substance of the prosecution's quotation while changing its meaning by supplying context is the kind of move a thoughtful defendant might attempt when the words themselves were too widely heard to be denied outright. The success of the strategy would depend on whether the bench, which now included four ship's captains, would accept that a boatswain's reply to gross personal abuse on a quarterdeck should be read in the light of the abuse that prompted it.

The introduction of the lost pig as the origin of the captain's order against private cooking gives Knight's case a more sympathetic shape than the bare prosecution account had allowed. If the captain had treated an animal probably eaten by its own mother as ship's provision stolen, and had used that as the basis for restrictions affecting all the men, then the wider crew's protest at the quarterdeck table acquired a logic of its own. By placing this small fact at the start of his explanation, Knight invited the bench to see the cooking dispute as a clash over the captain's tendency to convert ambiguous events into proofs of theft, with the boatswain in the role of the men's complaining voice rather than that of a mutinous officer acting alone.

112

104

ordered that no Man should drest there Victuals by the fore, but it Should all be drest in the Furnace, I desired the Cook to ask the Captain if I might have the Leberty to dress my Victuals by the Fire, and he said I Should have no More Leberty then an other Man which I thought to be very harr[d] to be denyed So Smale a previledge Since I came an Officer from England, with that I told the Captain that our Usage was very hard, and that if we had no better allowance the Men would not be able to Sail the Ship which I told him I thought was not for the Companys nor Owners Intrest, with that he abused me and Called me Severall Names, and said I was a Mutinous fellow, Lekewise there was Some Fish Lost, and the Man that Stoled it was found, and I told him what punishment he would Lay upon him I would gove him which I did according to his order as all the whole Ships Company can Witness.

When we was Rideing at the Cape November the. 4th 1707. M[r] Hambling our Cheef Mate being aboard I told him it was very hard that we Should have fish four days a Weeke, and the other Ships had flesh every day, he told me that the Cap[tn] would be aboard and bed me Content whereof I told him that I had Spoke to the Cap[tn] at Sea of it, and the Cap[tn] said we Should have Left, and we might help our Selves as we Could, So that Now I was Resolved to go ashoar, and Speak to the Captain, accordingly I went a Shore with the Long boat, Whereof the third Mate tooke the Yawle, and went to Acqueaint the Captain we were a coming ashore with the Long boat, when I came a Shoar I made my Complaint to the Captain and asked him if he thought a Man could Subsist with Six Ounces of Fish, and Six Ounces of Ricce a whole day, with that he Called us Mutinous fellows, and said we Run away with the Long Boat, all the other Comanders was there and per= swaded us to goe aboard again which we did Immedeately.

November the. 6. the Captain and his Mates, got upon Deck, and ordered all hands to be Called on Deck, then brought out a paper with all the Commanders Names to it, and then ordered all the Smale Arms into the great Cabin Keeping One Gun Loaded and prim[e] Ready to fire and ordered me to be put in Irons but for what Reason I cannot tell.

November the. 10[d] we came Into Sedane Bay he tooke his Boat and went aboard the Panther, and when he came back again he ordred me to be brought on the poop and Stapled down, and there fed me with only Rice and Water for fifty days.

All that is Written on this paper I am Ready to attest upon Oath as Wittness my hand this presst Janruary y[e]. 5. 5. 7. 0. 8. William Knight

The Carpenter of the Ship Arabia says that when there Ship Lay at Maurushes She was not fitt to put to Sea being very Leaky and ha= =ving Lost her Rudder. The

The captain had ordered that no man should dress his food by the hearth, but that all should be dressed in the furnace. Knight had asked the cook to put the question to the captain whether he might have liberty to dress his food by the fire. The captain had answered that he should have no more liberty than any other man, which Knight thought very hard, since he was denied so small a privilege, having come out an officer from England. He had then told the captain that the men's usage was very hard, and that if they had no better allowance, the men would not be able to sail the ship, which he said he thought was not in the interest of the Company or the owners. On this the captain had abused him and called him several names, and said he was a mutinous fellow.

Some fish had also been lost, and the man who had stolen it had been found. Knight had asked what punishment the captain would lay upon him, and had said he would give it, which he duly did according to the captain's order, as the whole ship's company could witness.

While the ship lay at the Cape, on 4 November 1707, Mr Hembling, the chief mate, being on board, Knight had told him it was very hard that they should have fish four days a week while the other ships had flesh every day. Hembling had told him the captain would be on board and bid him be content. Knight had answered that he had spoken to the captain about it at sea, and the captain had said they should have less, and they might help themselves as they could. He was therefore now resolved to go ashore and speak to the captain. He had accordingly gone ashore in the longboat. The third mate had taken the yawl and gone ahead to tell the captain they were coming ashore in the longboat. On reaching the shore he had made his complaint to the captain, and asked him whether he thought a man could subsist on six ounces of fish and six ounces of rice for a whole day. The captain had called them mutinous fellows, and said they had run away with the longboat. All the other commanders had been present, and had persuaded them to go aboard again, which they had done immediately.

On 6 November, the captain and his mates had come up on deck and ordered all hands to be called on deck. They had then brought out a paper with all the commanders' names to it, and ordered all the small arms into the great cabin, keeping one gun loaded and primed ready to fire. Knight had been ordered to be put in irons, but for what reason he could not tell.

On 10 November, the ship had come into Saldanha Bay. The captain had taken his boat and gone on board the Panther, and on his return had ordered Knight to be brought on the poop and stapled down, and there fed him with only rice and water for fifty days.

All that was written in the paper he was ready to attest upon oath. Witness his hand this present 2 January 1708.

William Knight.

The carpenter of the ship Arabia said that when the ship lay at Mauritius she had not been fit to put to sea, being very leaky and having lost her rudder.

The [...]

Interpretations

Knight's written case develops his defence in a direction the prosecution had not anticipated. By stating that he himself had administered the punishment to the man caught stealing fish, on the captain's order and in the sight of the whole ship's company, he placed on the record an episode of co-operation with shipboard discipline that complicated the picture of an obstructive boatswain. The detail is offered as a verifiable fact and, if accepted, undercuts the prosecution's portrayal of him as systematically refusing to enforce the captain's authority.

The arithmetic of the ration, six ounces of fish and six ounces of rice for a whole day, gives the council a concrete figure to weigh against the prosecution's emphasis on Knight's tumultuous behaviour. By converting the dispute into a question of caloric sufficiency, the defence pressed the council to consider whether the captain's rationing decisions were defensible in themselves, rather than merely whether the boatswain's response to them had been disorderly. The choice to put precise numbers on the record was a calculated move, since exact quantities were testable against ship's records and against the practice of the other vessels in the fleet.

The account of being stapled down on the poop and fed on rice and water for fifty days, on the captain's return from a visit to the Panther, alters the moral weight of the proceedings. A boatswain who had been in irons for nearly two months by the time of the hearing at St Helena had already suffered substantial punishment, much of it before any formal hearing of the charges against him. By placing the duration and conditions of his confinement on the record alongside the alleged offences, Knight invited the council to consider whether the captain's response had outrun the seriousness of the original conduct.

The brief carpenter's statement, that the Arabia had been unfit to put to sea while at Mauritius, being leaky and without a rudder, opens a fresh line of defence on the central Peirson incident. If Peirson's ship had been disabled in harbour, Knight's reported boast about taking her with forty men loses much of its force as a threat of mutiny, since no one with operational knowledge of the Arabia's condition would have taken seriously a claim to seize her by force. The detail recasts the most damaging quotation in the case as bravado in the face of an officer whose own command was, at the time, scarcely capable of putting to sea.

Speculations

The decision to call the Arabia's carpenter as the first witness for the defence suggests Knight or his advisers had identified the Peirson testimony as the most legally serious element in the prosecution's case. Words spoken at Mauritius about taking ships with forty men touched the offence of incitement to mutiny in a way that the cooking and boat incidents on the Europe did not. By undermining the credibility of Peirson's interpretation through the carpenter's professional knowledge of his own ship's condition, the defence aimed to remove the most legally dangerous charge before turning to the more easily explained quarrels with his own captain.

The fifty days of confinement on rice and water makes sense if read as a deliberate effort by Bryant to break Knight's resistance before reaching St Helena. A boatswain held in those conditions across the South Atlantic would arrive at the island physically weakened and easier to manage, and the long confinement in itself would tend to support the captain's account by giving an impression of grave offences. The defence's careful recital of the duration and severity of the regime points to a hope that the council, far from being persuaded by the long imprisonment, would treat it as evidence that the captain's response had been disproportionate, and might be inclined to balance the offences against the punishment already inflicted.

113

105

The Cheif Mate of said Ship Saith he hath been very [...] Intimate with the said Boatswain, and Never heard him Say any thing against his Comander tending to what is alledged against him.

The Gunner of Said Ship Saith he hath been very familiar and Intimate with the Boatswain of said Ship Europe at divers times, and Never heard him say any thing against his Commander tending to what he is Accused of.

Charles Coullson belonging to the Ship Europe being Examined Saith, Dureing theer Stay at Maurushes and Ever Since (Till Arrived in this Road) all the Ships Company was Kept very Short of allowance, haveing for the most part Fish dies, whereuvith they were not able to Subsist Insomuch they have been obliged to buy great part of their provesion and he for his Own part hath Laid out about. 40. Dollars, and further the Cap[tn] hath not allowed them any Drams, which their former Comander Laid in for the Ships use, which ill Usage Caused great Discontent among the Ships Company, and one said he[d] Complain and another said he would, and at Last the Boatswain fully Resolved to ask the Captain for more allowance, which hath been the only and true Reason that the said Boatswain hath been punnish[t], and So much to do among them, and that its through the ill Useing of said Cap[tn]. &c[d]

John Sherwin Cooper of the Ship Europe being Examined in behalfe of the Boatswain Saith that upon Cap[tn] Peirson and the Boatswain haveing Some words at the Maurushes the said Cap[tn] Spitt in his face, which he was an Ey Wittness to upon which the Boatswain Said among other words that he had Commanded fourty better Men then was on board the said Cap[tn] Peirsons Ship, and that he Never heard the Boatswain say any thing tending to Mutiny &c[a]. And that they have not been allowed a Sufficient quantity of provesions as others had, which hath been the true and Cheifsest Reason that the said Boatswain and present Captain had any words, which was but what all the Ships Company gave their Consent too.

Upon the Severall Mens Complaints against the Captain for his allowing them so Short Allowance the said Cap[tn] Bryant in the presence of all the Councell Said they Should have Left them heretofore, But presently after Says his Ships Company Shall have as good an allowance as Other Ships hath now in the Road.

Joseph Selby Cook belongeng to Ship Europe Saith he heard the Boatswain and the Cap[tn] have a great many words, the said Boat= =swain being a Lettle on Drinck, which Cap[tn] Peirson hearing and being Setting by the Barracado, gott up and Spitt in the Boatswains Face which Caused a great many words, but the Boatswain Said Nothing of Mutiny &c[a]. after

The chief mate of the Arabia said he had been very intimate with Knight, and had never heard him say anything against his commander tending to what was alleged against him.

The gunner of the same ship said he had been very familiar and intimate with the boatswain of the Europe on various occasions, and had never heard him say anything against his commander tending to what he was accused of.

Charles Coulson, of the Europe, examined, said that during the ship's stay at Mauritius, and ever since until her arrival in this road, the whole ship's company had been kept on very short allowance. Most of the time they had been on fish days, on which the ration was not enough to subsist on, and they had been obliged to buy a great part of their provisions. He himself had laid out about forty dollars on this account. The captain had not allowed them any drams, although their former commander had laid in spirits for the ship's use. The ill usage had caused great discontent among the ship's company. One man had said he would complain, another that he would do likewise, and at last the boatswain had fully resolved to ask the captain for a larger allowance. This was the only true reason why the boatswain had been punished, and why there had been so much disturbance on board, and the trouble had been caused by the captain's ill treatment of the men.

John Sherwin, cooper of the Europe, examined on Knight's behalf, said that when Captain Peirson and Knight had exchanged words at Mauritius, the captain had spat in Knight's face, an act of which he was himself an eyewitness. Knight had then said, among other things, that he had commanded forty better men than were on board Peirson's ship. He had never heard Knight say anything tending to mutiny. Sherwin added that the men had not been allowed a sufficient quantity of provisions such as others had, which had been the true and chief reason for any words between Knight and the present captain, and the men had all given their consent to what the boatswain had said.

On the several men's complaints against the captain for his short allowance, Bryant in the presence of the whole council had said that the men should have left them long ago. He then said immediately afterwards that his ship's company should have as good an allowance as any other ship now in the road.

Joseph Selby, cook of the Europe, said he had heard the boatswain and the captain exchange many words, the boatswain being a little in drink. Captain Peirson, hearing this and sitting by the barricado, had got up and spat in Knight's face, which had caused many further words. The boatswain had said nothing of mutiny. After [...]

Interpretations

The defence witnesses converge on two key points that together undermine the prosecution's case. First, the chief mate and the gunner of the Arabia, the very ship Knight had supposedly threatened to take with forty men, testify that they had never heard him say anything against his own captain that resembled the alleged mutinous talk. The men best placed to have heard such utterances, had they occurred regularly, deny ever hearing them at all. Second, the cooper Sherwin, who was an eyewitness to the Mauritius exchange, confirms Knight's account of the spitting and locates the forty better men remark in that context, as a stung reply rather than a threat to seize ships.

The provisioning complaint, now corroborated by an ordinary seaman who had himself spent forty dollars buying his own food, becomes the central explanatory framework for the whole dispute. Coulson's testimony presents the troubles on the Europe not as the work of a single mutinous boatswain, but as the predictable result of systematic short rations and the captain's refusal to issue the spirits laid in by his predecessor. The phrase that the men had all given their consent to what the boatswain said, used by Sherwin, recasts Knight from instigator to spokesman, expressing complaints that the ship's company as a whole shared.

Bryant's own conduct before the council, recorded by the witness who heard him say that the men should have left them long ago and then immediately promising they would now have as good an allowance as other ships, looks awkward on the record. The shift from a dismissive remark to a concession in the same breath suggested that the captain could not fully defend his rationing decisions when challenged in a formal setting, and would tend to support the defence's framing of the underlying grievance as legitimate.

Speculations

The repeated emphasis on Peirson's act of spitting in Knight's face, now confirmed by two separate eyewitnesses, places the senior captain on the defensive in a way the prosecution had not contemplated. A commander who spat in the face of a junior officer of another ship before witnesses had given a serious personal provocation, and the council, sitting as a hybrid bench with four ship's captains as assistants, would have understood exactly how such an act would have been read in the etiquette of the merchant service. By making the spit the documented opening of the exchange, the defence forced the bench to consider whether Peirson's subsequent oath against Knight could be taken at face value.

The detail that the men's discontent had been openly voiced before the boatswain took the lead, with one man and then another saying they would complain, suggests that Knight may have been pushed into his most prominent role by the wider crew rather than driving them. A boatswain who held office between the captain and the men was the natural channel for collective grievance, and the prosecution's portrayal of him as the sole mover behind the disturbances begins to look strained against the defence's account. The decision of the captain in the council itself to concede improved rations would have weighed heavily on any honest assessment of who had been right about the underlying complaint.

114

106

After said Promise of Cap[tn] Bryant for his Mens better allowance and Severall Debates and Consedering the ill Usage of Shortness of Victu= =alls, and how that all the Comanders Seems to blame the Said Cap[tn] Bryant.

It is Ordered:

By the Request and desire of the said Cap[tn] Bryant that the Boat= swain go on board another Ship, and that the Said Cap[tn] Bryant do give his Ships Company the Same allowance that the other Ships have, and if the said Cap[tn] Bryant fail of this his word and order, the Said Ships Company are to Complain to the Comodore who is to See them righted.

This farr hath been Copy[d] Tho: Goodwin over & Sent to y[e] Hon[ble] United Comp[s] p[r] Ship [Phenix] and also Edw[d] Mashborne from K[ing] Corisin Death p[r] Ship W[m] Marsden Panther & Phoenix.

Whereas M[r] George Carne March[t] and Inhabitant of the Island St Helena being now Intended to take Pafsage for England in y[e] Fleet now in the Road, Do hereby Nominate Constitute and Appoint M[rs] Mercy Carne his wife and the Worshipfull Thomas Goodwin Esq[r] Governour of y[e] Said Island, To be my true and Lawefull Attorneys To act and Transact in any matter or thing whatsoever in the Said devised to all Intents Constructions and purposes as I my Self might or Could do if I were personally present &c[a]. In Wittness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand this Eighth day of Janu[r]y 17[0]7/8 George Carne Wittness[d] p[r]

Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden Whereas Edward Bagley free pl[a]nt[r] Deceased did request me to write an agreem[t] as may Appear by Said writeing between himself and Mary French, which said Contract therein made has been beleived to meen and intend a farther Contract than his Life. Do hereby Depose that he the s[d] Edward Bagley did order me to Leave out Heirs and heires Saying he desired it no Longer than his Life, the Said Mary not being a fit to make any Larther Contract than for her Life Moreover Jallso Depose that Edw Bagley did Say that Contract write, by me Should not Stand But that another Should be write which he also Said before my wife, Wittness my hand this 6 Day of Janu[r]y 1707/8 George Carne a true Copy of y[e] originale of one W[m] Alexander:

After Bryant's promise of a better allowance for his men, and several debates, and considering the ill usage of short victuals, and how all the commanders seemed to blame him, it was ordered, at Bryant's own request, that Knight be transferred to another ship. Bryant was to give his ship's company the same allowance as the other ships, and if he failed of this word and order, the ship's company were to complain to the commodore, who would see them righted.

So far the proceedings had been copied over and sent to the Honourable United Company by the ship Phoenix, and also from the King's [Corisin] death by the ships Panther and Phoenix.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Mr George Carne, merchant and inhabitant of the island of St Helena, being now about to take passage for England in the fleet then in the road, hereby nominated, constituted and appointed his wife, Mrs Mercy Carne, and the Worshipful Thomas Goodwin, esquire, Governor of the island, to be his true and lawful attorneys, to act and transact in any matter or thing whatsoever as devised, to all intents, constructions and purposes, as he might or could do if personally present. In witness whereof he set his hand on 8 January 1708.

George Carne.

Witnessed by Edward Mashborne and W.m Marsden.

Edward Bagley, free planter, deceased, had asked the deponent to draw up an agreement, as appeared by the writing, between himself and Mary French. The contract there made had been understood to mean a longer arrangement than his own lifetime. The deponent hereby deposed that Edward Bagley had ordered him to leave out the words heirs and heiresses, saying he wanted it no longer than his life, since Mary was not in a position to make any further contract than for her life. The deponent further deposed that Bagley had said that the contract he had written should not stand, but that another should be written, which Bagley had also said before the deponent's wife. Witness his hand on 6 January 1708.

George Carne. A true copy of the original of one William Alexander.

Interpretations

The disposition of the Knight case shows the council reaching a settlement that effectively split the difference between the prosecution and the defence. Knight was transferred off the Europe rather than carried home in irons, which was the relief his letters from confinement had implicitly sought. Bryant was required to bring his ship's company's rations to the level enjoyed by the other ships in the road, which conceded the substance of the men's complaint. The commodore was made the enforcer of the new arrangement, which placed responsibility for monitoring the captain's compliance on the senior naval officer present, rather than on the local council, once the fleet had sailed.

The closing note that the proceedings had so far been copied and sent to the Honourable United Company by the Phoenix, with related papers going by the Panther and Phoenix, indicates how seriously the council took the documentary outcome. By forwarding a fair copy of the inquiry to London the council ensured that the directors would receive the local record before any one-sided account from a returning captain could shape their view. The use of two ships for the dispatch of related papers also followed the standard practice of duplication to insure against loss at sea.

The Carne power of attorney and the Edward Bagley deposition, entered at the close of the same set of consultations, illustrate the routine documentary work the council carried out for residents leaving the island or settling outstanding business. By appointing his wife and the Governor as joint attorneys, Carne arranged for the management of his affairs during a long absence in England, with a public man and a private one each bound to act in his name. The Bagley deposition, made by Carne shortly before his departure, preserved his recollection of the testator's instructions in a writing that could be used in any future challenge to the agreement with Mary French.

Speculations

The choice to remove Knight from the Europe rather than punish him further reflects the council's recognition that the relationship between him and Bryant had broken down beyond repair. With the underlying provisioning dispute now conceded by the captain, no useful purpose would have been served by returning the boatswain to a ship in which he had spent fifty days in irons under his commander's authority. Transfer to another vessel allowed Knight a fresh start under a different master, while denying him the platform of grievance from which he had drawn his support among the Europe's crew.

Carne's departure for England in the same fleet, with a power of attorney leaving his affairs jointly in the hands of his wife and the Governor, suggests that he intended a long absence, possibly to press the case against Griffith in person before the directors, or to attend to wider commercial business that required his presence in London. The choice of Goodwin as one of his attorneys, alongside Mrs Carne, gave him a powerful ally on the island bench whose interest in upholding any of Carne's local arrangements would coincide with the broader interest of the council. The combined effect of the documents is of a careful businessman closing his affairs before a journey of uncertain duration.

115

107

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation, held on, Tuesday the. 13th day of Janruary 1707/8 Att Fort James.

Pres[t] Thomas Goodwin, Governour Edward Mashborne Dep[ty] Govern[r] William Marrsden. 3[r] on Councell

Jonathan Higham free planter made Complaint against Ma= thew Bazett for that his Hoggs Lie daily, on his Plantation, and Dos him much Damage, and upon Setting his Doggs at them, the said Bazetts Wife and Daughter abuses him by Calling him Severall Names, and Takes No Manner of Care to Keep them out.

The said Bazett denys what the said Higham has Alledged against him.

The said Higham haveing no Evidence that the said Bazetts hoggs do[s] him any Damage, nor whether the Fence is Lawfull or not.

It is Ordered:

That the Bussiness be Referred till Next Councill Day, and then bring their Evidence that the Case may be Decided Accordingly.

William French being Sworn Saith that he hath drank punch at Repim Wills, and has Seen Money paid.

Att William Hartwells but Never paid any Money nor Saw any paid Of Richard Alexander he has bough[t] Wine.

Thomas French Sworne Saith he drank punch att Claverings Repem Wills, John Robinsons, Thomas Fostor, William Marrsher, but did not See any Money paid for the punch.

John Leumber Sworne Saith That Att John Robinsons, William Hartwell, William Marrsher, Sutton Isaack Junior, and paid Money for punch.

The Governour was Informed that Morris Griffon Sold Brandey by Retayle without a Licence.

The said Morris Griffon Denys it.

Nicholas Fisher Says he bought Some Brandey of the said Morris Griffon and that he was to have. 6. Gallons as he has Occasion for it However

It is Ordered:

That the said Morris Griffon be foned the Sum of Fourty Shillings for Selling Strong drunk without a Licence.

Whereas a Cask of Two of Arrack was Standing in the Fort under the Gallory, one of which was found next Morning to be broacht by Some body in a Clamdestine Manner, and Examineing next Morning on the Fact found by all Probability that Edward Smith did it.

Upon,

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 13 January 1708 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

Jonathan Higham, free planter, complained against Matthew Bazett that his hogs lay daily on his plantation and did him much damage. When he set his dogs at them, Bazett's wife and daughter abused him, calling him various names, and took no care to keep the hogs out.

Bazett denied the charge.

Higham having no evidence that the hogs were doing damage, nor that his fence was lawful, it was ordered that the matter be referred to the next council day, and that the parties then bring their witnesses, so that the case might be decided accordingly.

William French, sworn, said he had drunk punch at Repim Wills's, and had seen money paid. At William Hartwell's he had drunk punch but had neither paid nor seen any money paid. From Richard Alexander he had bought wine.

Thomas French, sworn, said he had drunk punch at Clavering's, Repim Wills's, John Robinson's, Thomas Foster's, and William Marsh's, but had not seen any money paid for the punch.

John Lumber, sworn, said that at John Robinson's, William Hartwell's, William Marsh's, and Sutton Isaac junior's he had drunk and paid money for punch.

Goodwin had been told that Morris Griffon was selling brandy by retail without a licence.

Griffon denied it.

Nicholas Fisher said he had bought some brandy of Griffon, and that he was to have six gallons as he had occasion for them.

It was ordered that Griffon be fined £2 0s 0d for selling strong drink without a licence.

A cask or two of arrack had been standing in the Fort under the gallery, one of which had been found next morning to have been broached by someone in a clandestine manner. On examination the next morning, it appeared by all probability that Edward Smith had done it.

[...]

Interpretations

The Higham complaint shows the council holding back from any quick decision on a hog and dog dispute until the parties had brought evidence both of damage and of the lawfulness of the fence. Without proof that the fence was up to the required standard, the council could not award damages, since an inadequate fence shifted responsibility for trespassing livestock back onto the landholder. By requiring proof on both elements at the next sitting, the council preserved its established procedure for these neighbourly cases and prevented either party from forcing a ruling on his bare word.

The investigation of unlicensed retailing of punch and brandy reveals how the council was working through the recent advertisement on licences. The depositions of three witnesses, naming a string of houses where punch was drunk and money sometimes paid, gave the council a working map of the unlicensed trade. Some of the houses were ones where money had clearly changed hands, while others were places where the drinking was less obviously commercial. The Morris Griffon fine of forty shillings shows the rate the council had adopted for confirmed unlicensed sale, while the open list of premises identified by the witnesses left other suspects exposed to inquiry.

The arrack broaching at the Fort itself, occurring under the gallery and traced to Edward Smith by probability, shows how the new administration's concern with inventory and accountability extended even to the security of the Company's own spirits within the garrison walls. A cask broached in the night under the gallery was both a theft and a breach of the new system of controlled storage, and the council's willingness to record the matter and to name the probable culprit, even before formal proceedings, illustrates the same documentary discipline that had been applied to the boatswain's books on the Europe.

Speculations

The pattern of the depositions on the punch trade, with multiple soldiers naming the same residential premises as locations where punch was drunk, suggests that the unlicensed trade in spirits ran through the houses of corporals, sergeants and free planters who provided informal hospitality after garrison hours. The fact that William French and his son Thomas French both gave evidence, despite the family's recent departure for Bencoolen having been ordered, indicates that they had not yet sailed and remained available to the council. Their testimony, naming a wide range of houses without claiming to have always seen money pass, provided the council with credible but cautious evidence on which to act in some cases and not others.

The decision to fine Griffon at forty shillings, twice the rate of the most casual penalties used by the council, suggests that brandy was being treated as a more serious unlicensed commodity than punch, perhaps because brandy was more obviously imported and more clearly the subject of the Company's revenue interest. A six-gallon arrangement with a regular customer indicated commercial supply on a scale that the council was not prepared to overlook, and the heavier fine carried a signal both to Griffon and to others contemplating similar trade.

116

108

Upon which the said Smith was Imprisoned till this day, and being Examined denyed the Said Fact, but at Last Confessed that he with John Merrett drew out a bottle of Arrack.

The said Merrett was Called and Denyd that he had any hand in Drawing the said Arrack.

William Gore Says the said Merrett was Leying with him under the Wooden Horse, and the said Smith Came with a bottle Arrack and gave them a Dram, but whether he went with Smith afterwards he Cant tell.

It is Ordered:

That the said Smith be tyed at the Flaggstaffe, and Receive one Lash on his Naked body by Every Souldier, that belongs to the Geuard, wherein the said Smith Doh duty which is Twenty Two, with Severe Admonition for the future.

John Coles, and Repim Wills, free planters Complained against John Meudge black for telling a grofs Lie of them &c[a].

The Said Black Saith that he was drunk when he said it.

It is Ordered:

That he be Severely whipt, which was done Accordingly.

William Scotton Sworne Saith he bought punch &c[a] of the following persons V[i]z[t] John Robinson punch and Arrack. Richard Alexander Wine Nath[l] Collins, Arrack Arthur Bradley.

Whereas M[r] Bazett made it his humble Request, this day that we would be pleased To Consedeer the Long Service he has done our Hon[ble] Masters in their Stores, and to allow him an additionall. Sallary, Saying that he Cannot Serve for the Sallary of Thirty Two pound p[r] Annum Leaveing the Same to the Governour & Councell Consi= deration.

Consedering the Long Service as the Said. M[r] Bazett Mentions he has done our Said Masters and their Twelfth Parragraph in the Generall p[r] the Rochester wherein 'tis ordered that we Should Encou= =rage him as we think fitt and as he Shall be found Deserving.

It is Ordered:

That the said M[r] Bazett be allowed the Sum of Eight pound p[r] Ann[m] cum more to his Aforesaid Sallary untill our Said Hon[ble] Masters pleasure be further Known therein. Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden

Island

Smith was imprisoned until this day, and on being examined denied the offence, but at last confessed that he, with John Merrett, had drawn out a bottle of arrack.

Merrett was called and denied he had any hand in drawing the arrack.

William Gore said that Merrett had been lying with him under the wooden horse, and Smith had come up with a bottle of arrack and given them a dram. Whether Merrett went with Smith afterwards he could not say.

It was ordered that Smith be tied at the flagstaff, and receive one lash on his naked body from every soldier belonging to the guard on which Smith did duty, which was twenty two, with a severe admonition for the future.

John Coles and Repim Wills, free planters, complained against John Mudge, a black, for telling a gross lie about them.

The slave said he was drunk when he had said it.

It was ordered that he be severely whipped, which was done accordingly.

William Scotton, sworn, said he had bought punch and other drinks of the following persons: John Robinson, punch and arrack; Richard Alexander, wine; Nathaniel Collins, arrack; Arthur Bradley [...].

Mr Bazett humbly asked the council to consider the long service he had done the Honourable Masters at their stores, and to allow him an additional salary, saying he could not serve for thirty two pounds a year. He left the matter to the Governor and Council's consideration.

Considering the long service Bazett had performed, and the twelfth paragraph of the general letter brought by the Rochester, in which it was ordered that he be encouraged as the council thought fit and as he should be found deserving, it was ordered that Bazett be allowed an additional eight pounds a year on top of his salary, until the Honourable Masters' further pleasure should be known.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Interpretations

The Smith punishment shows the council adopting a graded form of corporal sentence that gave each member of his guard a direct role in administering the penalty. Twenty two lashes, one from each soldier on his own guard, produced a punishment that was substantial in its cumulative weight but socially evenly distributed among the men Smith had served with. The arrangement converted the discipline into a collective act of the guard, with no single comrade asked to inflict more than a single stroke. The structure was probably designed both to spread the moral burden of the punishment and to make Smith's offence visible to the very company whose stock of arrack he had broached.

The contrast between Smith's twenty two lashes and the severe whipping ordered for John Mudge, the slave who had told a gross lie about two free planters, reveals the gulf in penal treatment between a soldier and a slave on the island. Smith, who had committed an actual theft of Company property, received a structured punishment with a numerical cap and an explicit admonition. Mudge, whose offence was words spoken while drunk, was sentenced simply to be severely whipped, with no number given and no further procedure recorded. The lack of any numerical limit in the slave's case, where the discipline was both immediate and uncapped, illustrates how the legal protection of process and proportion operated unevenly across the categories of person on the island.

The salary increase for Bazett, framed as an exercise of the discretion granted by the directors in the twelfth paragraph of the general letter, shows the council using its authority over local pay to reward a long-serving officer at the storehouse. The decision was carefully tied to a documented instruction from London, with the conditional formula until our Honourable Masters' further pleasure be known reserving final authority to the directors. The arrangement gave Bazett an immediate raise of eight pounds a year on a base of thirty two, a quarter increase that recognised his work without committing the Company permanently.

Speculations

The decision to identify Edward Smith as the broacher of the arrack cask by all probability, and to act on his eventual confession after he had at first denied it, points to an investigative practice in which suspicion based on circumstantial evidence was tested by interrogation. Smith's initial denial gave way to a partial admission, naming Merrett as an accomplice, which Merrett in turn denied. The council's choice to punish only Smith reflects an evidential standard under which the principal's confession sufficed for action against him, but the further accomplice required independent corroboration that was not forthcoming from Gore.

Bazett's request, framed as an inability to serve for thirty two pounds a year and accompanied by reference to his long service, is the kind of plea that a long-tenured officer might calculate would succeed under a new administration anxious to reward continuity. The council's willingness to grant an immediate raise without referring the question wholly to London suggests that the new Governor saw the storekeeper's role as central to the documentary discipline he was building, and that retaining a man with detailed knowledge of stock arrangements was worth a quick concession. The reference to the directors' general letter gave the increase a documentary basis that protected the council from any later challenge by the directors themselves.

117

109

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation held on, Tuenday the. 20th day of Janruary 1707/8 Att Fort James.

Pres[t] Thomas Goodwin Governocur Edward Mashborne Dep[ty] Govern[r] William Marsden. 3[r] on Councell:

John Clavering made Complaint that Robert Angus Souldier the Armourer of the Ship Northumberland, Named William Whitchurch, and three others of the said Ships Company, came into the said Clavering house, and Called for. 4. bowles of pcuncl[h], and Demandeng paymen[t] the said Angus threw down two Dollars, which the said Clavering takeing up, and Lookeing upon them, thought they were not good, and, thereupon Called to M[r] Gurling and Shewed him the Two Dollars, who said they were not good and that I was Cheated.

The said Angues said that after they had Drank the four bowles of pcunch the Armourer threw down one of the Dollars, and Isaack Oliver the other Dollar, which he the said Angues took up, and gave the said Clavering, who found they were not good, which he for his part was Ignorant of.

The Armourer Says he had the Said two Dollars of the Armourer of the Jane, and being further Examined about makeing Dollars himself Said, that he has tryed to Cast Dollars, but Never Could bring it to any per= fection.

It is Ordered:

That the said Armourer the[r] Cap[tn]. Dickinson being present be Ime= deately Sent on board, and punnished, as the said Cap[t]n think fitt, And his Mould[r] taken from him, and that Clavering be paied Two Dollars in Leiu of those bad, and Councell charges. Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation, held on, Tuesday the. 27th day of Janruary 1707/8 Att Fort James.

Pres[t] Thomas Goodwin, Governour Edward Mashborne Depcuty Govern[r] William Marsden. 3[r] on Councell.

Repim Wells was Sumoned to Answer for Selling of Peunch, with out a Licence but having no proofs, beseles what William French and Thomas French.

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 20 January 1708 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

John Clavering complained that Robert Angus, soldier, with the armourer of the ship Northumberland, named William Whitchurch, and three others of that ship's company, had come into his house and called for four bowls of punch. When payment was demanded, Angus threw down two dollars. Clavering picked them up, looked at them, and thought they were not good. He called to Mr Gurling and showed him the two coins, and Gurling said they were not good and that Clavering had been cheated.

Angus said that after the four bowls of punch had been drunk, the armourer had thrown down one of the dollars, and Isaac Oliver the other. Angus had taken them up and given them to Clavering, who found them not good. Of this himself, Angus had been ignorant.

The armourer said he had received the two dollars from the armourer of the Jane. On further examination about making dollars himself, he admitted that he had tried to cast dollars, but had never been able to bring the work to any perfection.

It was ordered that the armourer be sent on board immediately, Captain Dickinson being present, and punished as the captain thought fit. His mould was to be taken from him. Clavering was to be paid two dollars in lieu of the bad ones, with council charges.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 27 January 1708 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

Repim Wills was summoned to answer for selling punch without a licence. There being no proof beyond what William French and Thomas French [...]

Interpretations

The counterfeit dollar case shows how the council handled an offence that touched both the visiting fleet and the local economy. The armourer Whitchurch had passed two bad dollars in payment for punch, and on examination admitted to having attempted to cast dollars himself, though without success. The combination of passing forged coin and acknowledged experiments in the production of counterfeit money raised the offence well beyond a tavern dispute. The council's decision to send him on board to be punished as Captain Dickinson thought fit reflected the principle that disciplinary jurisdiction over a ship's man lay primarily with his commander, while the seizure of the mould addressed the wider monetary threat. The compensation to Clavering closed the immediate loss.

The order that the armourer's mould be taken from him is the operative public measure. Punishment by his captain was an internal shipboard matter, but the removal of the mould protected the island and the wider trading network from future counterfeits by that hand. By acting at the level of the tool rather than the person, the council removed the means of repetition even though the actor remained within the masters' jurisdiction. The arrangement balances respect for shipboard authority with practical protection of the currency.

The Repim Wills summons opens what would become a sustained sequence of cases brought under the licensing regime. The reliance on the two Frenchs as witnesses points to the same chain of evidence used at the previous consultation, and the apparent shortage of proof beyond their testimony reveals the practical limits of the council's reach. Unlicensed retailing of spirits could be widely known and yet hard to prosecute without independent witnesses willing to swear to specific transactions. The truncation of the entry at the moment the evidentiary problem is identified shows the council reaching a procedural impasse in this particular case.

Speculations

The armourer's admission that he had tried but never perfected the casting of dollars is the kind of half-confession that a man under examination might offer in the hope that an acknowledgment of incompetence would soften the suspicion of intent. By admitting to experimentation while denying success, Whitchurch could explain the presence of a mould among his belongings without confessing to having produced the bad coins he was caught passing. The council's response, to seize the mould and leave the further discipline to the captain, suggests a recognition that whatever the actual provenance of these particular dollars, the man was equipped and disposed to produce more if left in possession of his tools.

The choice to compensate Clavering directly from the council's authority, rather than recover from the armourer's wages or from the ship, reflects a practical decision to settle the local loss without entangling the matter with shipboard accounts. A planter who had taken bad coin in payment for an evening's hospitality could be made whole at once, while the burden of recovery from the actual offender was left as a matter between the captain and his armourer. The simplicity of the remedy for the islander would have reinforced the message that bringing counterfeit money ashore would not be allowed to fall on those who innocently received it.

118

110

French has Sworn to, who being not Possitive the said Wells Sold any Punch and beleiving we may have better Evidence.

It is Ordered:

That the said Wells be dismifst till Next Councill Day.

Richard Alexander was Summoned to Answer for Selling Punch &c[a] without a Licence, the said Alexander Appeared and Denyed the Infor= mation.

William Scotton Sworn Saith he bought Arrack and Wine of the said Alexander, and William French made Oath before his Departcure he had bought Wine of the said Alexander.

It is Ordered:

That the said Alexander be foned the Sum of Forty Shellings One halfe to the Company the other to the Informer.

John Robinson, was Sumoned for Retayleng Punch with out a Licence, who appeared and Denyed the Information.

But being made proofe of, by William Scotton, and John Leumber, who went off in the Northumberland.

It is Ordered:

That the said John Robinson be foned the Sum of Forty Shellings for Retayleng Punch as aforesaid without a Licente.

Sutton Isaack Junior was allso Sumonoed for Retagleng punch without a Licence, who Appeared and Denyed the Information, But haveing taken John Leumbers Oath before he went off, in the aforesaid Ship, besedes the said Isaack Confessong that if he had, had good Scwering he Should have made the said Leumber a bowl of pcunch.

Wherefore It is Ordered:

That the said Sutton Isaack be foned Forty Shellings for Selling of Punch as aforesaid without a Licence.

And for Saying he had not Justice done him in the Tryall between him and Arnn Gurling (at which time the present Governour was on Councell) besedes other Disrespectfull words, the said Isaack be foned the Sum of Ten Shillings Towards Fortifications.

Nathaniell Collins Confessed his Selling Strong Lequor with out a Licence for which he is foned Forty Shellings.

Walter Belward was Summoned to appear this day for Selling Strong Drink without a Licence who accordingly did, and Denyed the Information and haveing not Sufficient Eredence against him.

It

Wills having no proof against him beyond what William French and Thomas French had sworn, neither of whom was positive that Wills had sold any punch, and the council believing better evidence might be had, it was ordered that Wills be dismissed until the next council day.

Richard Alexander was summoned to answer for selling punch and other drinks without a licence. Alexander appeared and denied the charge.

William Scotton, sworn, said he had bought arrack and wine of Alexander, and William French had made oath before his departure that he had bought wine of Alexander.

It was ordered that Alexander be fined £2 0s 0d, half to the Company and half to the informer.

John Robinson was summoned for retailing punch without a licence. He appeared and denied the charge. Proof being given by William Scotton and John Lumber, who had since departed on the Northumberland, it was ordered that Robinson be fined £2 0s 0d for retailing punch without a licence.

Sutton Isaac junior was likewise summoned for retailing punch without a licence. He appeared and denied the charge. Lumber's oath, taken before he departed in the same ship, was on the record, and Isaac himself admitted that if he had had good souring he would have made Lumber a bowl of punch.

It was therefore ordered that Sutton Isaac be fined £2 0s 0d for selling punch without a licence as stated.

For saying that he had not been done justice in the trial between him and Ann Gurling, at which Goodwin had then been on the council, with other disrespectful words, Isaac was further fined ten shillings towards the fortifications.

Nathaniel Collins confessed to selling strong liquor without a licence, for which he was fined £2 0s 0d.

Walter Belvard was summoned to appear this day for selling strong drink without a licence. He appeared, denied the charge, and there being no sufficient evidence against him, it was [...]

Interpretations

The systematic working through of the licensing offences shows the council operating a tariff approach in which the standard penalty for a confirmed unlicensed sale was forty shillings. The fines against Alexander, Robinson, Sutton Isaac and Collins all landed at the same figure, with the only variations being the half-share to the informer in Alexander's case and the supplementary fine on Isaac for disrespectful words. The uniformity of the rate gave the licensing regime the appearance of a properly administered revenue measure rather than an arbitrary disciplinary exercise, and would have made the cost of unlicensed retailing predictable to any planter contemplating the practice.

The use of depositions taken before the witnesses departed on the Northumberland deserves particular notice. William French, Thomas French and John Lumber had all left the island in the fleet that sailed early in the year, yet their sworn statements continued to do evidentiary work in the licensing cases. The council had clearly anticipated their departure by taking their oaths in writing while they were still available, which preserved the evidence in admissible form for later prosecutions. The procedure converted oral testimony into a documentary asset that could be deployed after the witnesses were on the far side of the world.

Sutton Isaac's additional fine of ten shillings for disrespectful words about the earlier Gurling trial illustrates a particular sensitivity in the new Governor's bench. Goodwin had been a council member at that earlier hearing, and any suggestion that justice had not been done there reflected on him personally. The decision to add a supplementary penalty rather than fold the punishment into a single sum kept the two offences distinct on the record, and signalled that questioning the integrity of past council decisions carried its own price independent of the licensing infraction.

Speculations

The dismissal of the Wills case to a future council day, on the basis that the two French depositions had been less than positive about a specific sale, suggests that the council was prepared to defer rather than fail on insufficient evidence. The hope of obtaining better evidence reflects an expectation that further witnesses might come forward, or that Wills's continued operation would generate fresh information that could support a future prosecution. By keeping the case open rather than acquitting outright, the council preserved the threat of future action while declining to convict on inadequate proof.

Sutton Isaac's admission that he would have made Lumber a bowl of punch had he had good souring is a candid acknowledgement that he was prepared to retail the drink, which the council took as effectively a confession to the practice. The remark suggests a culture in which planters did not regard the unlicensed sale of punch as a serious offence, and were willing to discuss the activity openly even when summoned to answer for it. The decision to convict on the basis of that admission, supplemented by Lumber's prior oath, indicates that the council was prepared to treat such candid talk as good enough for a fine even where direct proof of a particular sale was lacking.

119

111

It is Ordered:

That the said Belvard be Summoned against this day Fortnight, and for good Evidence Serjeant Cason, James Easthope, and Joseph Trapp.

And It is Ordered:

That William Marsh, upon his Confefsion of Selling punch without a Licence be foned the Sum of Forty Shellings.

Whereas a Negroe Called free Jack, according to a Consultation held the. 6. day of Janruary 170[4]. Was to Serve Edward Heath four yeares to Make the said Heath Sattisfaction for a Negroe of his that was Executed for that he Together with the said Free Jack had broaken open Severall houses, and that his said time being Expired a year Since it was thought fitt by the Governour to Sumon[s] the said Jack to appear this day, and upon Consideration of the Right Hon[ble] United Company Late orders in their Letters to us Dated at London the. 30th November. 1704. the. 28[th] Paragraph. and the. 14th December. 1705. The. 8th. Paragraph We have thought fitt

And Ordered:

That the said Free Jack do Serve the said Hon[ble] Company att their Forte= fications on the Said Ifsland, the Term of Three years from the day of the Date hereof for only Cloaths, Victualls, and Such other Encouragement (he being a Mason) as the Governour for the time being Shall think fitt.

Matthew Bazett and James Draper Executors of the Last Well and Testament of Samuell Des Fontaines free planter Deceased, brought the Said Well this day to Governour and Councell In order of haveing the Same proved which was accordingly done by the Oaths of George Stalisser, Simon Whaley, and William Coales free planters who made Oath that the said Well now Produced was the Last Well and Testament of the Said Deceased Samuell Des Fontaines, and that they know of no other by him made Either in word or Writeing.

It is Ordered:

That the said Deceased Samuell Des Fontaines Last Well and Testa= ment now produced be Received and approved of, and Coppys given when Demanded.

Likewise the Executors were Sworn to make a true Inventory of the said Deceaseds Estate, and Execute the Duty of Executors, according to the best of theer Judgment.

Also the Wedow Fontaines was Sworne to Deliver Every Indeveduall thing to the Executors in order of being Appraised.

George

Margin Notes: Que[r]

It was ordered that Belvard be summoned again on this day fortnight, and that for good evidence Sergeant Cason, James Easthope and Joseph Trapp be called.

It was ordered that William Marsh, on his confession of selling punch without a licence, be fined £2 0s 0d.

A slave called Free Jack, by a consultation held on 6 January 1704, had been required to serve Edward Heath for four years to give Heath satisfaction for a slave of his that had been executed, because that slave, together with Free Jack, had broken open several houses. Free Jack's time having now been expired a year, Goodwin thought fit to summon him to appear this day. On consideration of the United Company's recent orders in their letters of 30 November 1704, paragraph 28, and of 14 December 1705, paragraph 8, the council thought fit, and ordered, that Free Jack serve the Honourable Company at their fortifications on the island for three years from this date, for nothing but his clothes, victuals, and such other encouragement, being a mason, as the Governor for the time being should think fit.

Matthew Bazett and James Draper, executors of the last will and testament of Samuel Desfontaines, free planter, deceased, brought the will this day to the Governor and Council to have it proved. It was duly proved by the oaths of George Stalisser, Simon Whaley and William Coales, free planters, who swore that the will now produced was the last will and testament of the deceased Samuel Desfontaines, and that they knew of no other made by him in writing or by word.

It was ordered that the deceased's last will and testament now produced be received and approved, and that copies be given on demand.

The executors were sworn to make a true inventory of the estate and to execute the duty of executors to the best of their judgment.

The widow Desfontaines was sworn to deliver every individual item to the executors in order of being appraised.

George [...]

Margin note: query.

Interpretations

The disposition of Free Jack reveals the layered character of slave status on the island. The man was already a slave in the ordinary sense, but had been bound for four further years to Heath in 1704 as a form of restitution for the loss of Heath's own slave, who had been executed for the joint house-breaking. With that additional term now expired by a year, the council was choosing what to do with him next. The decision to assign him for three further years to the Company's fortifications, for nothing but his keep and such encouragement as the Governor might allow on account of his being a mason, treats him as a labour resource whose disposal was at the council's discretion long after his original sentence had ended. The reference to specific paragraphs of two general letters from London grounded the decision in directors' instructions, which insulated the council from local objection.

The grant of an unspecified encouragement to Free Jack on account of his being a mason hints at the differentiated treatment of slaves with valuable skills. A mason could not simply be set to ordinary fortification labour without losing the benefit of his trade, and the council's recognition that some material reward beyond mere maintenance might be due opens a small window onto the half-formed category of skilled slave labour. The Governor was given discretion to set the encouragement, which preserved flexibility while signalling that the man's craft would not be ignored.

The Desfontaines probate completes another in the series of probates that punctuate these consultations. The same procedural form is followed throughout the year, with executors producing the will, free planters swearing to its authenticity, the council receiving and approving it, the executors being sworn to make an inventory, and the widow being sworn to deliver every item for appraisal. The repetition of the pattern across the Duston, Purling, Poirier and now Desfontaines estates illustrates how thoroughly the council had embedded English probate practice as the routine handling of death on the island.

Speculations

The decision to assign Free Jack to the Company's fortifications, rather than to leave him to seek his own employment or to return to Heath, points to an administrative logic by which a slave who had once served a punishment retained an institutional connection to public labour. The council's willingness to extend his service for a further three years on minimal terms, citing directors' paragraphs as authority, reflected the new administration's preoccupation with maintaining a stock of forced labour for the works programme. A trained mason already known to the authorities was a more attractive resource than an unknown new acquisition would have been.

The note query in the margin at the end of the entry indicates an open question that the council itself recognised in its handling of Free Jack. Whether the question concerned the legal basis for extending his service, the rate at which his work should be valued, or the proper construction of the cited paragraphs from London, the marginal note shows that the clerk or one of the councillors saw the matter as one requiring further resolution. The willingness to record uncertainty on the face of the record reflects the new administration's documentary habits, in which problems were noted for later attention rather than glossed over in the formal text.

120

112

George Dwight desered to hire a parcell of the Hon[ble] Companys WasteLand, Lying at the upper End of his Own Land Next Henry Coals.

It is Ordered:

That the said George Dwights Request be granted and that the Same be Measured accordingly. Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden

Island St Helena

At a Consultation, held on, Tuesday the. 10th day of February. 1707/8 Att. Fort James.

Pres[t] Thomas Goodwin, Governour Edward Mashborne Dep[ty] Govern[r] William Marrsden. 3[r] on Councill.

Whereas Thomas Cason Serjeant made Complaint that James Greentree free planter Trespassed upon his Inclosed pasture and for not Sending Sufficeent Drivers after his Cattle according to the Law made by the Countrey in that Case, Upon which the said Greentree was Summoned and appeared accordingly and Denys the said Casons Complaint Saying he has Neether Gates nor Barrs and therefore Inforrs the said Cason has no Cause of Complaint and that One driver is Sufficeent Since there is no Barrs and Gates to Shutt and put up.

But the Law Speccifoying otherwise and Robert Addis Evedencieng that the said Greentrees Cattle has Trespassing upon the said Casons Land.

It is Ordered:

That the said James Greentree keep two Sufficeent drivers after his Cattle through the said Casons Pasture for the feeture according to said Law, and pay Charges of Councell.

William Beale free planter made Complaint against John Clavering Gunners Mate for that he has beielt a Smale Shed or Back Room and Joeyned the Same to the Said Beals house Wall, and Refeses Payment for the Party Wall.

The said Clavering appeared and Says he is not prepared to Defend

George Dwight asked to hire a parcel of the Honourable Company's waste land lying at the upper end of his own land, next to Henry Coale's.

It was ordered that Dwight's request be granted, and the parcel be measured accordingly.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 10 February 1708 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

Thomas Cason, sergeant, complained that James Greentree, free planter, had trespassed on his enclosed pasture, and had failed to send sufficient drivers after his cattle, as the law made by the country in that case required. Greentree was summoned and appeared. He denied the complaint, saying that Cason had neither gates nor bars, and that therefore Cason had no cause of complaint, and that one driver was enough where there were no bars and gates to shut and open.

The law providing otherwise, and Robert Addis giving evidence that Greentree's cattle had trespassed on Cason's land, it was ordered that Greentree keep two sufficient drivers after his cattle through Cason's pasture in future as the law required, and pay the council charges.

William Beale, free planter, complained against John Clavering, gunner's mate, that Clavering had built a small shed or back room and joined it to Beale's house wall, and refused payment for the party wall.

Clavering appeared and said he was not prepared to defend [...]

Interpretations

The Greentree cattle order shows the council enforcing what is described as a law made by the country, that is, a rule formally adopted by the assembly of free planters and now applied by the council as binding on individual landholders. The defence that Cason's pasture lacked gates and bars, and that one driver should therefore suffice, was rejected on the ground that the law specified the number of drivers required regardless of the particular features of the boundary. The case illustrates how the council enforced rules of general application even where the defendant offered plausible practical objections to their specific application, since the predictability of the rule mattered more than its fit to the individual case.

The Beale and Clavering case opens a new instance of the party wall question that had appeared in the Mudge and Purling dispute earlier in the year. A back room or shed built against a neighbour's wall raised the same issue of who should pay for the shared boundary, and the defendant's response that he was not prepared to defend himself indicates that he expected the matter would proceed to a future sitting with evidence on both sides. The truncation of the entry at the moment of Clavering's answer reflects the council's habit of recording proceedings as they unfolded, with disposition to follow in due course.

Speculations

The choice to apply the country law strictly against Greentree, requiring two drivers regardless of the actual configuration of Cason's boundary, points to a deliberate adoption of clear rules at the expense of judicial flexibility. A regime in which the number of required drivers depended on whether the receiving land had gates would have produced endless disputes about what counted as a sufficient enclosure. By treating the two-driver rule as fixed, the council made the obligation predictable and removed any incentive to argue about the adequacy of fencing as a defence to a trespass complaint.

Clavering's request for time to prepare his defence, like Knight's earlier in the year, indicates that local litigants had learned the value of the delay procedure introduced by the new administration. Time to prepare allowed witnesses to be assembled and arguments to be marshalled, and produced better records than would have resulted from instant disposition. Even the most modest party wall dispute now generated the procedural delays of a formal hearing, which both improved the quality of the record and gave each side the chance to test the other's case before judgment.

121

113

Defend, and prove the Contract he made with the said Beale, having not his Evidences yet Sumonned

Wherefore It is Ordered:

That the said Clavering Evidences, and all partys Conserned herein be Sumonned against Next Councell day in order of being then Determined.

John Coles free planter desered we would be pleased to grant him Leave and Liberty to hire a parcell of the Hon[ble] Companys Wasteland Lying between his Called free Land, and Geunwood Land.

It is Ordered:

That the said John Coles request be granted, and the said Land Meisured Accordingly.

Whereas in a Consultation held the. 27th January Last it was ordered that Walter Belvard be Sumonned again, as allso James Easthope Joseph Trapp, and Thomas Cason as Evidences against him for haveing been Complained of for Selleng Peunch without a Licence, but the Evidences aforesaid beeing Examined Sayd they Drank part of Severall Bowls of Peunch at the said Belvards house, but did not, nor is to pay for any he giveing it them out of good will and Neighbocurly Seemdness.

Whereupon It is Ordered:

That the said Belvard be dismist having no proofe against him. Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden

February the. 13th. 1707/8.

M[r] Griffith Came this day and presented a Petition to the Governour against Gabriell Powell Free Planter wherein desires that the said Gabriell Powell may be Summoned to make his Personall appearance, and accordingly bound over to the Peace of our Soveraign Lady the Queen in a bond of One heundred Pound for the said Powells good Beha= =vocur towards him the said M[r] Griffith, and Needfull preservation of both himself and Goods, and the peace of his Family, to which made Oath, And thereupon a Warrant was Issued out for the said Powells appearance before the Governour this day In order of Giveing Sufficeent Security according to the Said Griffiths Desire.

Accordeingly the said Gabriell Powell with his Suretys appeared and gave the following Security. Know

Clavering said he was not yet prepared to defend himself or to prove the contract he had made with Beale, his witnesses not having been summoned.

It was ordered that Clavering's witnesses, and all parties concerned, be summoned for the next council day, so that the matter could then be determined.

John Coles, free planter, asked the council to grant him leave and liberty to hire a parcel of the Honourable Company's waste land lying between his free land and the gumwood land.

It was ordered that Coles's request be granted, and the parcel measured accordingly.

In the consultation of 27 January, Walter Belvard had been ordered to be summoned again, with James Easthope, Joseph Trapp and Thomas Cason as witnesses against him, on a complaint that he had been selling punch without a licence. The witnesses, on examination, said they had drunk part of several bowls of punch at Belvard's house, but neither had paid nor were expected to pay for any, since he had given it freely out of goodwill and neighbourly kindness.

It was ordered that Belvard be dismissed, there being no proof against him.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

13 February 1708.

Mr Griffith came this day and presented a petition to Goodwin against Gabriel Powell, free planter. He asked that Powell be summoned to make his personal appearance and to be bound over to keep the peace of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, in a bond of one hundred pounds, for Powell's good behaviour towards Griffith and for the necessary preservation of himself, his goods and the peace of his family. He took oath to that effect. A warrant was thereupon issued for Powell's appearance before Goodwin this day, with a view to his giving sufficient security as Griffith desired.

Powell with his sureties appeared accordingly and gave the following security.

[...]

Interpretations

The Belvard dismissal illustrates the working of the licensing rule against the social custom of free hospitality. The three witnesses called by the prosecution had drunk punch at Belvard's house but neither paid nor expected to pay, since he had offered it as a neighbour. On that evidence the council found no sale, and the case fell without further inquiry. The procedural form was important. Belvard had been summoned, witnesses had been examined under the established procedure, and the evidence had been recorded. The result preserved the integrity of the licensing regime by enforcing the distinction between paid retail and free hospitality, even where the same physical activity, the supply of punch to visitors, lay behind both.

The Griffith petition against Powell shows Griffith now using the council's procedure as a complainant rather than as a defendant. Having earlier in the autumn been bound over to keep the peace at the instance of Carne and others, he was now invoking the same procedure against another inhabitant. The contrast with his September protest is striking, since the man who had then framed binding over as persecution was now seeking the same remedy at one hundred pounds against Powell. The shift demonstrates how readily the apparatus of recognisance and surety could be turned to private use by anyone willing to take the necessary oath.

The bond amount of one hundred pounds is also significant. The standard recognisance imposed by the council in earlier cases had run to ten pounds, with sureties for an equal sum. By framing his petition at a hundred pounds, Griffith pitched the dispute as one calling for an exceptional level of security, equal to ten times the routine amount. The Governor's willingness to issue a warrant at that level, on the strength of Griffith's sworn affidavit, indicates that the council was prepared to treat the matter with the seriousness Griffith assigned to it, perhaps because the underlying enmity between Griffith and Powell had now been in evidence over several months.

Speculations

The decision to dismiss Belvard for want of proof, despite his having a history of complaint and counter-complaint with other residents, suggests that the council was prepared to apply the same evidential standard to him as to anyone else. A man with whom the council had a long acquaintance might have been expected to be treated with greater scepticism on a licensing charge, but the willingness of three witnesses to swear that the punch had been offered freely was treated as decisive. The episode reveals the consistency the new administration sought to impose on its proceedings, even at the cost of letting suspected unlicensed sellers go.

Griffith's choice to invoke the binding over procedure against Powell, after his own bitter experience of being bound over himself, points to a man who had absorbed the procedural lessons of his autumn confrontation and was now applying them to his own advantage. By framing the threat from Powell as one requiring the preservation of his goods and the peace of his family, in addition to his own person, Griffith ensured that the bond would cover the widest possible range of contingencies. The deliberate breadth of the language indicates a litigant working to maximise the protective scope of any order the council might make.

122

114

KNOW all Men by these presents that wee Richard Swallow and Richard Gurling free planters do hereby Enter into a Recognizance of One Heundred poynd in good and Lawfull Money of said Ifsland, payable to the Right Hon[r]ble English East India Company. That Gabriell P[ow]ell of the said Ifsland free planter Shall be of the good behaviour, and Keep the Peace of our Sovereign Lady, Queen Ann, Especially towards Daniell Griffith free planter, and alfs all her Majestys Leedge People, and Lekewise for the Personall Appearance of the Said Powell before Governour and Councell when thereunto Called. In Wittness whereof we have hereunto Sett our hands this. 13th. day of Februar[t] 1708.

Wittnefsed p[r] John Alexander Rich[d] Swallow Thomas French Richard Gurling

Island St Helena

To the Worshipfull the Governour and Council

The Humble Petetion of Daniell Griffeth Inhabetant of the said Ifsland.

Sheweth.

That Gabriell Powell Free Planter of the said Ifsland, and Son in Law of James Reder Late of the said Ifsland deceasd, being a person well Known To be of a Veolent and Dangerouse Tempor, Haveing a Naturall Bent to Cruelty, and bearing an Inveterat Greudge, and Implacable Hatred, to the Famely of the Said M[r] Reder, who for his Undutefulness, and Cruelty of his Nature, and the Injuryes he Received from him in his Life time, Cut him, and his Wefe wholy of from any part, or Share in his Estate, Leas[t] he should any ways prove Troublesome, or a further Greif to his Wedow.

That upon your Peteti[o]ner Marrying the said Wedow, the aforesaid Gabriell Powell without the Least Caefse or provocation or Shedow of Offence did publickly declare, and Confedently Sent to your Petetioner that he would beat him, with other Threatning Words and Scurrelous Language, That Soon after to bring his words and Threats to Effect the said Gabriell Powell did Lye in waeit for to Main Wound or Kell y[r] Petetioner In a by place neer the High way, and with Veolence Attempted to assault him had he not been Repels[ed]. But Notwithstandeing this your Petetioner being more Inclined to Charety, Than Revenge or Resentment, was willing to pass it by. Hopeing by, Candied and Gentle Usage to Reclaim him from his former Veolencys and Injurious Ways with

The recognisance read as follows. Richard Swallow and Richard Gurling, free planters, hereby entered into a recognisance of one hundred pounds in good and lawful money of the island, payable to the Honourable English East India Company. Gabriel Powell of the island, free planter, was to be of good behaviour and keep the peace of our Sovereign Lady Queen Anne, especially towards Daniell Griffith, free planter, and towards all Her Majesty's liege people, and was to make personal appearance before the Governor and Council when called. In witness whereof they set their hands on 13 February 1708.

Witnessed by John Alexander and Thomas French.

Richard Swallow. Richard Gurling.

Island of St Helena

To the Worshipful the Governor and Council.

The humble petition of Daniell Griffith, inhabitant of the island, showed the following.

Gabriel Powell, free planter of the island and son in law of James Reder, late of the island deceased, was a person well known to be of a violent and dangerous temper, with a natural bent to cruelty. He bore an inveterate grudge and implacable hatred towards the family of Mr Reder, who, on account of Powell's undutifulness and cruel nature, and of the injuries Reder had received from him in his lifetime, had cut Powell and his wife wholly off from any part or share in his estate, lest Powell should prove troublesome, or a further grief to Reder's widow.

When Griffith married the widow, Powell, without the least cause or provocation or shadow of offence, did publicly declare, and confidently sent word to Griffith, that he would beat him, with other threatening words and scurrilous language. Soon after, to bring his words and threats into effect, Powell lay in wait to maim, wound or kill Griffith in a by place near the highway, and with violence attempted to assault him, had he not been repelled. Griffith, being more inclined to charity than to revenge or resentment, was willing to pass the matter by, hoping by candid and gentle usage to reclaim Powell from his former violence and injurious ways.

[...]

Interpretations

The recognisance against Powell follows the now familiar form, with two free planters of substance, Richard Swallow and Richard Gurling, taking on the joint financial risk of his future conduct. The bond at one hundred pounds, ten times the standard ten pound recognisance used in routine cases, marks the seriousness with which the council had treated Griffith's sworn complaint. By identifying Griffith specifically alongside the general category of Her Majesty's liege people, the bond gave the named complainant a particular interest in enforcement, and made any incident between Powell and Griffith a potential trigger for forfeiture.

The petition by Griffith opens a new dimension to the long-running quarrels between island residents by introducing the family history that lay behind the dispute. Powell was the son in law of James Reder, the late predecessor of Griffith in the marriage to a widow whose estate had passed through complex hands. The detail that Reder had cut Powell and his wife wholly off from any share in his estate, on account of Powell's undutiful behaviour during Reder's lifetime, places the present hostility in a longer history of family resentment. Griffith's marriage to Reder's widow had brought him into a position that Powell would always have regarded as an obstacle to any future claim, which gave a structural foundation to the personal threats Griffith now described.

The narrative form of the petition, with its careful framing of Griffith as the moderate party hoping for reconciliation, follows the standard literary shape of an English binding-over petition. The petitioner records his own restraint, the absence of provocation on his part, the specificity of the threats received, and the danger to which he remains exposed, in language designed to make the case for protection by the court irresistible. The text shows Griffith deploying the formal register of metropolitan legal complaint with greater control than his September protest had displayed.

Speculations

Griffith's choice of Richard Swallow as a member of his network of social contacts, useful here for context though Swallow appears as Powell's surety rather than Griffith's, points to the small pool of substantial planters whose financial commitments criss-crossed every faction in the settlement. A man could stand surety for Powell one week and be opposed to Griffith the next, with no obvious sense of inconsistency, since standing surety was treated as a routine social obligation rather than a partisan act. The bonds did not signal alignment but availability.

The detail that Powell had lain in wait near a highway to attack Griffith would have been particularly damaging in a small settlement where the highways were few and the by places near them well known. By placing the alleged ambush at a specific kind of location, Griffith gave the council a setting that would have been recognisable to anyone who knew the country between the Fort and the planters' grounds. The specificity made the charge harder to dismiss as general complaint, since it implied a concrete fact pattern that witnesses could in principle have spoken to had the council pursued further inquiry.

123

115

with no other prospect, or Design then a Friendly End of Differences, and to Renconcile and Establish him, and his Wefe in their Mothers Favour[d] which they had So often and So Justly Forfeited. To which End and purpose your Petetioner of his own Impulfe from a Princeple of True Love and Charety did Employ his Endeavours, and Interpose with their Mother, who Friendly and Kindely, Receved and Entertained them for the Space of Negh Two Years; But the Said Powell Forgetting the Laws of Nature (for Humanity and Civill Curtesye are a Debt due to Nature) And the Reverence to So Tender and Indulgent a Mother, Soon Sought all Occasions To Affront and Abuse his said Mother your Petetioners Wefe in her Own house, often Reproaching her with her former Heusbands Act, In cuting off his Wefe, not Doubteing but that he was burnong in Hell for it, And has Wished that he might See her Come a begging to her Child for bread, And Soon Left us without the Least Decency or Mannerr; Full Fraught with Envy, and Malice, Spread= =ing all Caleumnye, and Scandall of us, Studying and Inventing all Manner of Injuryes and Ways To Affront us, In So Much that your Petetioner Could not Walk the Streets quietly, for his Insolenceys and Elbeses, Nor his Slaves or any of the Family. Thus haveing for Some Contenuance Exeected his Faceletyes; He grew at Last weary, of his Gall, and with a Seeming Remorse besought a Further Reconceleation, and that his Wefe might be permitted to See her Mother, which was Soon Granted, and She Receved with her Useall Tenderness. That now they becomeing near Neighbours to your Petete= oner in the Room of M[r] Hosficson, your Petetioner and his Wefe glad to See them thrive, and well Settled, went Joyfeully to See them, with all the Tenderness of Civiletye, and good Neighbourhood; But the said Powell Either not Valueing or Conseder[i]ng the Happinefs of a good Neighbour Soon after (According to his wonted Manner) Relapseing to the Same Hell hath publieckely Declared he did not Valeue us, That he Could Live better then us, and what Trouble he would gere us now Calling your Petetioner all Manner of Ill Names; That the Said Powell hath Lately Since he became our Neighbour Threatned our Black on the Ground, and forced him to Mend his Fence, and to Labour for him without your Petetioners Leave, Consent, or Knowledge. That the said Powell hath without your Petetioners Leave, Consent or Knowledge dugg a Trench p[r] his Ground to Carry his Water, and Dugg up above a Heundred yams therewith. That the said Powell hath Long threatned to Sheute his Cettle, and Carryed a Gun for that purpose, and has Shot at Them, which your Petetioner Seeing the Cowy then on Calf Reumnery, and all Desteurbed and Affrighted writ him a Civill Letter to Desest in his Enormityes. Upon Receipt whereof the said Powell Came out of his House Calling your Petetioner, Blockhead and other Scurrelous Names Walkeing in his own Yard. The next day being the Sabbath pasteing by his Door to Cheurch, being a Road way, the said Powell Met him Calling him Lyar, Prodegall Fellow &c[a]. and bid him go off his Ground. Thus Takeing the[u]vantage of your Petetioner under the Restraint he Lyes under at present on purpose to provoke him; That Since how he Called your

Griffith had no other view than a friendly end to the differences, and a wish to reconcile and establish Powell and his wife in their mother's favour, which they had so often and so justly forfeited. To that end Griffith of his own accord, on a principle of true love and charity, applied himself to the task, and interposed with their mother, who in friendly and kindly fashion received and entertained them for nearly two years.

Powell, however, forgot the laws of nature, since humanity and civil courtesy were a debt due to nature, and the reverence owed to so tender and indulgent a mother. He soon sought every occasion to affront and abuse her in her own house, often reproaching her with her former husband's act in cutting off his wife, not doubting that the man was burning in hell for it. He wished that he might see his mother come begging to her child for bread, and soon left the household without the least decency or manners. Full of envy and malice, he spread every kind of calumny and scandal of them, and studied to invent every kind of injury and way to affront them. Griffith could not walk the streets quietly for his insolences and elbows, nor could his slaves or any of the family.

After exercising these talents for a time, Powell at last grew weary of his bitterness, and with a show of remorse begged a fresh reconciliation. He asked that his wife might be permitted to see her mother, which was soon granted, and she was received with the usual tenderness.

The Powells then became near neighbours to Griffith, in the room of Hoskison. Griffith and his wife, glad to see them thriving and well settled, went joyfully to visit them with all the tenderness of civility and good neighbourhood. Powell, either not valuing or not considering the happiness of a good neighbour, soon afterwards relapsed in his usual way to the same hellish behaviour. He publicly declared that he did not value Griffith and his wife, that he could live better than they could, and gave out what trouble he would now give them, calling Griffith every kind of ill name. Since becoming a neighbour, Powell had threatened Griffith's slave on the ground, and had forced him to mend his fence, and to labour for him, without Griffith's leave, consent or knowledge. Powell had also, without leave, consent or knowledge, dug a trench through Griffith's ground to carry his water, and had dug up more than a hundred yams in the process.

Powell had long threatened to shoot Griffith's cattle, and had carried a gun for the purpose, and had fired at them. Griffith, seeing the cow then on calf running and all disturbed and frightened, had written him a civil letter to desist from his enormities. On receipt of the letter Powell came out of his house, walking in his own yard, calling Griffith a blockhead and other scurrilous names. The next day, being the Sabbath, as Griffith was passing by Powell's door on the road to church, Powell met him, calling him liar, prodigal fellow and other names, and bid him go off his ground. Thus Powell took advantage of the restraint Griffith presently lay under, on purpose to provoke him. Since then, Powell had also called [...]

Interpretations

The petition develops a layered family narrative that turns on the inheritance from James Reder. By presenting himself as the peacemaker who had repeatedly interceded with Reder's widow on behalf of her ungrateful son in law, Griffith placed the blame for the breach squarely on Powell's repeated relapses into bad behaviour, while presenting his own conduct as marked by a stable charity. The structure of the account, with reconciliations followed by further offences, is well calculated to suggest that further conciliation is now pointless, and that only the court's protection can secure peace.

The specific acts attributed to Powell move beyond words into substantive interference with Griffith's property and household. Forcing Griffith's slave to work for him without consent, digging a water trench through Griffith's ground and destroying yams in the process, threatening and shooting at Griffith's cattle, all amounted to a series of trespasses and conversions that would have supported civil claims in their own right. By presenting them as evidence of Powell's general violent disposition, the petition built the case for binding over as protective rather than punitive, since damages could not by themselves restrain a determined repeat offender.

The reference to the restraint Griffith presently lay under is a delicate acknowledgment of his own current binding over on the autumn complaint. The petition frames this restraint as creating a particular vulnerability, since Powell could now provoke him with greater impunity, knowing that any forceful response would put Griffith's own sureties at risk. The detail turns Griffith's earlier disgrace into evidence of present danger, and asks the council to recognise that the protections of binding over should run in both directions.

Speculations

The Sabbath confrontation at Powell's door, with Powell calling Griffith a liar and a prodigal fellow as Griffith walked to church, would have struck the council as a deliberate piece of theatre. The choice of timing and setting was calculated to maximise the provocation, since a man walking to divine service on the Sabbath was particularly disinclined to brawl, and a confrontation in the public road bordering on the assailant's own ground put the defendant in the position of either retreating or escalating. The petition draws the council's attention to this particular incident because it neatly illustrates the wider pattern of Powell taking deliberate advantage of Griffith's known constraints.

The motif of the mother's love, with the widow Reder receiving her wayward son in law and his wife back with tenderness on two successive occasions, performs a particular rhetorical function in the petition. By emphasising the indulgence shown to Powell, Griffith positioned himself within a household marked by charity, while Powell stood outside it as the recurrent ingrate. The strategy aligned Griffith with the values the council would have wished to promote, namely family piety and reconciliation, and made Powell appear as the wilful disruptor of a household that had repeatedly extended itself to accommodate him.

124

116

your Petetioner Blockhead. In the Face of the Councell your Worshep and Councell are Sensible. That Since that in the Last Shepping he Came to your Petetioners door, and before Severall people, and Strangers, would force a Descoutrse with him to picek a Quarrell Damning him for a Lyar his Useall Complement.

That when your Worshep and Councell did Honnor us with your presence to Veew the Land, After haveing Endeavoured in Vaen an Acco= =modateon, In Contempt of your Worshep and Councell said he would Loose his Blood, but he would have Some Land I have in possefseion, So that your Petetioner and his Slaves Cannot go in Safty to Seleue or Fence his Ground. His Threats beeing of dangerous Consequende. And now to Conclude all with this one Confermation of his Rancour and Bitterness, And it is worth Remark because of the Time and place, On, the Last Sunday the Minestor preo= =ched in the Countrey the said Powell (To the Shame of Christeanity) Seeing me at the Cheurch door waeting the Minestor Comeing openly Said God Damn him meaning your Petetioner, I would go upon my Knees to the Gallowes to See him hanged, and Immedeately after Enters the Church Joyning with the Congregateon Never Conselent[i]ong what the Psalmist Saith, If I Regard Iniquety, on my heart the Lord well not hear me, with many other Things which were Naufeous, and Infonite to Speake of.

Wherefore the premifses Considered, your Petetioner Deseiring more Redress than punnishment Heumbly prays beeing now under your more Immedeate protection from all Insults and Veolences whatsoever You well please to Ifsue out a Warrant against the said Powell, Comanding to find Suretys for the Peace under the Penalty of One Heindred poeund your Petetioner Takeing the Useall Oath, that it is not for Malice, but the Needfull preservation of his person and Goods, and the Peace of his Family. And yo[r] Petetioner Shall Ever pray &c[a] Febru: 11. 1707/8 Daniell Griffith

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation, held on Tuesday the. 24th day of February 1707/8 Att Fort James.

Pres[t] Thomas Goodwin, Governour Edward Mashborne Dep[ty] Govern[r] William Marrsden. 3[r] on[t] Councell

Whereas in the Consultation held the. 10th Instant, William Beale free planter made Complaint against John Clavering Gunners Mate for that he has built a Back Room, and Joyned the Same to the said Beals House Wall, and Refeses to pay for the Party Wall.

The said Clavering appeared and his Cheif Plea was that he was not

Powell had called Griffith a blockhead in the very face of the council, of which both the Governor and the council were aware. At the last shipping he had come to Griffith's door, and before several people, including strangers, would force a discourse with him to pick a quarrel, damning him for a liar by way of his usual greeting.

When the Governor and Council had honoured Griffith and Powell with their presence to view the land, and an accommodation had been attempted in vain, Powell, in contempt of the bench, had said he would lose his blood but he would have some land that Griffith had in possession. Griffith and his slaves could not now go in safety to see or fence his ground. Powell's threats were of dangerous consequence.

To conclude all with one further confirmation of his rancour and bitterness, and one worth remark because of the time and place, on the last Sunday the minister preached in the country, Powell, to the shame of Christianity, seeing Griffith at the church door waiting for the minister to come up, openly said, God damn him, meaning Griffith, and added that he would go on his knees to the gallows to see him hanged. He then went straight into the church and joined with the congregation, never considering what the Psalmist had said, that if he regarded iniquity in his heart the Lord would not hear him. There were many other things too distasteful and too many to relate.

The premises considered, Griffith, desiring redress more than punishment, humbly prayed that, being now under the council's immediate protection from all insults and violence whatsoever, the council might issue a warrant against Powell, commanding him to find sureties for the peace under the penalty of one hundred pounds. Griffith would take the usual oath that this was not for malice, but for the necessary preservation of his person, his goods, and the peace of his family. He would ever pray.

11 February 1708. Daniell Griffith.

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 24 February 1708 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

In the consultation of 10 February, William Beale, free planter, had complained against John Clavering, gunner's mate, that Clavering had built a back room and joined it to Beale's house wall, and refused to pay for the party wall.

Clavering appeared, and his chief plea was that he had not [...]

Interpretations

The closing passages of Griffith's petition show him drawing the council itself into his narrative as a witness to Powell's behaviour. The reference to Powell calling Griffith a blockhead in the face of the council, and the account of the failed accommodation when the bench had attended the land in person, position the council as having directly observed the conduct now complained of. By citing the council's own experience, Griffith strengthened the credibility of his account without depending solely on outside witnesses, and made it harder for the council to dismiss the case as exaggerated.

The church door incident at the country sermon is the most carefully crafted moment in the petition. By placing Powell's curse and his expressed wish to see Griffith hanged at the church door, on a Sunday, in the moments before divine service, and then having Powell enter the church to join the congregation, Griffith presented an image of religious hypocrisy that the minister Thomlinson, who held precedence at the general table, would have found intolerable. The use of the Psalmist's words about regarding iniquity in the heart converts the political and personal quarrel into a moral failure that any pious reader would recognise.

The closing oath formula, in which Griffith offered to swear that the petition was not made out of malice but for the necessary preservation of his person, goods and family peace, is the standard requirement of an English binding-over application. By stating the formula on the face of the petition, Griffith both demonstrated his familiarity with the procedure and pre-empted any suggestion that he was abusing the court for private ends. The combination of substantive narrative and procedural correctness made the petition technically as well as rhetorically strong.

Speculations

Griffith's emphasis that he desired redress rather than punishment is a deliberate softening of the practical effect of the relief he sought. A hundred pound bond against Powell, together with the threat of forfeiture for any further offence, would have functioned as both a deterrent and a substantial financial constraint on Powell's freedom of action. By framing the request as protective rather than retributive, Griffith aligned himself with the council's preferred view of binding over as a peace-keeping measure rather than a penal one. The strategy was well calculated to elicit a favourable response from a bench that had used the same procedure against Griffith himself only months before.

The repetition of incidents touching the council's own attendance, including the land view and the encounter at the church door which any minister would have to confront, suggests that Griffith was building a record that would be hard to ignore once entered in the books. Each detail offered the council an opportunity to act on its own observations rather than on contested evidence, and the cumulative weight of the narrative would have pressed the council towards intervention even if individual incidents might have seemed slight. By the close of the petition, Griffith had effectively put the council in the position of either acting against Powell or being seen to tolerate behaviour that touched its own dignity.

125

117

not fully prepared to make his Defence, having not his Evidences Sumoned Upon which it was ordered that all partys Concerned Should be Sumoned against this day, who Accordingly were and appeared and being Examined Saith as followeth.

John Nichols free planter being Sworn Saith, he bought the house which now the said Beale pofsefses of one Samuell Taylor, and that he gave one Pen Pedock, who was the Owner of said Claverings house, three or four days work for the party Wall.

The said Clavering Saith that the said Beale gave him Leave and free Leberty to bueld against the said Beals house Wall without any Manner of Payment in the Leas[t] mentioned, and that the said Beale Seurprises him to make any Such Demand.

James Welson Sworne Saith that being about Thatcheng the said Claverings house, heard the said Clavering ask the said Beale Leberty to Joyn his Rafters to the said Beals Rafters, y[e] Said Beale with all my heart, And presently after Said you had better Sniepe[?] you[r] Rafters, and Joyn them to the Upright Wall, which was agreed upon, and no mention of any payment made.

It is Ordered:

That the said Clavering pay the said Beale one Dollar for joyneing his Wall against the said Beale without his Leave, or Else to peull down So much of his Back Room Wall as he pleases, and as for the Rafters to Stand as they are now, having had Leave for So dieing as appears by James Welson Evidence, and the said Clavering to pay all Court Charges, But in Case the said Clavering thinks fett to peull down the Wall aforesaid then to pay Court Charges Equally between them.

Whereas Jonathan Dufton free planter Came Last Week to the Governour, and made Complaint against George Hosficson for not performing his Contract with him about fenceing his Land, and Desired that the said Hosficson might be Sumonoed against this day to perform his said Contract But the said Jonathan Dufton not appeareing against the said Hosficson.

It is Ordered:

That the said Jonathan Dufton be Non Suited for his not Appearing and pay Councill charges.

Walter Morris free Planter Echebited a Petition this day against Walter Belsvard free planter for his Severall abufes, afsaults, Threats and Injuryes as appears in the Said Petition.

The said Belvard appeared, and Denys what the said Walter Morris hath Alledged against him.

The said Morris Deseires that his Evidence may be Examined who

John Nichols, free planter, sworn, said he had bought the house Beale now occupied from one Samuel Taylor, and that he had given Pen Pedock, who was the owner of Clavering's house, three or four days' work for the party wall.

Clavering said that Beale had given him leave and free liberty to build against Beale's house wall without any payment being mentioned in the least, and that Beale's present demand surprised him.

James Wilson, sworn, said that while he was thatching Clavering's house he had heard Clavering ask Beale for liberty to join his rafters to Beale's rafters. Beale had answered, with all my heart, and shortly afterwards had said that Clavering had better snipe his rafters and join them to the upright wall, which was agreed on. No payment had been mentioned.

It was ordered that Clavering pay Beale one dollar for joining his wall against Beale's without his leave, or else pull down so much of his back room wall as he pleased. The rafters were to stand as they were now, since Clavering had had leave to set them as appeared by Wilson's evidence. Clavering was to pay all court charges. If Clavering thought fit to pull down the wall instead, the court charges were to be paid equally between them.

Jonathan Duston, free planter, had come the previous week to the Governor and complained against George Hoskison for failing to perform his contract about fencing his land. He had asked that Hoskison be summoned for this day to perform the contract. Duston not having appeared on the day, it was ordered that he be nonsuited for his failure to appear, and pay council charges.

Walter Morris, free planter, exhibited a petition this day against Walter Belvard, free planter, for several abuses, assaults, threats and injuries, as appeared in the petition.

Belvard appeared and denied what Morris had alleged against him.

Morris asked that his witnesses be examined.

[...]

Interpretations

The Beale and Clavering ruling shows the council making a careful distinction between the two elements of the building dispute. The joining of rafters had been authorised by Beale in front of a witness, with no payment discussed, and that part of the work was allowed to stand. The joining of the wall, however, had not been so authorised, and Clavering was given a choice between paying a dollar in retrospective compensation or pulling down that part of his back room. The split decision matched the evidence to the specific acts in dispute, recognising the verbal licence for the rafters while protecting Beale's interest in the wall. The provision that court charges would be divided equally if Clavering chose demolition reflected the council's view that the disagreement on the wall was genuinely two-sided.

The nonsuit against Jonathan Duston for failing to appear illustrates how the council enforced procedural discipline on complainants. Duston had pressed for a summons against Hoskison the previous week, but had not himself turned up to pursue the case. The council's response was both to dismiss the complaint and to charge Duston with the council costs. By treating absence from one's own case as a basis for both dismissal and cost award, the council deterred frivolous summonses and protected defendants from being repeatedly dragged before the bench by complainants who would not persevere.

The opening of the Morris and Belvard matter introduces another case in the long series of disputes involving Walter Belvard. Belvard had figured in the Marley case as a defendant fined for unmerciful beating, had been bound over after his wife's outburst against the island, had complained against the Claverings and been answered by them, had been dismissed on a licensing charge for want of proof of sale, and now appeared as the defendant in a complaint by Morris for assaults, threats and injuries. The recurrent presence of his name in the books reveals a planter whose ordinary social relationships generated a steady stream of business for the bench.

Speculations

The decision to fix the price for joining the wall at one dollar matches roughly the value placed on the work in the earlier Nichols testimony, which had described three or four days' labour as the consideration for the use of Pen Pedock's wall. A dollar was a settlement rate consistent with that level of work, and would have signalled to other planters contemplating similar additions that the council had a working figure in mind for unauthorised wall sharing. The fixed sum simplified future disputes by giving both sides a likely outcome to weigh in deciding whether to litigate.

The nonsuit against Duston also suggests that there may have been an out-of-court settlement between him and Hoskison in the interval, with the cost of fencing reaching some agreement that made the hearing unnecessary. A complainant who had reached a private accommodation might simply not appear on the day, rather than formally withdraw the complaint, since formal withdrawal would have required additional procedural steps. The nonsuit and cost order disposed of the matter cleanly while leaving the underlying private settlement undisturbed.

126

118

who were as followeth.

George Hosskeson being Sworn Saith That being in Company, Some time Since with Severall persons at Walter Morris house, and while there M[r] Fuller Came in, and being going out of the house with Walter Morris, and Joseph Trapp, and forgeting his Key went back again for it, and heard them have Severall high words, but thought they were pretty well Appeased, and being all going up the hill, the said Morris Called out to have the Cattle that were in his Yams drove out, the said Belvard answered, and Came Running after them, and Came Close up to the said Morris, who took up two Stones, and Said he would throw them at the said Belvard if he Medled with him, and the said Belvard Comeing and Seeing the Said Walter Morris, this Deponen[t] parted them, and thereupon the Said Belvard made a Second Attempt and Strueck the said Morris under this Deponents Arme, and Threatened him with Severall Abufes and Threatning words.

James Easthope Saith he Saw Walter Morris Sign the Agreem[t]. now produced, but knows nothing of the abufes aforesaid.

It appearing to us that the said Belvard hath Abufed the said Walter Morris, and for not Entereing his Agreement about the House and Land, According to the Hon[ble] Company orders, that the Same be Null and void.

It is Ordered:

That for the Safety of the Peace the said Belvard Remove his Family and goods from and out of the Said Walter Morris house, and what other goods he hath upon his Land between this and To Morrow Night And for his Threatneing words and behavioeur, to the Said Morris, That he the Said Belvard give Sufficeent Security for his good behaviocur, and the Peace of our Sovereign Lady the Queen in a bond of Ten poeunds, and Each of his Securityes Five poeund, towards the Said Morris, and all her Majestys Leedge People, and pay Charges of Councill.

Accordingly the said Walter Belvard produced the following persons for his Selecurity.

KNOW all Men by these presents that I Walter Belvard free planter do hereby, Enter into a Recogni[s]ance of Ten poeunds in good and Currant Money of the said Ifsland Payable to the Right Hon[ble] East India Company to be of the good behavioeur, and to Keep the Peace of our Sovereign Lady, the Queen, towards Walter Morris free Planter and all her Majestys Leedge People, For the payment and Performance of which; We Thomas Cason Serjeant, and Charles Steward free Planter Do hereby bend our Selves &c[a]. in the Sum of Five poeunds Each of

The witnesses called were as followed.

George Hoskison, sworn, said that some time since he had been in company with several persons at Walter Morris's house. While he was there Mr Fuller came in. As he was going out of the house with Morris and Joseph Trapp, he forgot his key and went back for it, and heard them exchange several heated words. He thought they were nevertheless pretty well appeased. As they were all going up the hill, Morris called out to have the cattle that were in his yams driven out. Belvard answered, and came running after them. He came up close to Morris, who took up two stones and said he would throw them at Belvard if he meddled with him. Belvard came up and saw Morris, and Hoskison parted them. Belvard then made a second attempt and struck Morris under Hoskison's arm, and threatened him with several abuses and threatening words.

James Easthope said he had seen Morris sign the agreement now produced, but knew nothing of the abuses.

It appeared to the council that Belvard had abused Morris, and that the agreement about the house and land had not been entered as the Honourable Company's orders required, and that the agreement was therefore null and void.

It was ordered, for the safety of the peace, that Belvard remove his family and goods from and out of Morris's house, and whatever other goods he had on the land, between this and the next night. For his threatening words and behaviour towards Morris, Belvard was to give sufficient security for his good behaviour and to keep the peace of our Sovereign Lady the Queen in a bond of ten pounds, each of his sureties in five pounds, towards Morris and all Her Majesty's liege people. He was to pay council charges.

Belvard produced the following persons as sureties.

I, Walter Belvard, free planter, hereby enter into a recognisance of ten pounds in good and current money of the island, payable to the Honourable East India Company, to be of good behaviour and to keep the peace of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, towards Walter Morris, free planter, and all Her Majesty's liege people. For the payment and performance of the same, Thomas Cason, sergeant, and Charles Steward, free planter, hereby bound themselves in the sum of five pounds each [...]

Interpretations

The Belvard order combines a peace-keeping measure with a property remedy in a single ruling. The recognisance for ten pounds, with two sureties of five pounds each, addressed the threat of further violence in the standard form. The order requiring Belvard to remove himself, his family and his goods from Morris's house and land by the following night, on the ground that the agreement under which he occupied them had not been registered as the Company's orders required, addressed the underlying tenure. By voiding the agreement for non-registration, the council brought into play the requirement that property transactions on Company land be entered on the official record, and used that requirement to dissolve an arrangement that had become a source of trouble.

The use of the registration requirement as the basis for voiding the agreement is procedurally elegant. Rather than rule on the merits of the contractual dispute between Belvard and Morris, the council relied on the formal defect that the agreement had never been entered as required, and treated that defect as sufficient to deprive Belvard of the benefit of the deal. The remedy gave Morris immediate possession of his house and land, while leaving the question of compensation for any improvements Belvard might have made to a future negotiation or claim.

Hoskison's evidence is notable for its careful account of his own role as the man who parted the combatants and under whose arm Belvard then struck Morris. The detail places him as a credible eyewitness whose proximity to the violence was visible to all, and his testimony is correspondingly weighty. The fact that the same Hoskison had recently been the subject of council orders himself, including the order to fence the orphans' land by 25 March, did not appear to affect the credibility of his evidence on this occasion.

Speculations

The decision to give Belvard only one night to remove himself and his goods from Morris's house and land is markedly tight, and points to a calculation that the immediate physical separation of the two men was the most effective peace-keeping measure available. With Belvard removed from the property and a hundred pound combined bond standing behind his future conduct, the prospect of further direct confrontation between the two households would be substantially reduced. The procedural speed of the order matched the practical urgency of the situation.

The selection of Thomas Cason as one of Belvard's sureties is interesting given that Cason had figured as a complainant against James Greentree at this same court only two weeks earlier on the cattle drivers question. A man could be both a litigant in his own right and a surety for another planter, with no apparent sense of conflict between the two roles. The same small pool of solvent men appears as bailor, complainant, defendant and witness across these consultations, weaving together the formal proceedings of the island.

127

119

of Leke Lawfull Money That the said Belvard Shall keep the Peace of our Sovereign Lady, the Queen, and to be of the good behavioeur as aforesaid, and also for the Payment of the said Sum of Ten poeunds above mentioned, In case of any breach of Peace and good behavioeur: and also for he the said Belvards personall appearance at the next Generall Sefsions, or when thereunto Called. In Wittness whereof we have hereunto Sett our hands this. 24th day of February 1707/8

Wittnefsed p[r] John Alexander Walter Belvard Thomas French Charles Steward Thomas Cason

Cap[tn]. Edward Mashborne deputy Governour of the said Ifsland, Informed the Governour that being on the. 21. Instant at M[r] Greentrees house in, Company. with M[r] Hofsicson, the said Greentree, and Joseph Trapp, M[r] Hofsicson told the said Cap[tn] Mashborne that we (meaning the Governour and Councell) had not Acted as we ought to have done in forbiding to Sell their Cattle to the Ships, That in Gaineing One heundred pound for the Company we had Lost them. Three Heundred Thousand pound, It being against their Charter, and has Severall times Reflected Upon Governour and Councells Management.

It is Ordered:

That for the Said Hosk[i]sons Rashnefs in Utter[i]ng the words abovesaid and Severall others, and that at Severall times, That he be foned the Sum of Four Dollars, to the use of Fortifications and admonished for the future, and In Cafe of a Second Relaps in this or any other Nature Tending against our Hon[ble] Masters, or the Government of the Said Ifsland, That then he be bound Over to the Queens Peace, and good behaviocur in a bond of One heundred poeund, and give good Security for the Same.

Whereas Daniell Griffeth did on the. 11. of this Instant Presented a Petetion to the Governour Containing Severall Affronts. Grofs Abufes, and divers Threats, &c[a]. Received at Severall times of Gabreell Powell, as is more Largely Expressd in the said Petetion, Upon which the said Powell was Sent for down to Fort James, and according= =ly bound Over to the Queens Peace, and his good behavioeur, produced Richard Swallow, and Richard Gurling, free planters for his bonds Men.

Now contrary to he is the Said Powells Recognizance, and against the Peace of our Sovereign Lady the Queen hath in a most Infamous and Degrading

The recognisance ran in like lawful money, that Belvard would keep the peace of our Sovereign Lady the Queen and be of good behaviour as stated, and would also pay the sum of ten pounds mentioned above in case of any breach of the peace or of good behaviour, and that he would make his personal appearance at the next general sessions or when called. In witness whereof Belvard, Cason and Steward set their hands on 24 February 1708.

Witnessed by John Alexander and Thomas French.

Walter Belvard. Charles Steward. Thomas Cason.

Captain Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor of the island, informed Goodwin that on 21 February, being at Mr Greentree's house in company with Mr Hoskison, Greentree and Joseph Trapp, Hoskison had told him that the council, meaning the Governor and councillors, had not acted as it ought in forbidding the sale of cattle to the ships. In gaining one hundred pounds for the Company, the council had lost the Company three hundred thousand pounds, since the order was against the Company's charter. Hoskison had reflected on several occasions on the Governor and Council's management.

It was ordered that, for Hoskison's rashness in uttering the words mentioned, with several others, and at several times, he be fined four dollars to the use of fortifications and admonished for the future. In case of a second relapse, in this or any matter tending against the Honourable Masters or the government of the island, he was to be bound over to the Queen's peace and good behaviour in a bond of one hundred pounds, with good security.

Daniell Griffith had on 11 February presented a petition to Goodwin alleging several affronts, gross abuses and various threats received at different times from Gabriel Powell, as more fully expressed in the petition. Powell had been sent for down to Fort James, and accordingly bound over to the Queen's peace and his good behaviour, with Richard Swallow and Richard Gurling, free planters, as his bondsmen.

Powell, contrary to the terms of his recognisance and against the peace of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, had in a most infamous and degrading [...]

Interpretations

The Hoskison fine reveals how sharply the council responded to public criticism of its administrative decisions. The remark that the council had lost the Company three hundred thousand pounds in gaining one hundred, made in conversation at Greentree's house, was treated as a serious breach of the respect due to government, and produced a four dollar fine with a one hundred pound bond hanging over any repetition. The arithmetic of the punishment, in which the actual penalty was modest but the threat of escalation severe, shows the council moderating its immediate response while preserving the option of a stronger one. By placing on the record the precise words complained of, the council also documented its own version of the underlying decision against the kind of figure that critics like Hoskison might quote.

The reference to the Company's charter in Hoskison's remarks is significant. By framing his criticism in legal rather than purely commercial terms, Hoskison was implying that the council had acted ultra vires in forbidding the sale of cattle to the ships, and that any directors reviewing the matter in London would find the order unlawful as well as unwise. The council's response, to fine him for rashness in uttering the words and to mark them as relating to matters tending against the Honourable Masters, treats the legal framing as itself part of the offence. The conduct being punished was not simply criticism but criticism that invoked the constitutional framework of the Company's authority.

The opening reference to Powell's breach of his recognisance only days after it was entered illustrates the limits of the binding-over procedure as a peace-keeping device. A bond signed on 13 February had been broken in some serious way by 24 February, and the council was now confronting the consequences. The deliberate phrasing, in a most infamous and degrading manner, suggests that the breach involved acts of a particularly humiliating character, and the council was setting up the record to support forfeiture or further binding over on enhanced terms.

Speculations

The disproportion between the four dollar fine for Hoskison's words and the threat of a one hundred pound bond for any repetition points to a calculated strategy of deterrence. By making the immediate penalty bearable, the council avoided forcing Hoskison into more direct opposition while ensuring that he would have a strong incentive to control his tongue in future. The hundred pound bond, equal to the sum demanded against Powell on Griffith's petition, was at the upper limit of what the council had been using in cases of serious personal threat, and would have been ruinous to most planters had it ever been forfeited.

The simultaneous handling of the Hoskison fine and the breach of Powell's recognisance on the same consultation day suggests that the council was working through a series of related challenges to its authority. Both men had in different ways contested the council's administrative decisions or peace-keeping measures, and both were now being brought to book in proceedings that would establish on the record the council's response to such challenges. The pattern is consistent with the new administration's wider effort to fix on paper a clear account of its conduct, particularly in cases where its authority had been questioned, against any future inquiry by the directors.

128

120

Degrading and Tradeucing Mannerr, Sett up a paier of Beasts Horns, with Some part of the forehead Nayled to a Poll, and Erected and Sett up upon a Hell or Riseing Ground in the Road faceing the said Griffeths house in the Sight of all pafsengers, to the Shame and Scandall of all her Majestys Subjects

Then the Councill was adjourned tell the afternoon.

Att a Consultation, Continued in the afternoon.

Whereas the before Named Gabriell Powell having Echebited a Petetion this afternoon to us the Governour and Councill as followeth.

Island St Helena

To the Worshipfull Governour and Councell The most heumble Petetion of Gabriell Powell free planter most heumbly Sheweth.

That whereas your Petetioner owns hemself to be highly Sencible of his Late breach of the Peace, in Setting up the paier of Horns now in Controversice, and is heartily Sorry for being So Rash, Not in the Least de[ɫ]ignoing any ways to Att in Contempt of Governm[t] nor did Imagine or think that it was a breach of the Peace, being But a Young Man, and Unacquainted with the Law, and hopes y[ou]r Worshep and Councell will Impute the Same to your Petetioners Ignorance, Throwing himself at your Feet, for a Remission of Mete= =gateon of the Heundred poeund forfeiture which if Obleidged to pay will be a great Detriment to your Petetioner and a Large Sum of Money to pay for Such an Offence So Ignorantly. Committed. And if after this your Worshep and, Councell Cannot Remitt the said Sum, Heumbly Implore your Worshep and Councell to Let the Same Ley in Suspence Untell the Worthy, Hon[ble] East India United Companys pleasure is farther Known herein, whom I hope will not make your Petetioner an Exumple unt[i]l Such a pr[e]sedent as was Never Known here before this Unhappy time, Confessing my Self wholy in the wrong and Guilty of the breach of the peace So Unfortunately, and Ignorantly Committed as aforesaid faithfully promiseing for the future to Reforme and to Live in Friendly Love Obedience and Amity with all your Petetioners Neeghboeurs, and Especially. M[r] Griffeth, All which Leave to your Worshep and Councell Prudence and Clemency to Act as you in your Accustomed goodness thinks fett.

And as in Duty bound Shall for Ever pray &c[a] Upon

Powell, in a most infamous and degrading and traducing manner, had set up a pair of beast's horns, with some part of the forehead nailed to a pole, and erected and set up on a hill or rising ground in the road facing Griffith's house, in sight of all passers-by, to the shame and scandal of all Her Majesty's subjects.

The council was then adjourned until the afternoon.

At a consultation continued in the afternoon.

Powell exhibited a petition this afternoon to the Governor and Council as followed.

Island of St Helena

To the Worshipful Governor and Council. The most humble petition of Gabriel Powell, free planter, most humbly showed the following.

Powell owned himself highly sensible of his late breach of the peace in setting up the pair of horns now in controversy, and was heartily sorry for having been so rash. He had in no way intended to act in contempt of government, nor had he imagined or thought that the act amounted to a breach of the peace, being a young man and unacquainted with the law. He hoped the council would attribute the matter to his ignorance. Throwing himself at the council's feet for a remission or mitigation of the hundred pound forfeiture, he observed that if he were obliged to pay it, it would be a great detriment to him and a large sum of money for so ignorantly committed an offence. If the council could not remit the sum, he humbly implored the bench to let the matter rest in suspense until the pleasure of the Honourable United East India Company should be further known. He hoped they would not make him an example by such a precedent, which had never been known on the island before this unhappy time. He confessed himself wholly in the wrong and guilty of the breach of the peace so unfortunately and ignorantly committed, and faithfully promised for the future to reform and to live in friendly love, obedience and amity with all his neighbours, and especially with Griffith. All of which he left to the council's prudence and clemency to act on as in their accustomed goodness they thought fit. As in duty bound he would ever pray.

[...]

Interpretations

The horns set up on a hill facing Griffith's house illustrate the symbolic vocabulary of insult available in the early eighteenth century. A pair of beast's horns with part of the forehead attached, mounted on a pole in plain sight of the householder's window, was a public charge of cuckoldry, the most damaging slander that could be made against a married man. The placement on a rising ground in the road, where all passers-by could see it, was designed to maximise the public effect of the imputation, and amounted to a piece of theatrical defamation that the council could not ignore. By describing the act as infamous and degrading and traducing in the order, the council marked it as something well beyond a routine breach of the peace.

Powell's petition, drafted in the language of complete submission, shows how readily an inhabitant could move from defiance to apology when faced with a hundred pound forfeiture. The claim that he was a young man unacquainted with the law, and had not imagined that setting up the horns amounted to a breach of the peace, would have been hard to credit even at the time, given the universal recognition of horns as a cuckold's emblem in English popular culture. The legal ignorance pleaded was therefore probably a convenient fiction designed to soften the bench's response, while the substantive admission of fault, with the promise of reform, was the genuine concession on which Powell hoped his case would turn.

The closing request, that the council either remit the sum or let it lie in suspense pending the further pleasure of the Honourable United East India Company, reflects an awareness of the same procedural mechanism that Knight had used in demanding to be tried, and that Griffith had invoked in his September protest. By proposing reference to London, Powell sought to delay the immediate financial impact while leaving the underlying question to a more distant and unpredictable tribunal. The strategy depended on the council preferring the certainty of a contrite local defendant to the trouble of forwarding the matter for review.

Speculations

The reference to such a precedent as had never been known on the island before this unhappy time suggests that the public erection of horns as a piece of symbolic slander was not a familiar local practice, despite its currency in English popular vocabulary. Powell may have imported the device from a reading of English chapbooks, broadsides or other popular literature, or from accounts of similar incidents in other settlements. The unfamiliarity of the precedent locally would have helped his plea of ignorance, while the recognisability of the symbolic charge to anyone of European background would have ensured that its meaning was nonetheless instantly understood by the council and by all who saw it.

The petition's emphasis on Powell's identity as a young man may have been a calculated piece of self-positioning. By contrast with Griffith's petition, which had cast him as the dignified injured party of mature years, Powell's submission cast him as an immature offender whose fault had been impulsive rather than considered. The young man framing aligns with the earlier description of him in Griffith's complaint to the council, where Griffith had called him a young man encouraged by his mother. Whether or not Powell was in fact significantly younger than Griffith, the rhetorical positioning was useful in seeking the bench's clemency.

129

121

Upon which Confedering the said Powells heumble Submission in said Petetion, and promises to be more Carefeull for the Feiture, hopeing that this will be a Sufficeent Warning to him.

It is Ordered:

That the said Powell now only pay the Seum of Twenty pound to the Right Hon[ble] Company in their Store Books of Account, on this their Ifsland, and as for the Eighty poeund more which Compleats the Sum of One heundred pound forfeitted in his Recognezance we Leave to the Said Hon[ble] Company to forgive or order the payment thereof as they Shall think fett, he giveing Security, for the payment of the Same if Demanded, and that he give good Sufficeent Security to Remain of the good behavioeur, and to Keep the Peace of our Soveraign Lady Queen Anne tell Next Generall Sefsions.

Accordingly the said Gabriell Powell produced the following Persons for his Selecurity.

KNOW all men by these Presents that I Gabriell Powell of the Ifsland St Helena free planter do hereby, Enter into a Recognezance of Twenty pounds in good and Currant Money, of the said Ifsland Payable to the Right Hon[ble] East India United Company. That I will Keep the Peace of our Sovereign Lady Queen Anne, towards all her Majestys Leeidge People, and Especcially towards Daniell Griffeth and also to be of the good behavioeur till the Next Generall Sefsions. For the payment and performance of which, we Richard Swallow and Richard Gurling both free planters Do hereby bend our Selves our heirs &c[a]. In the Sum of Ten poeunds Each in the Leke good and Currant Money of Said Ifsland, and also for the Said Powells. Per= sonall appearance before Governour and Councill at the Next Gen[ll] Sefsions, or when thereunto Called by Authority. In Wittness. whereof we have hereunto Sett our hands this. 24th. day of February 1707/8 Gabriell Powell Wittness Richard Gurling Thomas French Richard Swallow

Whereas Edward Maidstone Souldier having on the . 12. day of this Instant Resisted the Serjeant of the Geuard William Slaughter, and knocking him down, and breakeing his head with a Musquett after the Tap Too had beaten, The said Maidstone was typed Neck and heels and Imprisoned till this day, and being called before

On consideration of Powell's humble submission in the petition, and of his promise to be more careful for the future, in the hope that this would be a sufficient warning to him, it was ordered that Powell now pay only twenty pounds, to be entered to the Honourable Company's account in the store books on the island. As for the further eighty pounds, which completed the hundred pound forfeiture under his recognisance, the council left it to the Honourable Company to forgive or to order paid as they thought fit. Powell was to give security for the payment of the further sum if demanded, and to give good sufficient security to remain of good behaviour, and to keep the peace of our Sovereign Lady Queen Anne until the next general sessions.

Powell produced the following persons as his sureties.

I, Gabriel Powell, of the island of St Helena, free planter, hereby enter into a recognisance of twenty pounds in good and current money of the island, payable to the Honourable East India United Company. I will keep the peace of our Sovereign Lady Queen Anne towards all Her Majesty's liege people, and especially towards Daniell Griffith, and will also be of good behaviour until the next general sessions. For the payment and performance of the same, Richard Swallow and Richard Gurling, both free planters, hereby bound themselves and their heirs in the sum of ten pounds each in the like good and current money of the island, and also for Powell's personal appearance before the Governor and Council at the next general sessions, or when called by authority. In witness whereof they set their hands on 24 February 1708.

Gabriel Powell. Richard Gurling. Richard Swallow.

Witnessed by Thomas French.

Edward Maidstone, soldier, on 12 February had resisted the sergeant of the guard William Slaughter, knocked him down and broken his head with a musket after the tattoo had beaten. Maidstone had been tied neck and heels and imprisoned until this day. He was called before [...]

Interpretations

The Powell disposition shows the council taking a calibrated middle course between full enforcement of the recognisance and full remission of the penalty. The immediate payment of twenty pounds, entered in the Company's store books rather than handed across in cash, gave the council a definite recovery against Powell without requiring him to produce a substantial sum at once. The deferral of the remaining eighty pounds to the directors' decision in London preserved the disciplinary effect of the original bond while protecting the council from any later criticism that it had either ruined a planter for a symbolic offence or simply overlooked a hundred pound forfeiture. By framing the further sum as a question for London, Goodwin's bench passed the most contentious part of the decision upwards.

The use of store book accounting for the twenty pound recovery is significant. Rather than receiving the sum in coin, the Company set it as a debit against Powell's standing with the store, which would have been the channel for most of his transactions in seeds, tools, salt and other essentials. A debit there acted as a continuous reminder of the offence each time Powell came to do business, and could be worked off by purchases of his produce by the Company over time. The arrangement converted the fine into a kind of running account, more visible and continuous than a simple cash penalty.

The Maidstone case introduces a more straightforward matter of military discipline. A soldier resisting his sergeant and breaking his head with a musket after the tattoo had been beaten committed an offence at the heart of garrison order, since the tattoo signalled the close of the day and the imposition of full guard discipline. The interim punishment of being tied neck and heels and imprisoned for twelve days illustrates the standard regime of soldier discipline under the Governor's authority pending a formal hearing, and the bringing of the case before the council on the same day as the Powell and Hoskison matters shows how the bench's business mixed military and civilian discipline in a single sitting.

Speculations

The decision to leave the eighty pound balance to the Honourable Company suggests that Goodwin's bench was aware of the political sensitivity of imposing a very large fine on an island where most planters would have found such a sum ruinous. By deferring the question to London, the council made the directors complicit in any final imposition, while ensuring that the immediate effect on Powell was sufficient to discourage further symbolic outrages. The arrangement also produced a record that, if Powell continued to misbehave, the full sum could be activated against him without further proceedings.

The choice of Richard Swallow and Richard Gurling as Powell's sureties for the second time in eleven days indicates a settled small group of planters willing to commit their credit on his behalf. The fact that the same men stood for him at twenty pounds in the new bond as had stood at fifty pounds each in the earlier one points either to a contractual relationship among the three of them or to a strong sense of family or factional loyalty that bound their fortunes together. Without further information it is hard to say which, but the recurrence is striking against the wider record of bonds in these consultations, where the surety pool was broader and the same men appeared less often.

130

122

before us, Says he was in drink at that time, and is heartily Sorry, for his Crime, whereupon.

It is Ordered:

That the said Maidstone ride the wooden horse this day with Two Mufsquetts at Each Legg, and also on two Releef days more, Remaining Prisoner till he has under gone his Punnishmen[t].

Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation, held on Tuesday the. 9th day of March. 1707/8 Att Fort James.

Pres[t] Thomas Goodwin, Governour Edward Mashborne Dep[ty] Govern[r] William Marrsden. 3[r] on Councell

Whereas John Clavering Gunners Mate Echebited a Petetion this Day against James Draper free Planter for that he the said Draper did on the. 23. of February Last past Afsault and Strike his the said Claverings Wife on the head with his Cane Calling her and Asperseing her with the Odeous Name of a Whore and a Bitch and homself a Cuckold, and an Old Rogeue under which blows the said Claverings Wife Languished Severall days.

For which Afsault and Battery, and grofs Abufes the said James Draper was Summoned to appear this day, and the said Claverings Petetion being read over, made answer he kneuw or did not Remember any thing of the matter Declar[i]ng then all what he knew.

Then the Evidences were Called and Sworne.

John Palin Sworne Saith that on yesterday was a fortnight in the Eveneing he was with Edmond Nichols Setting in the said Claverings house the Door being Sheutt, and hearing Some body Call out [you old] Clavering

Maidstone said he had been in drink at the time, and was heartily sorry for his offence.

It was ordered that Maidstone ride the wooden horse this day with two muskets at each leg, and also on two further relief days, remaining a prisoner until he had undergone his punishment.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 9 March 1708 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

John Clavering, gunner's mate, exhibited a petition this day against James Draper, free planter. Draper, on 23 February last past, had assaulted and struck Clavering's wife on the head with his cane, calling her by the odious names of whore and bitch, and Clavering himself a cuckold and old rogue. Under the blows Clavering's wife had languished for several days.

Draper was summoned to appear this day to answer for the assault and battery and the gross abuses. On Clavering's petition being read over, Draper answered that he did not remember anything of the matter, declaring all that he knew.

The witnesses were then called and sworn.

John Palen, sworn, said that yesterday fortnight in the evening he had been at Clavering's house with Edmond Nichols, the door being shut. He had heard somebody call out, you old Clavering [...]

Interpretations

The Maidstone sentence shows the council using the wooden horse as a graduated punishment, with the assignment of two muskets to each leg increasing the discomfort beyond the bare ride. The order that he undergo the punishment over three separate relief days kept him visible to successive watches of the guard, which extended the deterrent effect of the discipline to the whole garrison rather than to a single body of men. The continued imprisonment between the rides ensured that he could not return to ordinary duty until the full sentence had been served, preserving the integrity of the punishment as a single connected ordeal.

The Clavering and Draper case combines slander and physical assault in the same complaint, which the council appears to have accepted as a single matter for hearing. The use of cuckold and old rogue against Clavering, with whore and bitch against his wife, struck at both spouses' standing in the community, and the blow with the cane converted what would otherwise have been a defamation case into one of assault and battery. The detail that Clavering's wife had languished several days under the blows points to a serious injury, which would have given the case a greater gravity than the previous quarrel cases turning on insult alone.

The line of John Palen's testimony, beginning with himself and Edmond Nichols sitting in Clavering's house with the door shut, places the witness inside the house at the time of the disturbance. As a man recently appointed by the council to the post of overseer of the fortification workmen, his evidence carried the authority of a man holding a Company office, and his presence at Clavering's hearth illustrates the same kind of mixed social and official networks that recur throughout these consultations.

Speculations

The choice of two muskets at each leg, rather than the usual one, suggests that the council regarded breaking a sergeant's head with a musket as warranting an enhanced version of the standard wooden horse punishment. By doubling the customary weight, the bench distinguished the present offence from ordinary insolence or drunkenness without resorting to a different category of punishment altogether. Maidstone's admission that he had been in drink at the time and his expression of contrition probably saved him from a more severe disposition, while the enhanced weights gave the discipline the necessary additional sting.

Draper's defence of bare unfamiliar memory, on the face of it implausible given that he had reportedly called Clavering a cuckold and his wife a whore in the same exchange in which he had used a cane to strike, was the kind of plea sometimes offered when a defendant hoped that the absence of immediate witnesses would defeat the complaint. The careful summoning of witnesses by the council, with Palen now being examined under oath, shows the bench moving methodically past the denial. The case was likely to turn on the credibility of the witnesses against the bare denial of the defendant.

131

123

Clavering, Old Clavering Severall times went out of Doors and Saw it was M[r] Draper, and thereupon told the Said Clavering who went out and asked him what he wanted, the said Draper said he wanted his Money the said Clavering Offered Some but what dont know but heard the said Draper say he wanted One Shelling more, and called out where is the Old Whore upon which M[rs] Clavering came out, and Said who do you Call So, and going close to him the said Draper Strueck her with his Cane and Called Clavering Cuckold and Double headed Cuckold &c[a].

Edmond Nichols Sworn Saith that on the day aforesaid he was in the said Claverings house with John Palin and hear[i]ng Some body Call out and knock at the door, and thereupon Palin went out and Seeing it was the said Draper told M[r] Clavering who went out and asked him what he wanted, with Severall other words and heard the said Draper Call him Cuckold, Double headed Cuckold and Rogeue and Saw the said Draper Strike M[rs] Clavering with his Cane.

It is Ordered:

The said Clavering and Wife being of ill Repute and Keepeing a publlick House that James Draper do only ask their pardon publickly and foned Five Shellings for being Drunk, and two Shellings for Severing and admonished for the feiture to live more Soberly and pay Councill Charges.

Whereas Christiean Frederick Vogell Engineer presented a Petetion that Hans George Newman had and doth daily Ever Since his Arrivall here Contienue to Contradict and Obstruct him in all his Projects, and good design, for the Secuerity of this Ifsland, and has [affron]= ted abused and afsaulted him and Tradeuced and Scandaloed him very often by all pofsible Means, wherefore Desires Sattisfaction for the aforesaid affronts, and abufes, and Desered that his Evidences might be Sworn.

Nicholas Fefsher Sworn Saith that M[r] Newman came to the Work, as he was going about the Boate and viewing it for his own pleae= =feure Said to M[r] Vogell this is Nasty Dierty, Work for the Men to Work so in the Water, M[r] Vogell Said what is that to you, Yes Said Newman it is, if you dont Stop your Mouth I will make you Said Vogell, you Said Newman may kiss my Arfse &c[a]. So they fell a fighteing, but Could not tell who Strueck the first blow.

Joseph Whaley Sworn Saith that he heard M[r] Vogell and M[r] Newman

Palen went out and saw it was Mr Draper. He told Clavering, who went out and asked Draper what he wanted. Draper said he wanted his money. Clavering offered some, though Palen did not know how much, but heard Draper say he wanted one shilling more. Draper called out, where is the old whore. Mrs Clavering came out and asked who he was calling so. As she came close, Draper struck her with his cane, and called Clavering a cuckold and a double-headed cuckold and other names.

Edmond Nichols, sworn, said that on the same day he had been in Clavering's house with John Palen, and had heard someone call and knock at the door. Palen went out, and seeing it was Draper, told Clavering, who went out and asked Draper what he wanted, with various other words. Nichols heard Draper call Clavering cuckold, double-headed cuckold and rogue, and saw him strike Mrs Clavering with his cane.

It was ordered that, Clavering and his wife being of ill repute and keeping a public house, Draper need only ask their pardon publicly, and be fined five shillings for being drunk and two shillings for swearing, with an admonition to live more soberly in future, and to pay council charges.

Christian Frederick Vogell, engineer, presented a petition this day, alleging that Hans George Newman had, ever since Vogell's arrival on the island, daily continued to contradict and obstruct him in all his projects and good designs for the security of the island. Newman had affronted, abused and assaulted him, and had traduced and slandered him very often by every possible means. Vogell asked for satisfaction for the affronts and abuses, and asked that his witnesses be sworn.

Nicholas Fisher, sworn, said that Newman had come to the work, as he was going about the boat and viewing it for his own pleasure. Newman had said to Vogell that this was nasty, dirty work for the men to be at in the water. Vogell had asked what business that was of his. Newman had answered that it was. Vogell had said that if Newman did not stop his mouth, he would make him. Newman had answered that he, Vogell, might kiss his arse. The two had then fallen to fighting, but the witness could not tell who had struck the first blow.

Joseph Whaley, sworn, said he had heard Vogell and Newman [...]

Interpretations

The disposition of the Draper case shows the council adjusting the standard penalty in light of the complainant's own reputation. Although Draper had struck a woman on the head with his cane and called both her and her husband by the most offensive names, the order required only a public apology and a small fine for drunkenness and swearing, the latter on the standard tariff used in other Sabbath and quarterdeck cases. The crucial words in the order are that Clavering and his wife were of ill repute and kept a public house. By recording these grounds for moderating the punishment, the council made explicit the principle that the level of remedy for personal slander depended in part on the social standing and conduct of the complainants.

The decision casts a different light on the recent licensing investigations. The Claverings had figured in those proceedings as a household where punch and arrack had been served, and the witnesses had been less than positive that the drinks had been sold rather than given. The council's open description of Clavering and his wife as keeping a public house now confirms that the bench took a settled view of the household, even where formal proof of unlicensed sale had not been forthcoming. By using that view to discount Clavering's slander complaint, the council effectively penalised the Claverings for the unlicensed retail business of which it was morally satisfied while remaining legally unconvinced.

The Vogell complaint introduces a new line of trouble in the technical staff that the directors had so recently sent out. The engineer and Newman, who had advised on the Lemon Valley platforms in September, were now at open odds, with Vogell alleging continuous obstruction since his arrival. The case is striking for the prominence of the parties, since both were specialists whose work was central to the new administration's defensive programme. A serious rupture between them threatened the success of the works themselves, which gave the council a strong practical reason to handle the matter carefully.

Speculations

The unusually low penalty against Draper, considered against the pattern of the council's other slander and assault orders, must have been read on the island as a signal that the Claverings would not enjoy the council's protection at the usual rate. A householder whose own credibility was compromised by reputation could expect less from the bench than a more reputable complainant. The arrangement preserved the council's authority to act in all slander cases while reserving the right to scale the remedy by the standing of the parties, a discretion that, once placed on the record, would have moderated the readiness of marginal householders to bring future complaints.

The dispute between Vogell and Newman, beginning with a public exchange of obscenity at the boat works, would have been particularly awkward for the council to manage. Newman had served on the island for some time and had given technical advice that the council had relied on, while Vogell had arrived with the directors' commission as the new engineer. A finding for either man over the other would have implications for the chain of authority in the technical staff, and the witness evidence, with Fisher unable to say who had struck the first blow, gave the council little ground for a clean disposition. The matter was likely to test the bench's capacity to balance personal discipline with operational continuity.

132

124

Newman have Severall words but Could not very well understand what they Said, but heard M[r] Vogell bid M[r] Newman hold his Tongue, you Says M[r] Newman, may Kifs my Arfse, and thereupon M[r] Vogell went towards M[r] Newman and had Severall blows together but Cant tell who Strueck forst.

Godfrey Shoale Souldeier Saith that he being at his quateu[r] M[r] New= =man came to him and asked him what he was doing this Deponent Answered Something for my own pleafeure No says M[r] Newman it is for the Engineer who Knows no more then the Catt, and he is a Foole, and would go with Disgrace off this Ifsland.

It is Ordered:

That the said Newman for being now drunk and Swearing in Open Court be foned the Sum of Seven Shellings, and as to the Matter in Controversice betwext the Said Newman, and M[r] Vogell it be referr'd Till Next Councell day, according to the Said Newmans desire being not now Capable nor prepared to make his Defence, and that in the Mean time he demean himself as he ought to do towards the Said Vogell.

Whereas Robert Addis and Thomas Gargen free planters being Nomenated Executors of a pretended Lest Well and Testament of Mary French Deceased brought this day an Inventory according to the Governours order of what Estate was Late in the Pofsefseion of the Said Mary French or any other person for her toge= =ther with her Said Well and all other writeings, all which we the Governour and Councell have taken and Retecved into our Care and Cesftody and do hereby discharge the said Robert Addis and Thomas Gargen from said Executorship and from all trouble Seuits, Costs, Charges and Demands whatsoever Relating and tou= =cheng this matter by reason that the said Mary French being under Cover't barme could make no Well and what Estate She Enjoyed Belon= =ged to her Cheldren after her decease according to her Father Thom[s] Box's Last Well and Testament. Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden

Whaley said he had heard Vogell and Newman exchange several words, but could not very well understand what they said. He had heard Vogell tell Newman to hold his tongue. Newman had answered that Vogell might kiss his arse. Vogell had then gone towards Newman, and they had exchanged several blows, though Whaley could not say who had struck first.

Godfrey Shoale, soldier, said he had been at his quarters, and Newman had come up and asked him what he was doing. The deponent had answered that he was doing something for his own pleasure. Newman had said that this was for the engineer, who knew no more than the cat, was a fool, and would leave the island in disgrace.

It was ordered that Newman, for being drunk and swearing in open court, be fined seven shillings. The matter in controversy between Newman and Vogell was referred to the next council day, at Newman's own request, since he was not now capable or prepared to make his defence. He was in the meantime to behave himself as he ought towards Vogell.

Robert Addis and Thomas Gargen, free planters, had been nominated executors of a pretended last will and testament of Mary French, deceased. They brought this day an inventory, according to Goodwin's order, of the estate lately in Mary French's possession or held for her by others, together with the alleged will and all other writings. The council took the documents into its care and custody, and discharged Addis and Gargen from the executorship and from all trouble, suits, costs, charges and demands whatever relating to the matter. The discharge was on the ground that Mary French, having been under coverture, could make no will. The estate she had enjoyed belonged to her children after her death, in accordance with the last will and testament of her father, Thomas Box.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Interpretations

The fine of seven shillings on Newman for being drunk and swearing in open court follows the same pattern of itemised tariff that the council had used elsewhere, with separate components for the two offences combined into a single sum. The decision to fine Newman for the manner of his appearance at the hearing, while reserving the substantive dispute with Vogell for the next council day, separated the question of behaviour in court from the question of fault in the underlying quarrel. Newman's incapacity to defend himself, on his own admission, was treated as a reason for adjournment rather than for adverse inference, but his drunken behaviour at the bench was an offence in its own right that could not be ignored.

The Mary French ruling makes a substantial point of family law in striking form. The council held that a married woman, being under coverture, had no capacity to make a will, and that any document purporting to be her will was therefore a nullity. Her estate, which had come to her under the will of her father Thomas Box, passed to her children directly, with no testamentary intervention by her. The doctrine that a wife's property passed under the husband's or her father's settlements, rather than under her own disposition, was the standard English position of the period, and the council's clear application of it shows the same rigorous use of English legal categories that the previous probate proceedings had displayed.

The discharge of the executors from all trouble, suits, costs, charges and demands whatever relating to the matter, in language equivalent to a full release, indicates that the council took care to protect the named executors from any later challenge by family members or creditors. By framing the discharge in formulaic terms, the council made it clear that Addis and Gargen had acted in good faith on what they believed to be a valid will, and that their accepting and now relinquishing the role did not expose them to personal liability. The certainty of the discharge would have been an important consideration for any future free planter approached to act as executor.

Speculations

The treatment of the Vogell and Newman dispute as a matter for adjournment, with an admonition to Newman to behave himself in the meantime, suggests the council saw the underlying clash as one that might still be resolvable by direct intervention by the men themselves. By giving Newman a week to consider his position, and recording a warning to behave himself towards Vogell, the bench effectively invited a private settlement that would spare the council the need to choose between two specialist officers. The structure was similar to that used in earlier disputes between neighbours, where the council viewed land in person and pressed for an accommodation.

The decision to record explicitly that Mary French had been under coverture, and therefore could make no will, suggests that the council was aware that the underlying issue might recur in other cases on the island. By placing the doctrine clearly on the record, the bench provided a settled answer that could be cited in future probate disputes involving married women. The consistent application of the rule would, over time, have shaped expectations about the disposal of property within families, and would have nudged residents towards making provision for their daughters' eventual estates through fathers' or husbands' settlements rather than through any later testamentary act by the women themselves.

133

125

Island St Helena

At a Consultation, held this. 9th. day of March in the afternoon.

Pres[t] Thomas Goodwin Governour Edward Mashborne Dep[ty] Govern[r] William Marsden. 3[r] in Councell

Whereas we the Governour and Councell having this Day, Dis= =charged Robert Addis, and Thomas Gargen Nomenated Executors of the Last Well and Testament of Mary French deceased, and takeing the Estate of Thomas Box, which she had in her pofsefseion at the time of her Death as is mentioned in the forgoeing Consultation Into our Charge and Cesftody, for the Reasons aforesaid and govt[c] of the Children.

It is Ordered:

That all those persons who deseires to take the said Mary Frenchs Cheldren under their Care and Tueition do appear next Counc[i]ll day in order of makeing an Agreement with them for their Severall Maen= =tainances.

And that all moveable goods belongeng to the said Cheldren be Expofsed to Sale at a Publick Auction on Monday the. 22. Instant and the Money thereby ariseing be Managed for the best Advantage and Benefitt of said Cheldren.

Whereas Thomas Cason Serjeant did this day, upon the Death of the Late Ensign Sanderson on the. 3[d] Instant, present his Petetion Requireing to have the place and post of Ensign as was usuall for the Eldest Serjeant to Succeed as he renders the Care by that R[s]le which Governour Poirier put in Practice which he grounds his Petetion on, or that his Petetion be Echebited to the Hon[ble] [...] Company.

Upon Consideration of what our Hon[ble] United Masters hath wrote us by their Generall to this place p[r] Ship Northeumberland Dated the. 23. of May. 1707. on the. 16. Paragraph, Concerning M[r] John Alexander Clarke of the Councell Deseiring to know what Re[a]son the Then Governour had to Deny the said Alexander the place of Ensign but that a Serjeant was preferred.

It is Ordered:

That the said M[r] John Alexander be Invested in the place & post of Ensign

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held this 9th day of March in the afternoon.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

The Governor and Council, having this day discharged Robert Addis and Thomas Gargen, nominated executors of the last will and testament of Mary French, deceased, and taken the estate of Thomas Box, which she had held in her possession at her death, into their charge and custody for the reasons set out in the previous consultation and for the benefit of the children, made the following order.

All persons desiring to take Mary French's children under their care and tuition were to appear at the next council day, in order to make an agreement for the children's several maintenances.

All movable goods belonging to the children were to be exposed to sale at a public auction on Monday 22 March, the money arising from the sale to be managed for the best advantage and benefit of the children.

Thomas Cason, sergeant, presented his petition this day, on the death of the late Ensign Sanderson on 3 March, asking to be appointed to the place and post of ensign. He grounded the petition on the rule, as he understood it, that the eldest sergeant succeeded to such vacancies, which Governor Poirier had put into practice, or, in the alternative, asked that his petition be forwarded to the Honourable Company.

On consideration of what the Honourable United Masters had written by their general letter to the island by the Northumberland, dated 23 May 1707, in the sixteenth paragraph concerning Mr John Alexander, clerk of the council, in which they had asked what reason the then Governor had for denying Alexander the place of ensign and preferring a sergeant, it was ordered that Mr John Alexander be invested in the place and post of ensign.

Interpretations

The disposition of Mary French's children's estate showed the council acting as a public guardian in the absence of a valid will. By inviting all who wished to take the children into their care to appear at the next council day for an agreement on maintenance, the bench established a competitive procedure that exposed the children's future placement to the scrutiny of the whole settlement. The decision to sell the children's movable goods at a public auction on a fixed date, with the proceeds to be managed for their benefit, converted assets into a fund that could be drawn on for their maintenance over time. The combination of public placement and public sale ensured that the new administration's stewardship of orphan estates would be visible to the community from the outset.

The ensign succession revealed an even more telling intervention. The directors' letter of 23 May 1707, which had arrived on the Northumberland, had contained a specific paragraph questioning the previous Governor's decision to pass over Alexander for the post in favour of a sergeant. With the post now vacant by Sanderson's death, the new administration had a clear directors' instruction on which to base the appointment of Alexander, and the order was duly made. Cason's petition, founded on the practice under Poirier, was effectively a request to apply the rule that the directors had already questioned. By refusing the application and citing the relevant paragraph, the council disposed of the matter cleanly in favour of London's preferred candidate.

The conversion of the council clerk into the ensign also illustrated how senior office on the island was being reorganised. Alexander had been clerk of the council throughout these consultations, and his transfer to the post of ensign would require a fresh appointment in his own office, which the council would presumably make at the next sitting. The reshuffling created opportunities for further internal moves and would have unsettled the assumption among senior soldiers like Cason that long garrison service alone established a claim to higher office.

Speculations

The disappointment of Cason in the ensign succession may help to explain the prominence of his name in earlier consultations. Cason had appeared in these records as a complainant against Greentree over cattle drivers, as a surety for Belvard in the same month, and as a sergeant on whose evidence the council had relied in other matters. A man with long service and an established place in the routine business of the bench might reasonably have expected his petition for the ensign post to succeed under the customary rule. The directors' specific intervention against that expectation, communicated through Alexander's elevation, reflected a metropolitan judgment that office on a Company station should be determined by considerations beyond garrison seniority alone.

The decision to invite all who wished to take Mary French's children into their care to compete at the next council day pointed to a recognition that orphan placement could become a profitable arrangement for those willing to undertake it. With the children's movable goods to be auctioned and the proceeds managed for their benefit, a guardian who could feed and house the children at modest cost might both gain useful labour and the social standing of having taken on responsibility for orphans. By exposing the placement to public competition, the council protected the children's interests against any single party who might have proposed unduly hard terms, and ensured that the most favourable agreement available could be selected.

134

126

Ensign according to the Tennor and Intent of our Said Hon[ble] Masters Gen[ll] Letter and to the farther Answering the Said Casons Petetion we Shall write our Openion and Reasons in our Next Generall to our Said Hon[ble] Masters p[r] the next homeward bound Shipp.

Whereas Lenard Heunt free planter presenting this day his Petetion Seting forth that he Stands Indebted to the Company a great Sum of Money offered Six head of Cattle, towards the payment of the Same haveing no other way to make Sattisfaction at present as he alledges haveing Some time Since Sent his Black to work at the For= =tefications but being found uncapable of doing a good days work was Sent to his Master again.

The Governour is of Openion that no more Cattle be bought for and on Account of the Hon[ble] Company, not yet a while they haveing at present a great Stock and now Pasture Enough to Maen= =tain them, and that if he will Send his Black to work at Eighteen pence p[r] day he may be Employed, and homselfe Two Shillings.

Cap[tn] Mashborne Says that he is well afseured being In= =trusted by Governour and Councell to Inspect into their Plantations &c[a]. that the Hon[ble] Companys Pasture is not Sefficeent to Maintain Two Heundred head of Cattle, and having now above Five heundred head and Severall People offering to Sell their Cattle which if bought would be very Detrimentall to the Company. Therefore thinks it not fitt any Cattle Should be bought as aforesaid tell Next Sceummer Shipeing beleiving that M[r] Heunt is Capable of Giveing Securety, to the Company for what he Ows them.

William Marsden is of Openion that M[r] Heunts Debt is Desperate and offering his Cattle for payment thinks his Offer ought to be Accepted, he haveing offered his Service to do Labourers work as a Mason or dry Wall.

It is Ordered:

That no Cattle be bought tell further Consederations.

Ensign Alexander was appointed according to the tenor and intent of the Honourable Masters' general letter. As to further answer of Cason's petition, the council resolved to write its opinion and reasons in the next general letter to the Honourable Masters by the next homeward bound ship.

Leonard Hunt, free planter, presented his petition this day, setting forth that he stood indebted to the Company in a great sum of money. He offered six head of cattle towards payment, having, as he claimed, no other way at present to give satisfaction. He had some time since sent his slave to work at the fortifications, but the slave being found incapable of doing a good day's work, had been sent back to his master.

Goodwin gave his opinion that no more cattle should be bought for the Honourable Company's account for the present, since the Company already had a great stock and pasture only just enough to maintain them. If Hunt would send his slave to work at eighteen pence a day he might be employed, and Hunt himself at two shillings a day.

Mashborne said that, having been entrusted by the Governor and Council to inspect the plantations, he was well assured that the Company's pasture was not sufficient to maintain two hundred head of cattle, and that the Company now had above five hundred head. With several people offering to sell their cattle, buying more would be very detrimental to the Company. He therefore thought it not fit that any cattle should be bought as proposed until the next summer shipping, believing that Hunt was capable of giving security for what he owed.

Marsden was of opinion that Hunt's debt was desperate, and that on his offer of his cattle in payment, with his further offer of his service as a mason or dry waller, the offer ought to be accepted.

It was ordered that no cattle be bought until further consideration.

Interpretations

The Hunt debate reveals an unusual disagreement among the three council members on a question of debt management. Goodwin and Mashborne both opposed the purchase of more cattle, citing the inherited overstocking from Poirier's last year and the pressure on existing pasture. Marsden disagreed, treating the debt as desperate and the cattle offer as the only realistic means of recovery. The record of the differing opinions, set down in turn before the closing order, shows that the new administration was willing to expose its internal differences on the council's books rather than present a uniformly composed view. The order itself, deferring decision until further consideration, preserved the underlying disagreement for resolution at a later sitting.

The pasture calculation provided by Mashborne is the most concrete operational statement in these consultations. With above five hundred head of cattle on pasture barely sufficient for two hundred, the Company's overstocking was substantial, and any further purchase would have compounded the existing pressure. By placing the figures on the record, Mashborne both justified his recommendation against further acquisitions and documented the scale of the inheritance from the previous administration. The Steep Reek common enclosure ordered the previous December must by now have been at work, but evidently had not yet relieved the underlying imbalance.

The proposal that Hunt's slave be employed at eighteen pence a day, and Hunt himself at two shillings, fixes a relative wage for free and slave labour that other entries have not specified so plainly. The slave's rate of eighteen pence stood at three quarters of the free planter's two shillings, which placed value on the difference between unfree and free labour at a measurable proportion. The proposal also reveals that the council was willing to set free planters to skilled work for ready money, with the value of their labour notional rather than market, since this was offered as a means of working off a debt rather than as competitive employment.

Speculations

The split of opinions among the three council members, with Marsden alone willing to accept Hunt's cattle and labour offer, may reflect a difference in their personal exposure to the consequences of the decision. Goodwin and Mashborne had direct responsibility for the plantation management, with Mashborne resident at the great plantation and Goodwin as Governor accountable to London for the Company's stock. Marsden's third place in council, with his earlier role in the store, may have given him a sharper view of the importance of recovering bad debts than of the operational difficulties of accommodating further cattle. The willingness of the new administration to record this kind of disagreement openly distinguishes its book-keeping from the unified front that Poirier's council had typically presented.

The decision to defer the matter to further consideration, rather than resolve it at once, suggests that the council expected the question of Hunt's debt to recur in different forms over the following months. By keeping the option open of accepting his cattle or his labour at a later date, the bench preserved the possibility of a settlement that suited the Company's needs as those needs evolved. With the pasture problem expected to ease as new enclosures came into use, and Hunt's debt likely to grow with continued unpaid interest, the moment to accept the offer might come on better terms than the present.

135

127

M[r] William Marsden and Morris Griffon Executors of the Last Well and Testament of William Hague presented the Said Well to Governour and Councell In order of haveing the Same proved which was accordingly done by the Oaths of Repim Wills, Thomas Deitch and Samuell Algate, who made Oath that the Said Well produced, was the Said William Hague Last Well and Testament.

It is Ordered:

That the said Well now produced be received and approved of and Copyes given when Demanded.

Whereas William Beale free planter did this Day Exhibite a Long writeing in the Nature of an Inditement Inter= mixed with Severall Spetefull and Mallicious Expressions against the Wefe of John Clavering for takeing a falfse Oath against him as he pretends of above a Twelve Months Standing which Illegall Coeurfe of Proceeding if allowed and Encouraged would prove of ill Conse= =queunce in Countemanceing persons to be troublesome in Letegious Sueits as the Said Beale is, and So Render Busynefs Endless.

It is therefore thought fett and Ordered:

That the said Beale be not allowed to go on with his Sueite against the Said Claverings Wefe, but Admonished to Live in Love and Amety one with the other as Neighbocurs.

For if there was Such an Oath taken it was only that Beale Sold Punch on the Sabbath the Consequence Cann not be much against him, Neither Can any of us, or the Clark afseure a Jeurry of the truth thereof as to make it Valed.

Mary Conaway Wedow desered that her deceased Son John Leech his Last Verball Will might be proved by the Oath of M[r] Alexander.

I John Alexander Clark of the Councill do hereby Depose that on the. 23. of February Last past the said Mary Conaway Sent for me the Deponent to M[r] Francis house in Fort James Valley where her Said Son Lay Sick and Desered me to make his Well, and asking the Deceased John Leech what he had to Desfpose of Made Answer that he had Nothing in his own pofsefseion, but what Share or part he had any Right or Tetle to in his deceased Fathers Estate he bequeathed the Same to his Mother. Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden

Mr William Marsden and Morris Griffon, executors of the last will and testament of William Hague, presented the will to the Governor and Council to have it proved. The proof was duly made by the oaths of Repim Wills, Thomas Deitch and Samuel Algate, who swore that the will produced was the last will and testament of William Hague.

It was ordered that the will now produced be received and approved, and that copies be given on demand.

William Beale, free planter, exhibited this day a long writing in the nature of an indictment, intermixed with several spiteful and malicious expressions, against the wife of John Clavering, for taking a false oath against him, as he pretended, of above a twelve months' standing. The course of proceeding was illegal, and if allowed and encouraged would prove of ill consequence by countenancing troublesome and litigious suits such as Beale's, and would render business endless.

It was therefore thought fit and ordered that Beale not be allowed to go on with his suit against Mrs Clavering, but be admonished to live in love and amity with her as a neighbour. If such an oath had been taken, it had only been to the effect that Beale had sold punch on the Sabbath, and the consequence could not be much against him. Neither the council nor the clerk could assure a jury of the truth of the matter so as to render any oath valid.

Mary Conaway, widow, asked that the last verbal will of her deceased son John Leech be proved by the oath of Mr Alexander.

I, John Alexander, clerk of the council, hereby depose that on 23 February last past, Mary Conaway sent for me to Mr Francis's house in Fort James Valley, where her son lay sick. She desired me to make his will. On asking the deceased John Leech what he had to dispose of, he answered that he had nothing in his own possession, but that what share or part he had any right or title to in his deceased father's estate he bequeathed to his mother.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Interpretations

The Beale dismissal illustrates how the council controlled the use of its own procedure against vexatious complainants. By labelling Beale's long writing in the nature of an indictment as illegal in form, intermixed with spiteful and malicious expressions, and warning of the ill consequence of allowing such suits to multiply, the bench placed on the record a clear basis for refusing the proceedings. The reference to Beale as a troublesome and litigious party is striking, since it amounts to an official label that could be cited against him in any future application. The council was effectively designating him as a complainant whose use of its procedures would now be regarded with particular scrutiny.

The reasoning given for the dismissal carries an unusual concession in the closing line. The bench acknowledged that even if Mrs Clavering had taken an oath against Beale, the substance of that oath would only have been that he sold punch on the Sabbath, an offence whose consequences for him would be modest. The clerk's frankness that he could not assure a jury of the truth of the underlying matter so as to make any oath valid amounts to an acknowledgment that the licensing investigations were operating on evidence whose strength was uncertain. The admission shows how candidly the new administration could record the limits of its own factual reach, even while pressing forward with the licensing regime in general.

The Leech verbal will, proved by the clerk's deposition, illustrates how the council handled nuncupative testamentary acts at the bedside of the dying. Alexander's statement that he had been summoned to make a will, had asked the dying man what he had to dispose of, and had received his answer that whatever interest he had in his father's estate should go to his mother, became the document on which the will rested. By recording the clerk's deposition in the consultation books, the council preserved the verbal will in formal written form, which gave the mother a documentary basis on which to claim her son's share in his father's estate.

Speculations

Beale's recurring appearances in these consultations, as a complainant against various neighbours and a defendant in licensing investigations, do suggest a planter whose litigious habits had earned him the bench's particular attention. By accumulating petitions over a range of subjects, often laced with what the council described as spiteful and malicious expressions, Beale had built a reputation that now told against him on a fresh application. The decision to dismiss the present petition without hearing the substance points to the bench's view that procedural sluice gates against vexatious suits needed to be tightened in his case.

The clerk's note that he had been brought to Mr Francis's house to make John Leech's will, with Mrs Conaway sending for him, suggests that the council's clerk was the recognised local notary for such occasions when no minister was at hand. The dying man's verbal disposition of his share in his father's estate to his mother, recorded in the clerk's deposition, would have given Mrs Conaway a clear claim against her late husband's executors when the estate was divided. The simple disposition reflected the limited scope of estates held by some islanders, but the legal mechanism, with the clerk's deposition standing in for a written will, was the same as that used for the wealthier residents whose probate had been the council's regular business.

136

128

Island St Helena March the. 20th. 1707/8

We Receved a Letter from the Governour and Councell of Bencoolen dated the. 4th December. 1707. by the Ship Albemarle, Wherein they Mention they, have receved the Persons Sent thether in the Companys Service &c[a]. and that they have Sent One thousand and Eight pound Nett of Pepper by Ship Carleton, who Lyes at the Cape and Ordered Pofsetively to go home with the Dutch.

March the. 23. 1707/8.

Whereas Yesterday Arrived a Portueguige Ship from Baye haveing been about three Months on his Voyage to Angola and Lofseing his Pafsage Came here on peurpofe for a Seupply of Water and Provisions.

It is Ordered:

That M[r] Alexander be Sent on board Said Ship to Examine into her Loading and to See what Neumber of Men he hath on board, and that the Comander be ordered on Shoar to know what Quantety of Provisions &c[a] he wants, and how Long he designes to Stay here, and that he bring his Ship Near the Shoar under the Comm[a]nd of our Line of Geuns.

Accordingly, the said Cap[tn] Came on Shoar, and brought his Pafs and all other Papers Relateing to his Voyage, which are Examined and found him to be a Merchant Ship bound to Angola and Demandeing of the Cap[tn] what Refreshment he wants Says only Some Water, and that he Intends to Sayle on Tuesday Next.

It is Ordered:

That the Port Duty being paid he take in Water and Such Refreshm[t] as he Shall want. Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden

Island of St Helena

20 March 1708.

The council received a letter from the Governor and Council of Bencoolen, dated 4 December 1707, brought by the ship Albemarle, in which they reported that the persons sent there in the Company's service had been received. They had sent one thousand and eight pounds net of pepper by the ship Carleton, which lay at the Cape and had been positively ordered to go home with the Dutch.

23 March 1708.

A Portuguese ship had arrived the previous day from Bahia. She had been about three months on her voyage to Angola, and having lost her passage had come to St Helena on purpose to take on a supply of water and provisions.

It was ordered that Alexander be sent on board the ship to examine her loading and to see what number of men she had on board, and that the commander be ordered ashore to declare what quantity of provisions he wanted, and how long he proposed to stay. He was also to bring his ship nearer the shore under the command of the line of guns.

The captain accordingly came ashore, and brought his pass and all other papers relating to his voyage, which were examined. The ship was found to be a merchant ship bound for Angola. On being asked what refreshment he wanted, the captain said only some water, and that he intended to sail on the following Tuesday.

It was ordered that, the port duty being paid, he take in water and such refreshment as he might want.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Interpretations

The Bencoolen letter places St Helena in its proper position within the Company's South Atlantic and Indian Ocean network. The men whose transfer the council had granted on passing ships the previous year, including the Rochester's embarkations in June and the Northumberland's passengers in December, had reached the further factory, and the eastward flow of personnel had been balanced by a westward flow of pepper. The detail that the Carleton had been positively ordered to go home with the Dutch convoy reflects the wartime convoy arrangements, in which an English Indiaman could be directed to attach herself to a Dutch homeward fleet for greater protection against French commerce raiders.

The Portuguese visit illustrates the formal procedure applied to a foreign vessel calling at the island. The order that Alexander board the ship to count men and inspect cargo, that the captain come ashore with his papers, and that the ship be moved closer in under the line of guns, follows a checklist designed to confirm the visitor's identity and prevent any surprise from a vessel of unknown character. With England and France at war, and the Dutch as allies, a ship from Bahia bound for Angola needed to be tested against the possibility that her papers were a cover for a French or Spanish enterprise. The procedure shows the council exercising port authority in its proper military as well as commercial dimension.

The granting of water and refreshments on payment of port duty, after the ship's papers had been examined and her character confirmed as a Portuguese merchant bound for Angola, illustrates the limited but real revenue the island derived from passing trade. A port duty payable by a foreign vessel for the privilege of refreshment provided a small income, while the verification procedure protected the island and its visiting English ships from the risk of a hostile vessel masquerading as a friendly trader.

Speculations

The instruction that the Portuguese ship move under the command of the line of guns, before the captain's papers had been examined and his character established, suggests that the council took the precaution of positioning every unknown vessel in a place where her resistance would be useless before her credentials were verified. The procedure provided cover against the risk that papers might be forged, and ensured that any later discovery of irregularity could be acted on while the ship lay within range of effective fire. Such routine precautions were the practical expression of being a Company outpost in wartime.

The relatively narrow definition of the Portuguese captain's needs, with only water and refreshments requested, points to an intention to spend as little time at the island as possible. A ship that had lost her passage to Angola through long delay would have wanted to resume her voyage as soon as the trade winds allowed, and a minimal stop at St Helena would have suited that purpose. The captain's clear statement that he intended to sail on the following Tuesday, only days away, signalled to the council that no protracted hospitality would be expected and that the port's resources would not be heavily drawn on by this particular visitor.

137

129

Island St Helena

Att a Court of Judicature held at the Sefsions House on, Tuesday, the. 23. Day of March. 1707/8

Pres[t] Thomas Goodwin, Governour Edward Mashborne Dep[ty] Governor William Marsden. 3[r] in Councill

Then, the Court was Opened according to the Accustomed Manner and those persons appoeinted for Jeurors are as followeth.

Thomas Swallow Sen[r] foreman 1 Heugh Bodley 2 John Nichols 3 Char[r]: Steward 4 Henry Francis 5 Mathew Bazett 6 Thomas Gargen 7 James Greentree 8 John Welsh 9 Joshcua Johnson 10 Robert Bell 11 Robert Leech 12

Who were all Called and Answered to their Names.

Joseph Parsons made Complaint against Repim Wells, Orlan= =do Bagley and Jonathan Dufton for that their Blacks Named Sambo, Hagar, and Sue, had broke open his the said Parsons house to the Vallue of Threepound One Shelling and Eight pence as in and by a Consultateon held the. 25. day of March. 1707.

The Said Repim Wells, Orlando Bagley, and Jonathan Dufton appeared with their Blacks.

Dufton Sce Says that Sambo, and Hagar mett with her when he was Reun away, and did break open the said Parsons house, and Stole out the thengs mentioned in the aforesaid Consultation, and Sett her to Look out that No body Came to Seurprize them.

Sambo and Hagar denys what the said Sce hath Accufsed them with.

Robert Swallow free planter Commenced an Action of the Cafse ag[t] Daniell Griffeth and Jonathan Dufton free planters, Setting forth in his Declaration that the Said Jonathan Dofeton, and Daniell Griffeth

Island of St Helena

At a court of judicature held at the sessions house on Tuesday 23 March 1708.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

The court was opened in the customary manner, and the jurors appointed were as follows.

Thomas Swallow senior, foreman. Hugh Bodley. John Nichols. Charles Steward. Henry Francis. Matthew Bazett. Thomas Gargen. James Greentree. John Welsh. Joshua Johnson. Robert Bell. Robert Leech.

All were called and answered to their names.

Joseph Parsons complained against Repim Wills, Orlando Bagley and Jonathan Duston, alleging that their slaves Sambo, Hagar and Sue had broken into Parsons's house and taken goods to the value of £3 1s 8d, as appeared in a consultation held on 25 March 1707.

Wills, Bagley and Duston appeared with their slaves.

Sue said that Sambo and Hagar had met her while she was a runaway, and had broken into Parsons's house and stolen the things named in the consultation, and had set her to watch out so that nobody should surprise them.

Sambo and Hagar denied what Sue had accused them of.

Robert Swallow, free planter, brought an action of the case against Daniell Griffith and Jonathan Duston, free planters. He set forth in his declaration that Duston and Griffith [...]

Interpretations

The opening of the court of judicature on 23 March marks a procedural shift from the regular council sittings to a fuller sessions court with a sworn jury of twelve free planters. The constitution of the jury from a wide cross-section of the island's free male population, including Hugh Bodley the former overseer of fortifications, Matthew Bazett the storekeeper's assistant, James Greentree the recent defendant in the cattle drivers case, and Thomas Gargen the discharged executor of Mary French, illustrates how the same names ran across every category of business in the settlement. Men who appeared before the bench in one matter would sit in judgment on another, and the small size of the resident community made any rigorous segregation of judicial roles impossible.

The Parsons housebreaking case shows the council using the sessions for matters that exceeded the routine disposition of individual breakers. Three slaves from three different households were charged together with a coordinated break-in over a year before, and the case demanded both the testing of evidence between accomplices and the determination of liability among the slaves' three masters. The choice of the sessions court rather than a consultation reflects the gravity of a multi-slave offence against a soldier's property, and the use of a jury allowed for findings of fact that the council alone could not have made with the same legal weight.

The opening of Swallow's action of the case against Griffith and Duston introduces a civil suit by a free planter against two others over what would emerge as a continuation of the land dispute previously referred to quarter sessions. The use of the formal action of the case, a recognised English legal procedure for damages arising from a wrong, shows that the planters had access to the technical vocabulary of metropolitan litigation and were using it to frame their disputes in the language the bench would recognise. The case had been deferred from earlier consultations precisely because it required the wider procedural scope of the sessions.

Speculations

The placement of Thomas Swallow senior as foreman of the jury is significant given that the same surname Swallow appears in the case against him and others as a defendant. Whether Thomas Swallow senior was related to Robert Swallow the complainant or to Richard Swallow the recurring surety is not stated, but the prominence of Swallows in both the jury and the cases suggests a substantial family network whose members held positions across the island's affairs. The selection of one of their number as foreman, in a sitting where another Swallow appeared as a complainant, reflects the inevitable overlap between juror selection and litigant identity in a small settlement.

The decision of Sue to give evidence against Sambo and Hagar, naming them as the principal actors while placing herself as the lookout, illustrates the standard pattern by which accomplices sought to mitigate their own position by implicating others. Whether Sue's account would be accepted by the jury would depend on its consistency with Parsons's recollection of his missing goods, and on whether independent corroboration could be found for the presence of any of the three slaves at the scene. The denial by Sambo and Hagar set up a straightforward question of credibility for the jury to resolve.

138

130

Executors of the Last Well and Testament of William Dufston, had taken all the best of Land belongeng to the Estate of the Deceased, and that what they had was only the Worst So that they could not Leve upon it, it being a Generall Rule and Law that the Wedlow Shall pofsefs halfe her Heusbands Lands aftor his decease for her Life time and more Especcially when bei[t] Twenty Acres as in this Cafe.

Then the Evidences following was Called and Sworne as followeth. for the Defendan[ts] John French Gunner being Sworne Saith that he was at the Said Deceased. William Dufstons out cry and in the house when M[r] Griffeth Came in, and heard him and the said Swallows Wefe (being then a Wedlow) have Severall words about the Estate, and that they gave her the Choice of what Goods She Desired, and how that She desired She might have her Liveing in the house, but the Yams on the Land being but Young and not Suffecient to Maentain her and Family and said She desered Some part of the Lower Ten Acres of Land, and did Pofsetively. Except against haveing of the Upper Land Saying that She Could not Leve on it.

Leonard Heunt Sworne Saith he heard the said Executors and M[rs] Dufston have Some words about the Land but dos not know what they agreed upon.

John Clavering Gunners Mate being Sworne Saith that he was at the Outcry and heard the Executors and Wedlow Dufston Debateing about the Land, and heard M[rs] Dufston Say She Could not Live on the Upper Ten Acres of Land (or that which was Inclofsed) but did not hear any thing mentioned of the Lower Ten Acres Land, to his Remembrance.

Affer Severall Debates.

The Jeury withdrew and Stayed about halfe an hour Then Retur= =ned their Verdict as followeth.

That the Deceased William Dufstons whole Twenty Acres of Land be Equally Devided and the Plaintiff Robert Swallow have One half thereof Plough and Smooth together as they Shall agree upon, and if not agreeing to Choose two Indifferent Men to decide the Difference and in Case of their not agreeing to Choofe an Umpiere. And the Executors to pay Court Charges.

Then the Jeury withdrew again to Consider the matter about the Blacks, breaking open Joseph Parsons house and Stealeing his goods and Stayd about a [g]reator of an hour then Returned and Delevered their Verdict.

That all the three Blacks Sambo, Hagar, and Sue are Guilty of

Swallow alleged that Duston and Griffith, executors of the last will and testament of William Duston, had taken all the best of the land belonging to the estate of the deceased, leaving him with only the worst, so that he could not live upon it. It was a general rule and law, he contended, that the widow should possess half her husband's lands after his death for her lifetime, and the more so when, as in this case, the holding was twenty acres.

The following witnesses for the defendants were then called and sworn.

John French, gunner, sworn, said he had been at the deceased William Duston's outcry, and was in the house when Mr Griffith came in. He had heard Griffith and Swallow's wife, then a widow, exchange several words about the estate. The executors had given her the choice of what goods she desired. She had asked that she might have her living in the house, but the yams on the land being young and not enough to maintain her and her family, she had asked for some part of the lower ten acres of land, and had positively excepted against the upper land, saying she could not live on it.

Leonard Hunt, sworn, said he had heard the executors and Mrs Duston exchange some words about the land, but did not know what they had agreed upon.

John Clavering, gunner's mate, sworn, said he had been at the outcry and had heard the executors and the widow Duston debate the question of the land. He had heard Mrs Duston say she could not live on the upper ten acres of land, that is, the part already enclosed. He did not remember hearing anything mentioned about the lower ten acres.

After several debates, the jury withdrew, and after about half an hour returned with their verdict as followed.

The deceased William Duston's whole twenty acres of land were to be equally divided, and the plaintiff Robert Swallow was to have one half, plough and smooth together, as the parties should agree. If they could not agree, they were to choose two indifferent men to decide the difference, and if those two could not agree, to choose an umpire. The executors were to pay court charges.

The jury then withdrew again to consider the matter of the slaves breaking open Joseph Parsons's house and stealing his goods, and after about a quarter of an hour returned and delivered their verdict.

That all three slaves, Sambo, Hagar and Sue, were guilty of [...]

Interpretations

The jury's verdict in the Swallow land case applied the customary rule of widow's thirds, here recast as a half rather than a third of the estate, by reading the rule against the specific configuration of the holding. The reasoning treated the twenty acres as a divisible whole, with the widow's share assessed at ten acres rather than the usual third, perhaps on the ground that the council had earlier confirmed her right to one third of the personal estate and the planters now applied an analogous treatment to the realty. The order that the parties agree on the division themselves, with provision for two indifferent men and an umpire on disagreement, used the standard arbitration form to ensure that the land was actually divided rather than left in continuing dispute.

The arrangement that ploughed and smooth land go together in the division addressed the practical concern that had been the basis of the case. Mrs Duston had said she could not live on the upper enclosed land, presumably because it lay rougher or less productive, and the jury's instruction that ploughed and smooth land go together prevented any subsequent stratagem of giving the widow only the cultivated parts of the lower acres while retaining the workable land elsewhere. The remedy thus addressed the underlying complaint by reading the rule of equal division through the experience of the witnesses to the original outcry.

The verdict on the housebreaking, with all three slaves found guilty, presented the court with the question of disposition that would follow at the next stage of the proceedings. The previous treatment of Dennis and Refase in similar cases gives a likely template, with lashes, branding and a period of forced labour for the Company at the fortifications as the available range of penalties. The court's choice would depend on whether this was a first or repeat offence for each of the slaves, and on whether the housebreaking law that had reached its third strike threshold in Dennis's case applied to any of the three present defendants.

Speculations

The widow's preference for the lower ten acres over the upper enclosed land, on the ground that she could not live on the upper portion, suggests that her judgment of the relative quality of the two parcels was at odds with that of the executors. Land that had been enclosed was usually considered the more valuable, since enclosure represented the investment of labour and the protection of crops, but the widow's testimony placed her practical preference firmly on the unenclosed lower acres. The discrepancy may reflect either particular features of the upper land that made it unsuitable for the kind of subsistence farming she anticipated, or a strategic move by the executors to retain the cultivated parcel by ostensibly offering it to her as the widow's share.

The willingness of the jury to apply a half rather than a third in the widow's share, despite the council's earlier opinion that one third of the personal estate was her due, suggests that the planters present in the court had a working understanding of the customs of the island that differed from the strict English doctrine. A holding of twenty acres on St Helena was modest, and an equal division between widow and other heirs may have struck the planters as a fairer outcome than the technical third would have allowed. The verdict thus illustrates how the country court could, through the verdict of a planter jury, soften the application of strict legal categories to local circumstances.

139

131

of breaking open the said Parsons house and Stealeing his goods, And that the Owners of the said Blacks at the time when the Robbery was Comitted Do make the Plaintiff Joseph Parsons Sattisfaction for the goods Stolen from him, and pay Court Charges.

Ordered by the Bench:

That these three Blacks be[u]nder the forst head on that Law against them for breaking open houses Dated. 28 January. 1704.

Whereas Daniell Griffeth, Gabriell Powell, and Walter Belvard haveing been all bound Over to the Peace till this day the following Proclamation was made.

All manner of persons that can give any Evidence or Information on the behalf of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, against Daniell Griffeth, Gabriell Powell, Walter Belvard for Either of them of any Matter of Fact or Facts, touching the breach of the Peace and their Recognesances Lett them draw Nedr, and give their Evidence, otherwise the said Daniell Griffeth, Gabriell Powell, and Walter Belvard are Discharged from their Recognicsance wherein they with their Suretys Stand now bound.

Then the Court was Adjourned as Usuall. Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden

Island St Helena

At a Consultation, held on Wednesday the. 24 day of March 1707/8 Att Fort James.

Pres[t] Thomas Goodwin, Governour Edward Mashborne Dep[ty] Govern[r] William Marsden. 3[r] in Councell

Whereas on Tuesday the. 9. day of March Last past It was ordered that the Controversee and Defserence between M[r] Vogell and M[r] Newman be Referred, Upon the said Newmans not having his Evidences ready Sumon[d] and thereby not able to make his Defence.

William Coales Sworne Saith that Some time Since he was upon the Line, and heard Severall words pafs between M[r] Vogell and M[r] Newman but

The slaves were found guilty of breaking into Parsons's house and stealing his goods. The owners of the slaves at the time of the robbery were to make Joseph Parsons satisfaction for the goods stolen, and to pay court charges.

It was ordered by the bench that the three slaves come under the first head of the law against breaking open houses, dated 28 January 1704.

Daniell Griffith, Gabriel Powell and Walter Belvard had all been bound over to the peace until this day. The following proclamation was made.

All persons who could give any evidence or information on behalf of our Sovereign Lady the Queen against Daniell Griffith, Gabriel Powell or Walter Belvard, or any of them, on any matter of fact touching the breach of the peace and their recognisances, were to draw near and give their evidence. Otherwise the said Griffith, Powell and Belvard would be discharged from the recognisances on which they and their sureties now stood bound.

The court was then adjourned as usual.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Wednesday 24 March 1708 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

In the consultation of Tuesday 9 March, the controversy and difference between Mr Vogell and Mr Newman had been referred, since Newman had not had his witnesses ready summoned and was therefore unable to make his defence.

William Coales, sworn, said that some time since he had been on the line and had heard several words pass between Vogell and Newman, but [...]

Interpretations

The sentence on the three slaves under the first head of the housebreaking law of 28 January 1704 indicates that the council had a graded statute, with successive heads carrying progressively heavier penalties. The choice of the first head as the appropriate measure for the present offence suggests this was the lightest of the categories, consistent with the absence of any previous convictions for any of the three. By placing each slave within the statutory scheme rather than imposing a sentence of pure discretion, the bench applied the kind of structured penal framework that had also governed Dennis's case, with the relevant head determining the package of corporal punishment, branding and forced labour applicable to each.

The civil liability of the masters for satisfaction to Parsons, ordered in the same verdict, preserves the dual structure of slave punishment seen earlier in the year. The slaves themselves are dealt with under the criminal law against housebreaking, while the masters bear the financial cost of the wrong, with the loss to the victim recovered from those who owned the offenders. The arrangement gave Parsons immediate restitution from solvent free planters while exposing the slaves to whatever corporal penalty the statutory head required.

The proclamation in respect of Griffith, Powell and Belvard, calling on any person to come forward with evidence of breach of peace before the recognisances were discharged, completed the binding-over cycle for all three men. The standard form of proclamation, with its appeal to all persons in the Queen's name, gave any complainant a final opportunity to raise an objection before the bonds were released. The discharge of the recognisances on absence of any such objection would close the formal disciplinary record on a sequence of disputes that had run through these consultations since the autumn.

Speculations

The grouping of Griffith, Powell and Belvard in a single proclamation suggests that the council saw all three men as belonging to a cluster of disputes that had taxed the bench's peace-keeping resources over the previous six months. By disposing of their bonds at a single sitting through a common form of words, the bench effectively drew a line under the disputes that had filled so many consultations from the autumn through the winter. The hope was presumably that the parties, no longer under formal restraint, would have absorbed enough discipline from the experience to keep the peace without the council's continuing attention.

The renewed call of Vogell against Newman, with William Coales now appearing as a witness, indicates that the dispute among the technical specialists had not been resolved by the fortnight's grace allowed at the previous sitting. The council had given the parties time to compose their differences in private, but the matter had returned to the bench with witnesses on both sides. The detail that Coales had been on the line, presumably the line of works at the fortifications, places the underlying confrontation at the site of the engineering programme, which suggests that the operational tensions between the two specialists could not be separated from their personal antagonism.

140

132

but what they were Cant well tell, and Lookeing about Saw M[r] Vogell Jump off of the Wall with his Cane and go after Newman and heard Newman Say Something of his Arfse, and Saw them Strike Each other but who Strueck forst Cannot pofsetively Say.

Upon Mature Consideration.

We are very well afseured that M[r] Vogell and M[r] Newman is Equally in fault by Strikeing Each other, and M[r] Vogell for Strikeing M[r] Newman forst, and the said M[r] Newman for giveing M[r] Vogell ill Lanugage and fend[s]ault with Each others Work must needs be Agresorrs alike.

Wherefore It is Ordered:

That the said Newman do not for the feiture affront or Obstruct the said M[r] Vogells work and Lekewise M[r] Vogell do the Same to the said Newman and that they pay Each their own Wittnefses.

Whereas M[r] Christian Frederick Vogell Enjineer did on Satteurday the. 13th. Instant about Nine of the Clock Complaine to the Governour that So far as he could Understand (his Broaken English) he was abufsed in his Reputation and Honour, but by what means he could not Understand, but told him he might have a hearing but as goeing to Bed asked his Wefe that he wondered, what was the Matter with M[r] Vogell, Saith he is abefsed and taulks about Drawing a Sword, But I cant tell what he meanes, who Answered if you Examine the Servants about the house you will know what it is, Whom he Called Asking One of his own Wenches Called Meg what was the Matter with M[r] Vogell who Answered that he had Layn with (a Gerle Named Marry, upon the Mount, when Cap[tn] Dickenson was here, and that he had Drawn his Sword upon her when She was fetching Mout up in the Valley, Saying that She had told Storys of him, and had threatned her before, So that She rein away and hid her Selfe tell he was gone, Further Examineing Marcy which is not above Eleven, years of Age Said that M[r] Vogell Catched her in the Mount house, and forced her to lie with him, Asked her why She did not cry out Answered that he tyed a hanckerchefse about her Mouth that She could not, And the next Day having Examined Thomas Hosficson a Youth of about Eleven, years of Age, Saith that Meg Cald him and An= thony, a Black Servant to See Something upon the Mount, that he went with her (But the fellow Understanding the Matter would not go) and lookeong through a Little Window Saw M[r] Vogell geting off from the Gerle and Creep from under the Table and bench through the back Sede of the house, and Said that Marcy had Pefsed all her Petty Coate.

The Governour being much Troubled to heare Such a Wicked Action but however thought to have Left alone tell Councell day Since it had

Coales could not say what the words were. Looking about, he saw Vogell jump off the wall with his cane and go after Newman. He had heard Newman say something about his arse, and saw them strike each other, but could not positively say who had struck first.

On mature consideration, the council was well assured that Vogell and Newman were equally in fault for striking each other. Vogell for striking Newman first, and Newman for giving Vogell ill language and finding fault with each other's work, must necessarily be regarded as aggressors alike.

It was ordered that Newman not in future affront or obstruct Vogell's work, and that Vogell do the same to Newman, and that each party pay his own witnesses.

On Saturday 13 March, about nine o'clock, Christian Frederick Vogell, engineer, complained to Goodwin that, so far as he could be understood given his broken English, he had been abused in his reputation and honour, though by what means could not be made out. Goodwin told him he might have a hearing. Going to bed, Goodwin asked his wife what was the matter with Vogell, who was so upset and was talking about drawing a sword, though he could not understand what he meant. His wife answered that if he examined the servants of the house he would learn what it was.

Goodwin called one of his own slave women, Meg, and asked her what was the matter with Vogell. She answered that he had lain with a girl named Mary on the Mount, when Captain Dickinson had been at the island, and that he had drawn his sword on her when she was fetching malt up in the valley, saying that she had told stories of him, and had threatened her before, so that she ran away and hid herself until he was gone.

Goodwin further examined Mary, who was not above eleven years of age. She said that Vogell had caught her in the Mount house and forced her to lie with him. Asked why she had not cried out, she answered that he had tied a handkerchief about her mouth so that she could not.

The next day Goodwin examined Thomas Hoskison, a youth of about eleven years of age. He said that Meg had called him and Anthony, a black servant, to see something on the Mount. He had gone with her, though the black would not go, understanding what was happening. Looking through a little window, he had seen Vogell getting off the girl and creeping out from under the table and bench through the back side of the house. He added that Mary had wet all her petticoat.

Goodwin was much troubled to hear of such a wicked action, but had thought to leave the matter until council day, since it had [...]

Interpretations

The Vogell and Newman disposition shows the council resolving the engineer dispute on the basis of equal fault. The finding that both men were aggressors, with Vogell at fault for striking the first blow and Newman at fault for ill language and disparagement of work, made any single ruling unworkable. By imposing reciprocal restraints on future conduct and dividing the costs of witnesses between the parties, the bench produced a settlement that preserved the standing of each man without compelling either to acknowledge greater fault. The arrangement gave both specialists a route to continued service on the works without loss of face.

The Vogell complaint of 13 March opens a far graver matter. The initial confusion of the engineer's broken English produced no clear sense of the grievance, and only the questioning of household servants by Mrs Goodwin's prompting brought out a coherent account. The succession of testimonies, from the slave woman Meg, from the eleven year old Mary, and from the eleven year old Thomas Hoskison, points to an alleged rape of a child by the senior engineer of the island, witnessed by another child through a window. The seriousness of the charge would have been apparent at once, and Goodwin's caution in proceeding through household examinations before formal proceedings reflects an awareness that the case would have to be assembled with great care.

The role of Meg in the account is striking. As one of Goodwin's own slave women, she appears to have been the key source of the initial information, and to have brought a second witness to the scene through her calling of Thomas Hoskison and Anthony. The reluctance of Anthony, a black servant who understood what was happening and refused to look, suggests an adult judgment that this was no proper sight for a witness, while Meg's deliberate choice of an eleven year old boy as her companion produced exactly the witness she may have wanted. The complexity of motive and agency among the household servants who first surfaced the charge will have weighed on the council in deciding how to proceed.

Speculations

The drawing of a sword on Mary as she fetched malt in the valley, when she had told stories of him and had been threatened before, indicates a pattern of attempted intimidation by Vogell that pre-dated the eventual complaint. The fact that the girl had run away and hid herself suggests that she had understood the threat and acted with adult prudence in protecting herself, which in turn implies that her account of the earlier assault on the Mount carried the consistency of conduct shaped by real fear rather than later invention.

The eleven year old Thomas Hoskison's identification of Vogell creeping out through the back side of the house, after getting off the girl, gives an account from a third party who was not himself the victim and who had been called by Meg specifically to see what was happening. The detail that Mary had wet all her petticoat reads as the kind of observed physical fact that a child of his age would mention but not invent, and would have struck the council as evidentially significant. The combination of the victim's account, the household slave's earlier information and the second child's eyewitness observation gave the case a documentary weight that the engineer's standing on the island could not easily overcome.

141

133

But being Last Night at Supper very much affronded by the said Vogells ill Demeaneur and Language And upon the Concleffion takeing his Leave of the Governour Asked M[r] Marsden if he had any Servece to Comand who Answered what do you Mean is not the Governour there to ask Servece, But he Still Persested in afseong of him Severall times Over, and Said if you have any thing to say to me Will go along with you.

This put the Governour upon Confeder[i]ong what the fellow meant, to Challenge one of the Suncell on his very presence Ordered the said Vogell to be gone to his Own Roome where he was Confined upon his parrowle, which he did after two or three Comands.

Upon, which the Governour was about calling a Councell to Sett on Friday the. 19th Instant to Confeder feurther about the whole Matter.

Upon, which day was an Alarme So Could not all partys having been upon deuty (and the Generall Sefsions Yesterday) tell this Day.

The said M[r] Vogell was Called for to Answer to the aforesaid Pre= mifses, who Appeared, and Says he has heard that he has been Scandaleyed but is Innocent and Offers to take his Oath that he is Clear of the fact, and Deseires that the Gerle, and the other Gerle Megg, and Thomas Hosficson the Governocurs Servant be Examined.

Marcy Says that being upon the Mount to make Water, M[r] Vogell Came there, and took her up in his Lap, Putt her Leggs about his Middle Stopt her Mouth with his Handkerchief, put Something into her.

Megg Says She went out upon the Mount and Lookt through a Little Hole or Smale Window in the Mount house, and Saw M[r] Vogell and Marcy together, and him Rise up and Creep under the Bench, and bed her in Portueguige not to Say any thing of what She Saw.

Thomas Hoskefon Says that he Saw M[r] Vogell Lye a Topp of Marcy and her petty Coats up, and M[r] Vogell goll of from her, and Creep under the Bench.

Antony Says Megg called him to Come and See M[r] Vogell and Marcy together but he would not go.

It is Agreed and Ordered:

That a Jeury be Inpannelled Some day Next Week to Determine the Matter, according to M[r] Vogells deseire. Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden

The previous night at supper Vogell had affronted the council with his ill demeanour and language. On taking his leave of Goodwin at the end of the meal, he had asked Marsden if he had any service to command. Marsden had answered, what did he mean, was not the Governor there to ask service of. Vogell had persisted in asking him several times over, and had said that if Marsden had anything to say to him he would go along with him.

This had set Goodwin to wonder what the man meant by challenging a member of the council in his very presence. He had ordered Vogell to go to his own room, where he was confined on parole, which Vogell did after two or three commands.

Goodwin was about to call a council to sit on Friday 19 March to consider the whole matter further. On that day, however, there was an alarm, so it could not be done, since all the parties had been on duty. The general sessions had been the previous day, and this was the next available sitting.

Vogell was called to answer the foregoing matters. He appeared and said that he had heard that he had been scandalised, but that he was innocent. He offered to take his oath that he was clear of the fact, and asked that the girl Mary, the other girl Meg, and Thomas Hoskison, Goodwin's servant, be examined.

Mary said that, being on the Mount to make water, Vogell had come there, taken her up on his lap, put her legs about his middle, stopped her mouth with his handkerchief, and put something into her.

Meg said that she had gone out on the Mount and looked through a little hole or small window in the Mount house. She had seen Vogell and Mary together, and Vogell rise up and creep under the bench. He had bidden her in Portuguese not to say anything of what she had seen.

Thomas Hoskison said he had seen Vogell lie on top of Mary, with her petticoats up, and that Vogell had got off her and crept under the bench.

Anthony said Meg had called him to come and see Vogell and Mary together, but he had refused to go.

It was agreed and ordered that a jury be empanelled some day next week to determine the matter, in accordance with Vogell's request.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Interpretations

The challenge to Marsden at supper, with Vogell asking the third councillor if he had any service to command and persisting in the formula several times over, would have been recognised by any officer of the period as a deliberate provocation tending to a duel. The formal request for service from a single named gentleman, repeated in the presence of others, was the standard verbal preliminary to a challenge, and Marsden's blunt deflection by pointing to the Governor as the proper authority through whom service should be asked refused to engage with the form. The Governor's response, ordering Vogell to his room on parole, treated the incident as a breach of order at the council's own table rather than as a private matter, and produced a record of the engineer's conduct that placed it beside the rape allegation as evidence of his general disposition.

The decision to convene a jury for the following week to determine the rape charge follows the pattern set in the housebreaking case earlier in the year, where the gravity of the offence and the conflict of evidence required the wider procedural weight of a sworn jury. The council on its own authority could have disposed of routine matters, but a charge of this kind against a senior officer required a finding by free planters under oath. Vogell's request for a jury, made together with his offer to take his oath of innocence, was the obvious procedural response of a defendant who knew that conviction by the council itself was likely and hoped that a jury might produce a different result.

The testimony of Mary in her own words is striking for what it reveals and what it does not. The child's account of being taken on his lap, of her legs being placed about his middle, of her mouth being stopped with his handkerchief and of something being put into her, gives the kind of detailed observation that a child of eleven would be likely to recall but unlikely to invent. The deliberate restraint of her own description, with the act recorded only as something put into her, has the texture of a young witness giving evidence of an experience whose nature she only partly understood.

Speculations

The instruction to Meg in Portuguese not to say anything of what she had seen places Vogell's linguistic capacities in a new light. The engineer who had been described as struggling with broken English when complaining to Goodwin was apparently confident enough in Portuguese to attempt to silence a slave witness. The detail also speaks to Meg's own background, since the choice of Portuguese as the language of intimidation suggests that Vogell knew or guessed that Meg spoke it, which in turn places her among the substantial numbers of slaves on the island whose first contact with European languages had come through the Portuguese trade. The detail incidentally undercuts any later claim by Vogell that his English had been inadequate to follow the proceedings of the council.

The alarm on Friday 19 March, which had prevented the planned council sitting, illustrates the way in which military duties continued to overlay the civil business of the bench. With all parties needed on duty during an alarm, even a serious case of this kind had to wait. The delay between the supper challenge and the present sitting also gave Vogell time on parole in his own room to consider his defence, which may explain the calculated form of his appearance, with the offer of an oath of innocence and the request for the very witnesses whose testimony had brought the charge against him.

142

134

George Hoffkinson Free planter Deseiring that he might heire the Land and Plantation of the Late Deceafed. Mary French that was Welled to the Said Mary French (by her Father Thomas Box) for her Naturall Life, and then to Devoul to her Cheldren on Equall Proportieon, With Ten Acres of the Companys Land Lett out to William French who is gone off the Ifsland, Some of the said Cheldren beeing now at or very Negh Age and Maerriage, The said Hoffkinson offers to Reun the Risgue of theer Demands on the said Estate and pay for the Use of the said Cheldren after the Rate of Ten pownds p[r] Annum, Vez[t] for the Use of theer Blacks Werke for the Company at theer For= =tefieations, One heundred Wade of Yams Every Second Weeke at the Rate of Foeur Shellings p[r] heundred, and the Remainder to be paeid Either in Money or Store Credett Excepable for the Use of said Cheldren.

Whereupon, It is Agreed and Ordered:

That the said Hoffkinson have the said Land and plantation the Term of Ten Yeurs, upon the Condetion aforesaid, with this Addetion that he pay, the Right Hon[ble] Companys Cheife Rents and Reveneues, and Leave the said Plantateon in as good order as when Receeived, and what Addetionall Fence Shall be made by him Shall be Kept and Left in good Repaier, And if in case the afores[d]. W[m]. French doth not afseng[r] So afserge[r] Ten Acres of Land to Another, y[t] Hoffkinson Shall become y[s] R[t] Hon[ble] Comp[s] Tennant for the Same, And so he be Answerable for Twenty Thousand y[ams] to Box[s] Estate Wittnefs: Geo: Hoskison Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden

Island St Helena

At a Court of Justice held att the Sefsions house Near Fort James on Thursday the. 1. day of Aprell 1708. For the Tryall of Christiean Fredereck Vogell Engineer

Pres[t] Thomas Goodwin, Governour Edward Mashborne Dep[ty] Govern[r] William Marsden. 3[r] in Councell

Then the Court was opened, according to the Useall Custome and the Jurors appoeinted Named as followeth.

Henry, Francis. 8. Thomas Swalleys Sen[r] foreMan 1 Thomas Cason 9 John French 2 John Welsh 10 John Nichols 3 Robert Bell 11 Heigh Bodley 4 Samuell Broom 12 Thomas Sou[t]hon 5 Orlando Bagley 6 Charles Steward 7 Then

George Hoskison, free planter, asked to hire the land and plantation of the late Mary French, deceased, which had been left to her by her father Thomas Box for her natural life and then to descend to her children in equal proportion, together with ten acres of the Company's land let out to William French, who had gone off the island. Some of the children were now at or near the age of marriage. Hoskison offered to run the risk of their demands on the estate, and to pay for their use at the rate of ten pounds a year. The payment would consist of the labour of his slaves at the Company's fortifications, one hundred pounds weight of yams every second week at four shillings the hundred, and the remainder in money or store credit expendable for the use of the children.

It was agreed and ordered that Hoskison have the land and plantation for ten years on the conditions stated, with the addition that he pay the Honourable Company's chief rents and revenues, and leave the plantation in as good order as he had received it. Any additional fence he made was to be kept and left in good repair. If William French should not assign over his ten acres to another, Hoskison was to become the Honourable Company's tenant for the same. He was also to be answerable for twenty thousand yams to Box's estate.

Witness: Geo: Hoskison.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Island of St Helena

At a court of justice held at the sessions house near Fort James on Thursday 1 April 1708, for the trial of Christian Frederick Vogell, engineer.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

The court was opened in the usual manner, and the jurors appointed were named as followed.

Thomas Swalley senior, foreman. John French. John Nichols. Hugh Bodley. Thomas Southon. Orlando Bagley. Charles Steward. Henry Francis. Thomas Cason. John Welsh. Robert Bell. Samuel Broom.

[...]

Interpretations

The Hoskison agreement on the Mary French estate is an elaborate composite arrangement in which one substantial planter assumed responsibility for the maintenance of several orphan children in exchange for the use of their land. The payment in kind, with slave labour for the Company, deliveries of yams every second week and a residual cash component spendable through the store, structured the consideration in a way that suited an island economy with limited circulating money. The provision that Hoskison run the risk of the children's eventual demands on the estate transferred to him the legal exposure of administering the trust, while the requirement that he leave the plantation in good order with any new fence in repair protected the long-term value of the holding.

The clause making Hoskison answerable for twenty thousand yams to Box's estate placed a specific quantum on his obligation in the event of any deficiency. By naming a precise figure of yams rather than a money equivalent, the council preserved a benchmark that could be enforced against him in kind, which was particularly valuable given the volatility of money prices for the staple. The agreement reads as a careful piece of estate management in which the council, acting as guardian under the previous council's order, balanced the interests of the orphans against the practical need for a capable adult to operate the plantation.

The constitution of the jury for Vogell's trial, with twelve free planters drawn from the same pool that had served at the recent sessions, places the case before a body of local opinion rather than the council alone. The presence of Cason as a juror, only weeks after his unsuccessful application for the ensign post, and the inclusion of John French, the gunner who had given evidence in the Swallow land case, illustrates how the same names appear repeatedly across the bench's business. The court for so grave a matter as the rape of a child was nevertheless drawn from the ordinary working pool of free planters, since no other panel existed on the island.

Speculations

The selection of Samuel Broom as a juror is striking given his recent appointment as a probationary schoolmaster at the country church, a position approved by Poirier earlier in the year for a three month trial. His inclusion among the twelve at this point indicates that his probation had probably resulted in a continuing appointment, and that he had become sufficiently established on the island to take a place in jury service. The combination of clerical and educational standing with this judicial role illustrates how rapidly a man could pass through the principal offices available to a literate newcomer in the settlement.

The careful agreement with Hoskison over Mary French's estate, with its detailed provisions for labour, yams and store credit, may also have reflected the council's wish to keep Hoskison engaged with public obligations after the troubles of his earlier dealings with the Beale orphans and his recent rough reflection on the council over the cattle decision. A planter actively engaged in administering an orphan estate for the council was less likely to be a public critic of the bench, and the contract gave Hoskison both a substantial undertaking to manage and a continuing dependence on the council's goodwill in the form of the chief rents and the eventual review of his stewardship.

143

135

Then the said Christiean Frederick Vogells Charge was read as in the Consultation held the. 24. day of March Last past.

And the black Gerle Named Mercy was Called and Examined who says as in her former Declaration not vary[i]ng in the Least, adding feurther that the said Vogell Came next Morning and ask[t] Jacob a black boy for his Hatt that he Left behind the Night before.

Megg Says as in her former Declaration in the Consultation held the . 24. day of March Last past.

Thomas Hoffkinson a youth aged about Eleven Years Saith as in his former Declarateon adding feurther that Mercy Sefel her petty Coats was wett of pifs[t].

Thomas Free Sworn Saith Some time in January Last as he Came Over from Reuperts in the Morning and Setting in the Hall, bid Thomas Hoffkinson go for the Key of the Hofell upon the Mocunt to the Governocur the said Thomas Hoffkeson told me the Governocur was a Sleep by and by Came the black Gerl Called Mercy throeugh the Hall, the Said Hoffkinson Said M[r] Free there is the young Engineer what do you mean you Rogeue Says I. why says he if you wont tell no body. I'le tell you, No Said I, I wont then said the aforesaid Hoffkinson the Night that the Feast was in the Garden he Came to Call Mercy the black Wench, and not fen= =ding her no were he went upon the Mocunt, and upon the Ground he Saw M[r] Vogell Lying a Topp of the said Gerl her petty Coats up, and the said Vogell blowing he beeing So hard at Work and out of breath, and the Gerls petty coate were all Nasty, &c[a]. then the said Hoffkeson fell a Laugheng then M[r] Vogell got up from the Gerle, and Crept out under the Bench One way and the said black Gerle another way, and says he, ask Meg and She can tell you the Same.

About halfe an houcr afterwards I Saw the said Meg and ask[t] her about M[r] Vogell and the black Geirle Marcy, who told me the Same as Thomas Hoffkeson told me before, adding that I ask[t] the aforesaid Marcey if She was not Ashamed, She Answered She could not help it M[r] Vogell Stopt up her Mouth with a [Hand]keercheef or Elfse She would have Cryed out.

Some time Since M[r] Vogell Inveded me to drink Some Tea with him and on Defscoeurfse told me he Reun aftor Marcy upon the Mocunt and Seised her.

Then the said Christiean Frederick Vogell delevered a Sceond Petetion, or plee in his Defence which was puellickly Read before the Jeury and so withdrew and Stayed about an houcr Then Returned theer Verdict as followeth.

That the said Christiean Frederick Vogell is Clear of the Seam= =dale Laid to his Charge and that the two black Geirles Punnishment they Leave to the Law of the Ifsland for Scandaleizeing the said Vogell, and Thomas Hoffkeson to ask his pardon. Whereas

Vogell's charge was read as in the consultation held on 24 March last.

The black girl Mary was called and examined. She said as in her former declaration, not varying in the least, adding that Vogell had come the next morning and asked Jacob, a black boy, for his hat, which he had left behind the night before.

Meg said as in her former declaration in the consultation of 24 March.

Thomas Hoskison, a youth aged about eleven years, said as in his former declaration, adding that Mary's petticoats had been wet with piss.

Thomas Free, sworn, said that some time in January last, as he was coming over from Rupert's in the morning and sitting in the hall, he had asked Thomas Hoskison to go to the Governor for the key of the house on the Mount. Hoskison had told him the Governor was asleep. By and by the black girl Mary had come through the hall. Hoskison had said, Mr Free, there is the young engineer. Free had asked what he meant, calling him a rogue. Hoskison had answered that if Free would tell nobody he would tell him. Free had said he would not, and Hoskison had said that on the night of the feast in the garden, Vogell had come to call Mary the black girl, and not finding her, had gone up to the Mount. On the ground, Hoskison had seen Vogell lying on top of the girl, her petticoats up, Vogell blowing as if hard at work and out of breath, and the girl's petticoats all nasty. Hoskison had then fallen to laughing, and Vogell had got up from the girl and crept out under the bench one way while the girl had crept out another. He had told Free to ask Meg, who could tell him the same.

About half an hour later, Free had seen Meg and asked her about Vogell and Mary. She had told him the same as Hoskison, adding that when Free had asked Mary if she was not ashamed, the girl had answered she could not help it, since Vogell had stopped her mouth with a handkerchief, or else she would have cried out.

Some time since, Vogell had invited Free to drink some tea with him, and in conversation had told him he had run after Mary on the Mount and seized her.

Vogell then delivered a second petition or plea in his defence, which was publicly read before the jury. The jury withdrew, and after about an hour returned their verdict.

The verdict was that Vogell was clear of the scandal laid to his charge. The punishment of the two black girls was left to the law of the island for scandalising Vogell, and Thomas Hoskison was to ask his pardon.

[...]

Interpretations

The jury's verdict is a striking moment in the record. Confronted with the consistent testimony of an eleven year old victim, of a fellow slave who had witnessed the act through a window, of an eleven year old boy who had also seen it, and of an adult clerk to whom both the boy and the slave woman had reported the same account in similar terms, the twelve free planters chose to acquit the engineer and turn the law against the witnesses. The decision converted a case of alleged rape of a child into a case of slander against a senior officer, with the slaves now exposed to punishment under the island's defamation law and the boy required to apologise to the man whose conduct he had described.

The detail that Vogell himself had told Free in private conversation that he had run after Mary on the Mount and seized her appears, on the face of the record, to be a partial admission by the accused. Even setting aside the witnesses against him, the engineer's own account to a third party places him at the scene with an aggressive intent towards the child. The jury's verdict in spite of this admission underlines how heavily the bench of planters had weighed Vogell's standing as a Company officer against the standing of those who accused him.

The status of the witnesses appears to have been decisive in the jury's reasoning. Two slave women, an eleven year old slave boy and a youth of about eleven, set against a salaried engineer recently sent from London at the directors' particular instance, produced an evidentiary contest in which formal social position mattered more than the substance of the testimony. The framing of the verdict, which left the punishment of the slaves to the law of the island for scandalising Vogell, made the disparity of standing the explicit basis of the result, since the same evidence could not be both true and the basis of a scandal action.

Speculations

The willingness of a jury that included men of long settlement and considerable substance, including Cason, John French, Hugh Bodley and Charles Steward, to dispose of the case in this way suggests that the planters had reached a view that the testimony of slaves against a free man, on so grave a charge, could not be permitted to prevail. Whether this reflected a strict reading of evidentiary rules in which slave testimony was treated as inherently inadequate against a free defendant, or a broader political calculation about the consequences of convicting the Company's engineer at the start of his service, the result was the same. The legal protection of process and proportion that the council had built up through the previous year did not extend across the line of unfreedom when the offence was as grave as this.

The decision to order Thomas Hoskison to apologise to Vogell, even though he was a free child and the son of a planter, indicates that the jury did not regard youth as separately protective. By placing the boy in the same category as the slaves for the purposes of this verdict, the jury reduced the witness against Vogell to a single legal class of inferiors who had wronged him. The order would have left a lasting mark on the young Hoskison's experience of the island's justice, and would have signalled to every other child in the settlement that telling what they saw against a powerful adult could expose them to public humiliation.

144

136

Whereas the Jeuries Verdict in part is that the two black Geirles Punnishment they Left wholy to the Law made and Provided in Such Cases, Upon the Reading of which Law, and fending an Exception thereon Mentioned, did Remind me of what M[r] Vogell at divers, times hath told me (which I forgot to Mention in Court as indeed I ought to have done) which is that the said Vogell did Some time Since Come up unto the Sountrey to my houfe and Called me a Side to ask me Some Questions about the Matter aforesaid, which was Spread almost over the Ifsland, on which Defseourfe he told me that he was or did Stand Clofe to Mercy, the black Geirle, and that he took her by the hand, asking her Severall Questions but Cheifly, who were M[rs] Marry and M[rs] Martha Goodwins Sweet hearts, and how many they had to which I made Answer I thought that it was very Uncevill, he replyed it was no harm for it was Comon So to do in England, which I made Some Answer to, but what have now forgott, The said Vogell hath Severall times askt me what News I heard, and whether any thing of him, and fend[i]ng him Somewhat Confeious, said you Know the News already, I Need not tell you, says he I have heard Something but what did not tell me.

Upon, which Declaration of M[r] John Alexanders, the Govern[r] Could not but be very Angry. with the said M[r] Vogell, and doth believe that if M[r] Alexander had given in his Declaration before the Jeury was gone out, that the said Vogell had not Come off So well. And therefore the Governour with the advice and Consent of the Councell ordered the said Vogell out of his Appartment forbed[i]ng him to come there any More tell aga[in]e p[r]mitted

Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden

In view of the jury's verdict, which had in part left the punishment of the two black girls wholly to the law made and provided in such cases, the reading of that law, and noting the exception mentioned in it, had reminded the Governor of what Vogell had told him at various times. The matter had been forgotten in court, though it ought to have been mentioned. Vogell had at some time since come up to the country house, called Goodwin aside, and asked questions about the affair, which had by then spread almost over the island. In the course of that conversation Vogell had said that he had stood close to Mary, the black girl, had taken her by the hand, and had asked her several questions, chiefly about who were Mistress Mary's and Mistress Martha Goodwin's sweethearts, and how many they each had. Goodwin had answered that this was very uncivil. Vogell had replied that it was no harm, since such things were common in England. Goodwin had given some reply, though he had now forgotten what it had been. Vogell had at various times also asked Goodwin what news he had heard, and whether he had heard anything of him. Sensing Vogell somewhat conscious, Goodwin had said, you know the news already, I need not tell you. Vogell had answered that he had heard something, but had not told what.

On Alexander's declaration to this effect, Goodwin could not but be very angry with Vogell, and believed that if Alexander had given in his declaration before the jury withdrew, Vogell would not have come off so well. The Governor therefore, with the advice and consent of the council, ordered Vogell out of his quarters, forbidding him to come there any more until again permitted.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Interpretations

The disclosure of Alexander's private conversations with Vogell, made on the record after the verdict had already been returned, reveals an attempted approach by the engineer to a senior member of the council during the period when the matter was the talk of the island. Vogell had drawn Alexander aside at the country house, framed the conversation around questions about the daughters of the Governor's household, and had probed for news of what was being said of him. The pattern of approach is consistent with an attempt to test the strength of the case against him and to soften the position of a councillor who would have been a key part of any further proceedings. The justification offered by Vogell, that such enquiries were common in England, parallels the framing he had used in his own defence at trial, with English custom invoked to license behaviour that the local witnesses found offensive.

The order removing Vogell from his quarters and forbidding his return without further permission marks the limits of the council's acceptance of the jury's verdict. The bench could not overturn a jury finding once delivered, but it could, on the basis of Alexander's later disclosure, use its own administrative authority to exclude Vogell from the inner spaces of the Fort and the company of its principal officers. By acting on the new information without reopening the criminal proceeding, the council preserved formal respect for the verdict while marking its own opposite view of the engineer's conduct.

The Governor's recorded anger and the explicit observation that Vogell would not have come off so well had Alexander's declaration been before the jury, mark the council's distance from the jury's reasoning. The clear implication is that the council itself would have convicted Vogell on the available evidence, and that the late disclosure had simply confirmed a conclusion already privately reached. By placing this view on the record, the bench gave the directors in London a documentary basis for any further action they might wish to take against Vogell, even though local procedure could go no further.

Speculations

Vogell's questions to the slave girl about the sweethearts of the Governor's daughters Mary and Martha, recorded by Alexander, illustrate a pattern of inappropriate enquiry into the household to which his standing as an officer should have given him no such access. The questions are not in themselves criminal, but they reveal a man whose interest in the women and girls of the settlement extended to the daughters of the senior official on the island, conducted through a slave intermediary. The combination of this pattern with the substance of the rape charge made the council's view of Vogell's character considerably starker than the jury's narrow verdict had allowed.

The decision to record Vogell's defence that such enquiries were common in England, alongside the wider account of his approach to Alexander, would have been calculated to embarrass any attempt by Vogell to maintain his position in London. By preserving in the books a record in which the engineer not only had been the subject of consistent eyewitness testimony of rape but had also justified his subsequent behaviour by reference to supposed English custom, the council documented a series of attitudes that any reviewing director would have found difficult to defend. The closing of his quarters and exclusion from the council's spaces converted the formal acquittal at sessions into a practical disgrace that would have been visible to every officer and resident on the island.

145

137

Island St Helena

At a Consultation, held on, Tuesday the. 13th day of Aprell 1708. Att Fort James.

Pres[t] Thomas Goodwin, Governocur Edward Mashborne Dep[ty] Gover[r] William Marrsden. 3[r] on Counc[ill]:

Elizabeth, Sanderson, Wedlow brought and Delivered this day her deceased Heusband Thomas Sanderson Late Ensign his Last Well and Testament, In order of haveing the Same proved, which was Accordingly done by the Oaths of George Hoffkeson, and Thomas Cason, who made Oath that the Said Well now produced was the said Sander= =fons Last Well and Testament, and that they know of no other by him made Either in word or Wreting.

It is Ordered:

That the said Well now produced be Receeived and approved of and Coppys given when Demanded.

Whereas Thomas Beurnham free planter made Complaint against Thomas Foster Corporall for his Scurrelous and Grofs Abufes.

The said Thomas Beurnham and Foster was Called into Court the Complaenant appeared and Sattisfyed the Court that they had agreed up theer Differences.

Daniell Griffeth and Jonathan Dufton Executors of the Last Well and Testament of William Dufston Deceased made Complaint against Robert Swallow for Denying to pay them a Debt of Thirty three poeund and Eight pence for goods bought at the said Deceased Dufstons Auc= tions.

The Said Robert Swallow was Called and Denyed the Debt.

Severall Evidencies Viz[t]. John Ffrench and Dorathy Howfse who Said that the Executors gave her her Choice of Severall goods for her theirds and what they Came to More She was to pay to that Estate when other Persons did.

It is Ordered, by all parties Consent:

That the Matter now in Controversie be Left to the Jeury all the next quater Sefseons [Viz]: Whether the Relict of the said William Doufston Shall have One theird part, of the personall Estate as Usuall in this Ifsland, or whether he by his Last Well Gave her no more then the Law well allow Shall be Sceffe= =ecent to dett her off from haveing any part thereof as the Executors doth alledge Jonathan

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 13 April 1708 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

Elizabeth Sanderson, widow, brought and delivered this day her deceased husband Thomas Sanderson, late ensign, his last will and testament, in order to have it proved. The proof was duly made by the oaths of George Hoskison and Thomas Cason, who swore that the will now produced was Sanderson's last will and testament, and that they knew of no other made by him in writing or by word.

It was ordered that the will now produced be received and approved, and that copies be given on demand.

Thomas Burnham, free planter, complained against Thomas Foster, corporal, for his scurrilous and gross abuses.

Burnham and Foster were called into court. The complainant appeared and satisfied the court that the two had settled their differences.

Daniell Griffith and Jonathan Duston, executors of the last will and testament of William Duston, deceased, complained against Robert Swallow for refusing to pay them a debt of thirty three pounds and eight pence for goods bought at the deceased Duston's auctions.

Robert Swallow was called and denied the debt.

Several witnesses, including John French and Dorothy Howse, were called. Howse said that the executors had given her her choice of several goods for her thirds, and that what they came to over that share she was to pay to the estate when other persons did.

It was ordered, with the consent of all parties, that the matter now in controversy be left to the jury at the next quarter sessions, on the following question: whether the relict of William Duston should have one third part of the personal estate, as was usual on the island, or whether by his last will he had given her no more than the law allowed, and the will would suffice to debar her from having any part of it, as the executors alleged.

Jonathan [...]

Interpretations

The Sanderson probate completes the cycle of estate business arising from the death of the ensign on 3 March, whose vacancy had been filled by Alexander on the directors' direction. The widow's prompt presentation of the will, with two settled planters as oaths-takers, follows the now standard procedure on the island, and the order admitting the will to proof and providing copies on demand gave the widow the documentary basis to claim her share of the estate. The continuity of the probate procedure across so many recent deaths, from Duston, Purling, Poirier, Desfontaines and Hague, shows how thoroughly the council had embedded English testamentary practice as the routine response to mortality on the island.

The Burnham and Foster matter illustrates the council's willingness to accept private accommodation between parties even after a complaint had been formally lodged. The two men had settled their differences before the case reached substantive hearing, and the council recorded only that the complainant had satisfied the court of the settlement. The arrangement closed the proceedings without need for further evidence, and demonstrates how the bench's role extended to facilitating reconciliation as well as to imposing judgment.

The Swallow debt case raises the same widow's share question that had been determined by the jury at the previous quarter sessions in the Swallow land case. The present action by the executors of William Duston against Robert Swallow for thirty three pounds and eight pence, with Howse's evidence that the executors had given her her choice of goods for her thirds, presents the question in a new procedural form. The agreement to refer the issue to the jury at the next quarter sessions for explicit determination of whether the widow was entitled to one third of the personal estate, or whether the will excluded her share, indicates that the council recognised the matter needed a definitive answer that could govern future cases on the island.

Speculations

The decision to commit the widow's share question to the jury at the next sessions, in the explicit form of the alternative between customary thirds and testamentary exclusion, suggests that the council expected a contested determination that would settle the principle for future estates. The willingness of all parties to consent to this arrangement points to a recognition that the question affected too many planters' future arrangements to be left in uncertainty, and that a clear jury finding would govern the conduct of executors and the expectations of widows on the island going forward.

The Burnham and Foster settlement, reached before the substantive hearing began, may have been encouraged by the council's known practice of insisting that complainants establish their case with witnesses and proper evidence. A complaint that had been formally registered but for which the proof might be difficult to assemble could readily be withdrawn at the cost of council charges, while a contested hearing might produce an order even less satisfactory to the complainant than the private accommodation he could reach. The pattern of withdrawal at the threshold of formal hearing illustrates how the procedural cost of pursuing a complaint shaped the willingness of parties to settle.

146

138

Jonathan Dufston made Complaint against the aforesaid Robert Swallow for Entertaineing his Blacks, and that in the Night time to his great Detriment, and Desered the Evidences following might be Sworne.

Robert Swallow denys that he Ever Entertained the Said Dufstons Blacks.

Edward Mash Sworn Saith that the said Robert Swallow Sent for him and Some others, to Veew a Beast of William Dufstons Cheldren, that had Come to a Miefshance, and Saw then the said Jonathan Dufstons black a Skenning the beast which was on a Wensday forenoone.

Francis Leech Sworn Saith that when the beast aforesaid fell down in the Ditch, Robert Swallow Sent to the Neighbocur M[r] Hoeflson and Jonathan Dufston for their Blacks to Come and help them out with it who Accordingly did, and the said Dufstons Black Named Dick Said if you Kill this beast I will Come and help you, but no body made Answer, and when the said Beast was a Dreffeong on Wedn[s]day after Saw the black a helpeing Skenning the Beast, but how he Came there Cant tell.

James Leech Sworn Saith that the Morning the Beast was Killed he Sent the Black fellow Dick for a Teun of wood, Some time after he Came home, and brought Some Beef with him, and asking him where he had it Said of Robert Swallow, Another tome the Black was Misfeong from home, and asking where they had been Said to See his Old Westrefs.

It Appearing to us that the said Jonathan Dufston hath no Sufficeent proofe of the Said Robert Swallows Entertaineing any of his Blacks, and he himself geveing his Black Leave to go in to help the Best out of the Ditch, and that his Complaint is Groundless.

It is Ordered:

That the said Jonathan Dufston be cast in Sceit, and pay all the Councill Charges.

George Hoffkison free planter brought and Delivered an Account of the Stock and Estate of Jonathan Beals Orphans for the Year past which was Examined and approved of.

Henry, Francis appeared with the Orphans of Jona= =than Beale, and their Accounts Stated wherein it did appear That the Orphans Stood Indebted to him the Sum of Foeurteen poeund of which Thirteen poeund was for the Last Year boarding and Twenty Shillings Left unpaid Last Year, but had the thirteen poeund pa[i]d him in Store Credett Last Reckoning day and Twenty Shillings Remains due.

Jonathan Duston complained against Robert Swallow for entertaining his slaves, and that in the night-time, to his great detriment, and asked that the following witnesses be sworn.

Swallow denied that he had ever entertained Duston's slaves.

Edward Mash, sworn, said that Swallow had sent for him and some others to view a beast belonging to William Duston's children that had come to a mischance. He had then seen Duston's slave skinning the beast, which was on a Wednesday forenoon.

Francis Leech, sworn, said that when the beast had fallen down in the ditch, Swallow had sent to his neighbours Mr Hoskison and Jonathan Duston for their slaves to come and help get it out, which they did. Duston's slave Dick had said, if you kill this beast I will come and help you, but no one had answered. When the beast was being dressed on the Wednesday afterwards, he had seen the slave helping to skin it, but how the slave had come there he could not say.

James Leech, sworn, said that on the morning the beast was killed he had sent the slave Dick for a turn of wood. Some time later the slave had come home, bringing some beef with him. On being asked where he had got it, the slave had said of Robert Swallow. Another time the slave had been missing from home, and on being asked where he had been he had said he had been to see his old mistress.

It appeared to the council that Duston had no sufficient proof of Swallow entertaining any of his slaves, and that he himself had given the slave leave to go and help get the beast out of the ditch. His complaint being groundless, it was ordered that Duston be cast in his suit and pay all the council charges.

George Hoskison, free planter, brought and delivered an account of the stock and estate of Jonathan Beale's orphans for the past year, which was examined and approved.

Henry Francis appeared with the orphans of Jonathan Beale, and their accounts were stated. It appeared that the orphans stood indebted to him in the sum of fourteen pounds, of which thirteen pounds was for the past year's boarding and twenty shillings remained unpaid from the previous year. The thirteen pounds had been paid him in store credit at the last reckoning day, and twenty shillings remained due.

Interpretations

The Swallow case shows the council taking seriously the offence of entertaining another planter's slaves while applying the standard evidential rigour to any complaint. The detail that Duston himself had given his slave leave to help recover the beast from the ditch is fatal to his case, since the presence of the slave at Swallow's place was thereby accounted for. The further evidence that the slave had taken beef home with him and had explained that he had been to see his old mistress points to an existing relationship between the slave and Swallow's household that pre-dated the immediate incident. The council, however, declined to extrapolate beyond the direct evidence, and held Duston's complaint to be groundless.

The Hoskison accounts for the Beale orphans represent the first delivery under the order made in August 1707, by which Hoskison had been required to fence the orphans' land by 25 March 1708 and to render an account of their stock. The presentation and approval of the account this month, three weeks after the deadline, indicates that Hoskison had complied with the council's directions, and that the new administration's procedure of supervised guardianship through annual accounts had begun to function. The pattern of recorded accounts, with stock and produce both inventoried for the council's review, gave the orphans a documented protection that the previous Governor's looser arrangements had not provided.

The Francis and Beale orphans accounting illustrates the parallel arrangement under which the children boarded with another planter at thirteen pounds a year, with twenty shillings outstanding from an earlier year. By recording both the payment in store credit at the previous reckoning day and the residual debt, the council established a working financial record of the orphans' maintenance that could be carried forward year by year. The treatment of the orphans' affairs as a continuing set of accounts subject to annual review represents a clear improvement over the more episodic supervision that had earlier been the practice.

Speculations

The slave Dick's remark that if you kill this beast I will come and help you, made when called to help retrieve the beast from the ditch, suggests an existing understanding between the slave and Swallow's household about the disposition of any animal lost in such circumstances. The fact that the slave subsequently appeared at the dressing of the beast and brought beef home with him, having been there before, points to an established arrangement by which Duston's slave participated in the meat economy of his neighbours independently of his master's direct knowledge or consent. The council's narrow finding that the complaint was groundless did not preclude the existence of a wider pattern that the planters concerned were better placed to know than to address through formal proceedings.

The choice of store credit as the means by which Francis was paid the thirteen pounds for the orphans' boarding follows the pattern seen in the Powell fine and elsewhere in these consultations, where transactions between the council and individuals on the island were routinely settled through entries in the Company's store books rather than in cash. The arrangement converted a money obligation into a continuing relationship with the store, where the credit could be drawn down for purchases over time. For the orphans, this meant that their maintenance was effectively underwritten by the Company's store rather than by Francis's own resources, with the council acting as guarantor of the arrangement.

147

139

It is Ordered:

That the said Francis have the said Orphans the Year Enseuing at the Rate of Foeurteen poeund p[r] Anneum Teaching them to Read and to Write; And if in case the Governour and Councill Shall think fett to peut out the said Richard Beale before the Year be out, the said Francis Shall allow So much back to the said Orphan as he Shall wante of his Time at the Rate of Seaven poeund p[r] Anneum.

Whereas an Advertizement was Ifsued out by order of the Governour and Councill to Summons the Old and New Cheurch Wardens, and also the Overseers of the High ways, In order of the Old Cheur. Wardens, and Over= =feerr to be discharged, and the New Ones Invefted in said Office, Richard Alexan= der being one of the Old Overseers appeared with his Account ready Stated and Ballanced according to the Peurport of his Warrant, and offered about Six or Seven Dollars in Cafh, Receeved of those Persons that did not work at the high ways) Told and Tendered the Same down, but was denyed the Receipt thereof, Upon the present Governocurs Informing Governocur Poirier that the Store Accounts on which the Cheurch and Overseers Acc[ts]. Depend Could not be Ready then by Reason of the Accounts being to be Ballanced to March after According to the Companys orders.

Upon, which It was Ordered:

That both the Cheurch Wardens and Overseers of the high ways, should Conteneue in their Office, untell March Last past, for the Reason abovesaid between which time the said Richard Alexander made Oath that his houfse in Fort James Valley was broke open, and about Thirty Shillings of the Money he had in his Custody Stolen out of a Chest, and a Pifs, Britches &c[a]. of his Own, and that he (as well as Every body Else) has a Strong Sespect= =on that the fact was Committed by William Hewton, his Servant who made his Efcape off the Ifsland in the Ship Northeumberland, two days after being Seen on board the day before the Ship Saylod, with a Handkerchief or Beundle of Something Leke Cloaths in his hand, and that Some of the People in the Boat which Carreed the said Hemons on board heard Something Leke Money Gingle wherefore presume that his Oath is Sufficeent proofe that he was Robed of the Countrey Money, and his Own Cloaths, and hopes that we will not Cause him to Repay the said Money back again.

M[r] Marsden being asfed his Opinion Replyed that he thinks the said Richard Alexander ought to pay so much Money as he has Made Oath was Stolen from him.

Cap[tn]. Mashborne and the Governocur is of the Contrary, Opinion and therefore ordered that the said Richard Alexander be Acquitted and Discharged off and from Repayeing any Money in Lieu of that Stolen from him.

It was ordered that Francis have the orphans the year ensuing, at the rate of fourteen pounds a year, to teach them to read and write. If the Governor and Council should think fit to put out the said Richard Beale before the year was out, Francis was to allow back to the orphan so much of the year as the orphan should fall short, at the rate of seven pounds a year.

An advertisement had been issued by order of the Governor and Council summoning the old and new churchwardens, and also the overseers of the highways, so that the old churchwardens and overseers might be discharged and the new ones invested in office. Richard Alexander, one of the old overseers, appeared with his account ready stated and balanced according to the purport of his warrant. He offered about six or seven dollars in cash, received from those who had not worked on the highways, and tendered the sum, but was denied the receipt thereof. The reason was that the present Governor had informed Governor Poirier that the store accounts, on which the church and overseers' accounts depended, could not be ready then, since they had to be balanced to March following, in accordance with the Company's orders.

It was therefore ordered that both the churchwardens and overseers of the highways continue in their offices until March last past, for the reason stated. In the meantime Alexander made oath that his house in Fort James Valley had been broken open, and about thirty shillings of the money he had in his custody had been stolen out of a chest, together with a pair of breeches and other clothes of his own. He, like everyone else, had a strong suspicion that the offence had been committed by William Hewton, his servant, who had made his escape off the island in the Northumberland two days afterwards. Hewton had been seen on board the day before the ship sailed, with a handkerchief or bundle of something like clothes in his hand, and some of the people in the boat that had carried Hewton on board had heard something like money jingling. Alexander therefore presumed that his oath was sufficient proof that he had been robbed of the country money and his own clothes, and hoped the council would not require him to repay the money.

Marsden, being asked his opinion, replied that he thought Alexander ought to pay so much money as he had made oath was stolen from him.

Mashborne and Goodwin were of the contrary opinion, and therefore ordered that Alexander be acquitted and discharged from repaying any money in lieu of that stolen from him.

Interpretations

The Francis arrangement for the Beale orphans introduces an educational element into the maintenance contract. The fourteen pound annual rate now included teaching the children to read and write, with a pro rata refund of seven pounds a year if the council should remove Richard Beale before the year had run. The pairing of education with maintenance, and the explicit provision for clawback in the event of an early removal, gives the contract a quality of structured trusteeship that earlier orphan arrangements on the island had not displayed. By tying the maintenance rate to a specified educational benefit, the council ensured that the orphan would receive literacy as well as keep, and the clawback protected the child's accumulated entitlement against premature termination.

The Alexander case illustrates the council operating once more by majority rather than by unanimous order. The third member of the bench, Marsden, took the strict view that Alexander, as an overseer holding public money, should bear the loss of the theft personally. Goodwin and Mashborne took the more lenient view, treating Alexander's sworn account of the housebreaking and his identification of the absconded servant as sufficient ground for discharging him from the obligation to make good. The record of the differing opinions, set down before the order, again shows the new administration's willingness to expose its internal disagreements on the books, in the same way as the earlier dispute about Hunt's debt.

The discharge of the old overseers and churchwardens, deferred from the previous year because of the timing of the store accounts, completes a small administrative readjustment of the local calendar. By aligning the parish offices with the Company's accounting year ending in March, the new administration brought the cycle of public office into harmony with the wider documentary discipline that it had imposed across other accounts on the island. The change reflects the same instinct that ordered separate accounts from the death of Poirier and required inventories to be brought up to date.

Speculations

The decision to discharge Alexander from the obligation to repay the stolen money rests on a calculation about the standards of liability for officeholders holding public funds. The strict English doctrine, that an officer was an insurer of money in his care unless he could show events beyond his control, would have supported Marsden's view. The more lenient position taken by Goodwin and Mashborne, accepting a sworn affidavit of housebreaking and the strong probability of the servant's guilt, treats the events as sufficiently beyond Alexander's control to relieve him. The willingness of the majority to relax the strict rule may reflect a recognition that holding overseers to insurer liability for occasional thefts would discourage qualified men from taking the office.

The detail that William Hewton was seen on board the Northumberland the day before sailing with a bundle and money jingling in the boat, would have been hard to act on once the ship was gone. The man had effectively escaped beyond the council's reach by passage on a Company ship, and the only remedy was the local one of relieving Alexander from a strict reading of his accounts. The episode illustrates how the regular departure of Company shipping created opportunities for absconding servants that the council could do little to prevent, since the same vessels that carried official passengers also carried whoever could slip on board with a bundle.

148

140

According to a Summons the Old Church wardens and Overseers of the high ways for the Year and half past appeared with their Accounts Ready, Stated which was Examined and approved off accordingly.

It is Ordered:

That the said old Church Wardens and Overseers be Now Discharged from their Office, and that Mathew Bazett and Henry Francis Suceed as Church Wardens for the Year Ensueing, and that Gabriell Powell and Thomas Beurnham be Overseers of the high ways for said Year, and that Each of them perform their Affice according to their Warrant.

Robert Leech, Delevered an Account of his Brothers Cattle, and that he had paied his Brother Francis his Share of the Estate, according to Last Years Account, and so Consequently Discharged from that part of Said Estate. Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation, Continued on Wednsday the. 14. day of Aprill. 1708. Att Fort James.

Pres[t] Thomas Goodwin, Governocur Edward Mashborne Dep[ty] Govern[r] William Marsden. 3[r] on Councill

Whereas M[rs] Margarett Cosgrave Wedlow did at the Request of the then Governour and Councell Supply, the Right Hon[ble] Company with the Seum of Three Heundred Dollars, and had three Bills of Exchange Drawn on the said Company for the Payment of Seventy Five poeund Sterling being then Resolved to go for England, but being Sence Deceased her Executor John Alexander presented all the said three Bills of Exchange Dated the. 29. June. 1703. Deseiring us to Accept of the said Bills, and to give New Credett for the said Seum of Three Heundred Dollars, unto the said Margarett Cosgraves Orphans, Re= presenteing how Long the Orphans have laied out of their Money, and what Interest the Company has Gained by said Money, and that of the Said Bills are not accepfted here, it well be very Detrimentall to said Orphans.

The old churchwardens and overseers of the highways, on summons, appeared with their accounts ready stated for the year and a half past. The accounts were examined and approved accordingly.

It was ordered that the old churchwardens and overseers be now discharged from their office, and that Matthew Bazett and Henry Francis succeed as churchwardens for the year ensuing, and that Gabriel Powell and Thomas Burnham be overseers of the highways for the same year, and that each of them perform his office according to his warrant.

Robert Leech delivered an account of his brother's cattle, and stated that he had paid his brother Francis his share of the estate according to the previous year's account. He was thereby discharged from that part of the estate.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Island of St Helena

At a consultation continued on Wednesday 14 April 1708 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

Mrs Margaret Cosgrave, widow, at the request of the then Governor and Council, had supplied the Honourable Company with the sum of three hundred dollars, and had received three bills of exchange drawn on the Company for payment of seventy five pounds sterling. She had at the time been resolved to go for England, but had since died. Her executor John Alexander presented all three bills of exchange, dated 29 June 1703, and asked the council to accept the bills, and to give new credit for the three hundred dollars to Margaret Cosgrave's orphans. He represented how long the orphans had been out of their money, and what interest the Company had gained by the use of it, and stated that if the bills were not accepted here, it would be very prejudicial to the orphans.

[...]

Interpretations

The administrative renewal of the parish offices, with the discharge of the old churchwardens and overseers and the appointment of Bazett and Francis as churchwardens and Powell and Burnham as overseers of the highways, illustrates the small turnover of public office on the island. The same names continue to recur across the records, with men holding office in one capacity passing into another, and disputes between residents being mediated by the very neighbours and colleagues who would later sit alongside them on the bench or before it. The appointment of Powell to overseer of the highways, only months after he had been bound over for the horns affair and fined twenty pounds, demonstrates how rapidly a planter could move from disgrace before the council to a position of local public trust.

The Robert Leech discharge concludes the long-running matter of the Leech family estate that had run through these consultations since 1707. The brother's share having been paid, and the account delivered, the council was now able to record formal closure of Robert Leech's responsibilities in respect of that part of the estate. The slow procedural unwinding of the estate matter, with successive sittings adding fresh elements to its disposal, illustrates the way the council operated as a continuing court of trusteeship over time rather than as a one-time tribunal of decision.

The Cosgrave bills of exchange raise a different kind of administrative complication. A widow's loan of three hundred dollars to the Company in 1703, secured by bills drawn on London, had remained unpaid at her death, and her executor was now seeking to convert the unredeemed paper into a store credit for her orphans. The case illustrates how the Company's bills of exchange on London were not always honoured promptly, and how the death of the holder in the meantime could complicate recovery for the heirs. Alexander's appeal to the interest the Company had gained from the use of the money, and to the prejudice to the orphans if the bills were not now accepted locally, frames the request as both a matter of justice and of practical equity.

Speculations

The appointment of Bazett as churchwarden, in addition to his existing role as storekeeper's assistant for which he had recently received a salary increase, indicates that the council was concentrating senior administrative roles in a small group of trusted men. With Bazett now handling both the store and the church affairs, his importance to the routine functioning of the settlement had become considerable. The combination of offices in a single man simplified communication and accountability, while increasing the dependence of the council on his continued service.

Alexander's argument that the Company had gained interest from the use of the three hundred dollars over the five years since 1703 places the request in the framework of compound obligation. If the Company had effectively borrowed the money at no interest while paying interest on its own loans elsewhere, the executor's claim for fresh credit on the local books carried particular force. The argument also placed the council in a difficult position, since denying the request would have required them to defend the Company's profit from a deceased widow's money against the interest of her orphans, while accepting it would have implicated the council in a local recognition of a debt that London had not yet honoured.

149

141

Upon, Consideration, of the Premises aforesaid.

It is Ordered:

That the said three Bills be Accepted off and Credett given Accordingly For the Seum of Three Heundred Dollars, to the Orphans, and the Right Hon[ble] Companys Account Current Charged with the Same.

Whereas the Governour and Councill having the Care of Mary French Deceased Cheldren, Sent for Thomas Bevean Souldier, who Marryed the Eldest Daughter of the said French, and Defseourfsed him about the Rest of the Cheldren, towards their Maentainance and Boarding.

It was Accordingly agreed and Concluded:

That the said Thomas Bevean have the Three Cheldren Elizabeth, William, and Mary French for One Year, fending them Sufficeent Cloather, Meat Drink, Washing and Lodging allowing him the Work of a black, and the Yams agreed to have from George Hofsicson, for said Blacks use, and alfo the House at the Fort Rent free, and the Milk of the Cattle, when any Calves. Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden

Thomas Jones Souldeier Came to the Governour of his Own Voluntary Well and Desired that he meght Leve and Dwell with William Slaughter Serjeant Geveing him his whole Sallary, Deuring his Contracted time with the Hon[ble] United Company to Serve them as a Souldier, he the Said Slaughter fending the Said Jones with Sufficeent, Meat, Drink Washing and Lodging and Apparell deuring the said time, To which both partys agreed to, and in Testemony hereof Set theer hands this. 24th day of Ap[r]ell. 1708.

Wittnefs William Slaughter his Thomas French Thomas X Jones marke

On consideration of the premises, it was ordered that the three bills be accepted, and credit given accordingly for the sum of three hundred dollars to the orphans, and the Honourable Company's account current charged with the same.

The Governor and Council, having the care of Mary French's children, sent for Thomas Bevean, soldier, who had married the eldest daughter of Mary French. They spoke with him about the rest of the children, and about their maintenance and boarding.

It was agreed and concluded that Bevean have the three children, Elizabeth, William and Mary French, for one year. He was to find them sufficient clothes, meat, drink, washing and lodging. He was to be allowed the work of a slave, the yams agreed to be received from George Hoskison for the slave's use, the house at the Fort rent free, and the milk of the cattle when any of them were in calf.

Tho: Goodwin. Edward Mashborne. W.m Marsden.

Thomas Jones, soldier, came to the Governor of his own free will and asked that he might live and dwell with William Slaughter, sergeant. He offered Slaughter his whole salary for the term of his contract with the Honourable United Company, on condition that Slaughter find him sufficient meat, drink, washing, lodging and apparel during the said time. Both parties agreed, and in testimony of the agreement set their hands on 24 April 1708.

Witness: Thomas French.

William Slaughter. Thomas Jones, his mark X.

Interpretations

The Cosgrave decision shows the council exercising its power to convert paper claims against London into local credit for residents on the island. By accepting the bills of exchange for cancellation and posting three hundred dollars to the orphans' account, the council relieved the heirs of the risks and delays of distant collection and assumed the burden of recovery from the Company in London. The arrangement was at once a local benefit to the orphans and a transfer of credit risk from the dispersed family to the central administration, which had the institutional capacity to pursue the matter through the regular accounting cycle with the Honourable Masters.

The Bevean arrangement for the Mary French children sets the maintenance terms in a different form from the Francis contract for the Beale orphans. Where Francis had received fourteen pounds in money and store credit, Bevean was to receive in kind. The slave's labour, the yams from Hoskison, the house rent free and the milk of the cows together amounted to a substantial bundle of resources, with no money component at all. The structure shows the council shaping each guardianship contract to the practical needs of the orphans and the available position of the guardian, with kin networks like Bevean's marriage to the eldest daughter encouraged where they offered natural continuity.

The Jones and Slaughter agreement gives a striking glimpse of an arrangement between two soldiers in which one effectively transferred his pay to the other in exchange for keep. Jones, who could write only his mark, was committing his salary in full to Slaughter for the remainder of his Company service, with Slaughter undertaking to feed, clothe, wash and lodge him. The agreement falls just short of a formal indenture of service, since Jones remained a Company soldier, but in its practical effect places him in a dependent relationship to the sergeant in whose household he was to live.

Speculations

The pattern of the Mary French children's placement reveals a deliberate effort by the council to keep the orphans within the wider family circle while ensuring their support. By placing the three younger children with their eldest sister's new husband, the council avoided breaking up the sibling group and brought the maintenance arrangement within the kin structure rather than introducing a stranger as guardian. The use of the house at the Fort rent free, the slave's labour and the yam supply gave Bevean the resources to take on the obligation without straining his own soldier's household.

The Jones and Slaughter agreement may reflect a soldier's inability or unwillingness to manage his own affairs, combined with a sergeant's interest in supplementing his income through the management of a junior's pay. The transfer of the full salary to Slaughter in exchange for keep would have been advantageous to Jones only if the keep he received exceeded what he could provide for himself out of the same salary, which suggests either that he was a particularly poor manager or that Slaughter was offering him a level of accommodation and food that Jones valued more highly than the cash equivalent. The use of a witness and the formal setting of hands in the council's presence converted what could have been an informal arrangement into a recorded transaction that protected both parties against later dispute.

150

142

John, Geles Souldeier Came to the Governocur of his Own Voluntary, Well and Desired that he meght Live and Dwell with Thomas Southen Corporall geving him his whole Sallary deuring his Contracted time with the Hon[ble] Company to Serve them as a Souldeier he the said Southen fending the said John Geles with Sufficeent Meat Drink Washing, Ledging and Apparell Deuring the said time, to which both partys agreed to, and in Testemony hereof Sett their hands this . 26th. day of Aprell. 1708.

Thomas Southen Wittnefs his Thomas French John X Geles marke

William Williams Souldeier Came to the Governocur of his Own free and Voluntary Well and Desered that he meght Live and Dwell with Thomas Perkins Corporall on the Same Condi= =teons and Terms as abovesaid to which both put their hands this. 30th. Day of Aprell 1708.

Thomas Perkins Wittnefs his John Alexander. William X Williams Marke

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation held on Tuesday the. 27th day of Aprell. 1708. Att Fort James

Pres[t] Thomas Goodwin, Govern[r] Edward Mashborne Dep[ty] Govern[r] William Marrsden. 3[r] in Councill

Mary Easthope Wedlow appeared this day with her Deceased Heusband James Easthope Last Well and Testament In order of haveing the same proved which was Accordingly done by the Oaths of Daniell Griffith, Joseph Trapp, and Thomas Harper free planters, who made Oath that the said Well now produced was the said Easthopes Last Well and Testament, and that they know of no other Either in word or Wreteing.

John Geles, soldier, came to the Governor of his own free will and asked that he might live and dwell with Thomas Southen, corporal, giving him his whole salary during his contracted time with the Honourable Company to serve them as a soldier, on condition that Southen find Geles sufficient meat, drink, washing, lodging and apparel during the said time. Both parties agreed, and in testimony of the agreement set their hands on 26 April 1708.

Thomas Southen.

Witness: Thomas French.

John Geles, his mark X.

William Williams, soldier, came to the Governor of his own free will and asked that he might live and dwell with Thomas Perkins, corporal, on the same conditions and terms as stated. Both parties set their hands on 30 April 1708.

Thomas Perkins.

Witness: John Alexander.

William Williams, his mark X.

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 27 April 1708 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor. Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor. William Marsden, third in council.

Mary Easthope, widow, came before the council on this day with her late husband James Easthope's last will and testament, asking that it be proved. The proof was duly made by the oaths of Daniell Griffith, Joseph Trapp and Thomas Harper, free planters, who swore that the will now produced was Easthope's last will and testament, and that they knew of no other made in writing or by word.

[...]

Interpretations

The three soldier agreements with Slaughter, Southen and Perkins, made within ten days of one another and in identical form, point to a recognised arrangement on the island by which junior soldiers transferred their salaries to senior non-commissioned officers in exchange for full keep. The repetition of the pattern with three different sergeants and corporals as recipients suggests that the arrangement had become an established practice rather than an isolated transaction. The use of the formal council procedure, with the soldier's mark and a councillor or clerk as witness, gave each agreement the documentary protection of an executed contract recorded in the books.

The signature pattern is itself revealing. All three soldiers signed by mark, while the non-commissioned officers signed in their own hands. The disparity in literacy between the junior and senior ranks of the garrison points to a settled hierarchy of skill within the soldiery, with the non-commissioned officers as the literate intermediaries between the men and the Company's record-keeping. The arrangement by which an illiterate soldier transferred his pay to a literate sergeant or corporal who provided his subsistence brought the man's affairs within the documentary world of his immediate superior, while leaving the soldier himself outside it.

The Easthope probate continues the steady flow of estate business through the consultation. The use of three free planters as witnesses, including Griffith whose own affairs had occupied so much of the council's recent time, demonstrates the established procedure of bringing in established residents to swear to the testator's will. The choice of Griffith as one of the three oaths-takers, despite his recent prominent disputes with the council, indicates that the council did not let personal controversy with a planter affect his standing as a witness to a will, since the function of the procedure was to verify the document rather than to test the witnesses' political position.

Speculations

The cluster of three soldier subsistence contracts in the same fortnight may reflect a general realisation among the men that such arrangements had become possible under the new administration, perhaps following the Jones and Slaughter agreement which had set the template. Once one soldier had successfully recorded such a contract before the council, others in similar positions would have learned of the arrangement and approached non-commissioned officers willing to take them in. The willingness of three different senior men to receive a soldier into their household on these terms suggests that the financial benefit to the sergeant or corporal was real and that the household economies could absorb the additional member at a profit.

The appearance of Griffith as a witness to the Easthope will, after months of confrontation with the council over his own behaviour, indicates that the routine business of the settlement continued through the political quarrels at the Fort. A man could be summoned for muster offences, bind himself in recognisance, petition the council against a neighbour, and still be called as one of the three respectable witnesses to a friend's last will. The web of social and legal relations on the island was too dense to be reorganised by any one episode of disgrace, and the council's procedural reliance on the available pool of literate planters required the inclusion of men with whom it had been in conflict.

151

143

It is Ordered:

That the said James Easthopes Last Well and Testament now produced be Receeved and approved of, and Coppy[s] given when Demanded, And because the said Wedlow is thereby made Sole Heir of the said Deceaseds both Reall and Personall Estate, there is no Inventory Demanded.

Humphry Edwards free planter made Complaint in behalfe of his Daughter in Law Grace Bryant, against Thomas Bevean Souldier for that the said Thomas Bevean hath Scandaleyes the said Grace Bryant in Reporting to Severall Persons at Divers times, that the said Grace Bryant as She was going to Dance at the said Beveans Wedling. Gave him a Shell Called a Courey into his hand and Said that as many Wreinkles or Notches as was in that Courey his the said Beveans Wefe had in her Cunt, and that the said Grace Bryant Said feurther that the said Bevean had very Short fengers, and these that had he has a Long Preick, with other Scurrelous and Immodest words, which tends meuch to the Defseredett, Good Name and Reputation of the said Grace Bryant, She being a Yocung Woman and Unmarreed.

The Said Thomas Bevean Owned that he has Reported as abovesaid Adding feurther that the said Grace Bryant when at his Wedeing, took up a Cocurey and Said have Ple gevd you Something which is more then Every body, well and Veewing the Cocurey, did not know the Meaning of it, and Showd it about the Room to Severall Persons and Thomas Tofser said it was leke a Cunt, J Says Grace Bryant if you dont know the Meaning of it, He tell you as many Wreinkles as there is in the Cocurey your Wefe has in her Cunt, and that the being playing eupon the Veoleng She and his Wefe Laughed a pretty while toegther, asfeing his Wefe and his what they Meant, Grace Said Why that hat Short fengers, has a Short Preick, and asfeing for Some R [...] Pe[..] Hatton Stareling and Bevean was Laugheing She Seeing them said you need not Laugh it is true Enough.

Then the Evidence was Called and Examined.

Hatton, Starding being Sevorn Saith that he being at Thomas Bevean Wedeing and in a Room makeing Peunch the Door being Sheutt Thomas Bevean Came and Knockt at the Door, and Leteing him in Sheowed this Deponent a Shell Called a Coxurey and Laught, Upon which the Said Deponent asfet him, what he Laughtat, what Said he tell the Notches

James Easthope's last will and testament, now produced, was received and approved. Copies were to be given when demanded. The widow had been made sole heir of both the real and personal estate, so no inventory was required.

Humphry Edwards, free planter, complained on behalf of his daughter-in-law Grace Bryant against Thomas Bevean, soldier. Bevean had slandered Grace Bryant by reporting to several persons at different times that as she was going to dance at his wedding, she gave him a shell called a cowrie into his hand and said that however many wrinkles or notches were in that cowrie, his wife had in her cunt. Grace Bryant was said to have added that Bevean had very short fingers, and those that had he has a long prick, along with other scurrilous and immodest words. These reports tended greatly to the discredit, good name and reputation of Grace Bryant, who was a young woman and unmarried.

Thomas Bevean admitted that he had reported as stated, but added further detail. Grace Bryant, when at his wedding, took up a cowrie and said 'Have I given you something which is more than everybody?' Viewing the cowrie, he did not know the meaning of it, and showed it about the room to several persons. Thomas Foster said it was like a cunt. Grace Bryant replied 'If you do not know the meaning of it, I will tell you - as many wrinkles as there are in the cowrie, your wife has in her cunt.' Later, while he was playing upon the violin, she and his wife laughed a pretty while together. When he asked his wife and Grace what they meant, Grace said 'Why, that what has short fingers has a short prick.' Later, asking for some [...] P[...], Hatton, Starling and Bevean were laughing. She, seeing them, said 'You need not laugh, it is true enough.'

The evidence was then called and examined.

Hatton Starling, being sworn, said that he was at Thomas Bevean's wedding. In a room making punch, the door being shut, Thomas Bevean came and knocked at the door. On letting him in, Bevean showed this deponent a shell called a cowrie and laughed. The deponent asked him what he laughed at. Bevean said 'Tell the notches

Interpretations

The case turned on a sexual slander against an unmarried woman at a wedding celebration, actionable because her marriageability depended on public reputation. Bevean's repetition of Grace Bryant's alleged remarks to multiple persons, rather than the original utterance itself, formed the substance of the complaint. The council treated obscene slander as a civil matter requiring witness testimony, not as a criminal prosecution, reflecting the boundary between disorder and defamation on the island.

Speculations

Edwards brought the complaint as household head because Grace Bryant, as an unmarried woman, could not sue in her own name. Bevean may have calculated that repeating a woman's own words would shield him from liability, explaining why his defence emphasised that she initiated the exchange. The cowrie shell, a common West African trade item, probably arrived at St Helena via slaving contacts, making it a familiar enough object to serve as the vehicle for ribald humour at a soldier's wedding.

152

144

Notches in the Cocurey I had it of a Young Woman, Grace Bryant Stood behind and said you Need not Laugh forst it True.

Upon Consideration, of Hatton Starlings Oath, and other Cocumstances of the said Wedeing It is thought that Humphry Edwards have no Cause of Action against the said Bevean, the said Grace Bryant being a Lettle too free with her tongue in such Immodest Defscocurfse.

And Therefore Ordered:

That he be Cast and pay Councell charges, and the said Bevean forbidden to talk any more of this Matter, it being very Scandelous to all good People on the Ifsland.

Thomas Southen Corporall made Complain[t] against Philep Jefrey Souldeier, for Detaining a Deunghill Hen and Chickens of his, and Denys the Delevery thereof Notwithstandeing being Cevilly Demanded.

The Said Philep Jefrey Appeared with the Hen, the said Southen Demands, and Says, the Hen is his, and that he had it of a Check of his Sefster Hefser.

The Said Southen Says, that he went and Demanded the Hen of the said Jefrey, who told him that if he would Let him have the Chickens, he Sfsfould have the Hen, and that his Wefe is feure the Hen is theirs.

The Said Jefrey denys what Southen aledges, and feurther Sayth that if she will Sweare or him swarne it his Hen that he Shall have it.

The Said Southen, desires Another hearing the Next Councill.

It is Ordered:

That if he well he may.

Edmond Kempton, who has Acted as Sureygeon on this Ifsland for Some time beeing bred up on, that Art and Mefsery, by Temple Needham Sureygeon, Presented his petetion this day, Represedinely, to us that he was only to Serve for the Term of three Years and No Longer which being now Expeered. Desered us to give him Leberty to go for England in this Sceummer Fleet, But the Hon[ble] Company haveing Mentioned in their Letter by the Northeumbryland that they find by their Books that the said Edmond Kempton is to Serve them Five Years, whereupon

It is Ordered:

That the said Edmond Kempton Serve the Hon[ble] Company Two years Longer

Upon consideration of Hatton Starling's oath and other circumstances of the wedding, Edwards was thought to have no cause of action against Bevean. Grace Bryant had been a little too free with her tongue in such immodest discourse.

Edwards was therefore cast and ordered to pay council charges. Bevean was forbidden to talk any more of this matter, it being very scandalous to all good people on the island.

Thomas Southen, corporal, complained against Philip Jeffrey, soldier, for detaining a dunghill hen and chickens of his and denying the delivery thereof notwithstanding being civilly demanded.

Philip Jeffrey appeared with the hen that Southen demanded and said the hen was his, and that he had it of a chick of his sister Hester.

Southen said that he went and demanded the hen of Jeffrey, who told him that if he would let him have the chickens, he should have the hen. His wife was sure the hen was theirs.

Jeffrey denied what Southen alleged, and added that if she would swear or he swear it was his hen, the other should have it.

Southen desired another hearing the next council.

He was permitted to do so if he wished.

Edmond Kempton, who had acted as surgeon on the island for some time, having been bred up in that art and mystery by Temple Needham, surgeon, presented his petition this day. He represented that he was only to serve for the term of three years and no longer, which was now expired. He desired leave to go for England in this summer fleet. The Honourable Company had mentioned in their letter by the Northumberland that they found by their books that Edmond Kempton was to serve them five years.

Kempton was therefore ordered to serve the Honourable Company two years longer.

Interpretations

The council dismissed Edwards's slander complaint not on grounds of falsity but because Grace Bryant's own conduct disqualified her from protection, establishing that reputation cases turned on the complainant's prior behaviour rather than strict proof. The case created no penalty for Bevean beyond a prohibition on further repetition, treating the matter as resolved once the council had declared Bryant's immodesty publicly. Edwards bore the costs as the unsuccessful party, reinforcing that vexatious or unfounded complaints carried financial consequences.

Speculations

The council concluded that Grace Bryant initiated the sexual banter at Bevean's wedding, making his repetition of her words defensible as reportage rather than invention. Southen's hen dispute was adjourned because the parties offered competing oaths without corroborating evidence, leaving the council unable to determine ownership. Kempton's petition for early release was denied by invoking Company records from London over his own recollection of the contract terms, demonstrating that metropolitan documentation outweighed local testimony when the two conflicted.

153

145

Longer, Except he Can gett a Man to Serve in his Stead, and then to have Liberty according to his Request.

M[r] William Marsden, third on Councill has now brought his Counter part Indentures with the Right Hon[ble] United English East India Company, wherein it doth appear that his Contracted tome with them is Expee= =red Yesterday, Upon which the Governour asked the Said M[r] Marsden, whether he was wlling to Serve the Company any Longer, who Replyed Yes he was tell the said Hon[ble] Companys pleasure is feurther Known.

Upon, which It is Ordered:

That the said M[r] Marsden Conteneue Store Keeper as before at the Rate of Fifty poeund p[r] Anneum as was Usuall for all persons in that post to Receive and that the Same be Laid before the Right Hon[ble] Company to Ratefy the Same as they Shall think fett.

M[r] Alexander Represented to us that upon the Death of Ensign Sanderson, he was by the favour of the Right Hon[ble] United East India Company, and the Worshipfsell Governour and Councell made Enseign, and doth Officeate as Clark to the Councill befseder, and thereeupon made his heumble Request that we would be pleased to allow him, what an Addetionall Sallary as we thought fett for his Encouragement, and Dillegence on the Companys Service, Upon Confederation of which we have thought fett and Accordengly

It is Ordered:

That the said M[r] Alexander have Ten poeund p[r] Anneum added to his Thirty poeund p[r] Anneum, as Clark to the Councill, befseder Sallary for his Son as a Servant.

The Said Alexander, who having for y[e] Retayling of Strong drink years past Defsered that we would be pleased to Grant him the Lecence for Some of Granteing Lecences offering Thirty poeund p[r] Anneum as formerly &c[a]

It is Ordered:

That the said Alexander have Leberty of Granteing Lecence to whom he thinks fett, with the Same Condeteons, Power and Authorety as we our Selves had from the Hon[ble] Company for the Year Enseuing, he payeing Thirty poeund therefore. Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden

Ifsland

Kempton was ordered to serve the Honourable Company two years longer. If he could find a replacement to serve in his place, he would be given leave to depart for England as he had requested.

William Marsden, third on council, produced his counterpart indentures with the Right Honourable United English East India Company. These showed that his contracted time with them had expired the previous day. Goodwin asked Marsden whether he was willing to serve the Company any longer. He replied that he was, until the Honourable Company's pleasure was further known.

Marsden was ordered to continue as storekeeper as before at the rate of £50 per annum, as was usual for all persons in that post to receive. The arrangement was to be laid before the Right Honourable Company to ratify as they should think fit.

Alexander represented that upon the death of Ensign Sanderson, he had been made ensign by the favour of the Right Honourable United East India Company and the Worshipful Governor and Council, and now officiated as clerk to the council as well. He made his humble request that an additional salary be allowed him as was thought fit for his encouragement and diligence in the Company's service. Upon consideration, Alexander was ordered to have £10 per annum added to his £30 per annum as clerk to the council, besides salary for his son as a servant.

Alexander, who had for years past retailed strong drink, desired that he be granted the licence for granting licences, offering £30 per annum as formerly.

Alexander was granted authority to issue licences to whom he thought fit, with the same conditions, power and authority as the council itself had from the Honourable Company, for the year ensuing, he paying £30 therefore.

Tho: Goodwin Edward Mashborne W: Marsden

Island

Interpretations

Kempton's contract dispute was resolved by allowing substitution, demonstrating that the council treated service obligations as transferable rather than personal where the Company's operational needs could be met. Marsden's salary continuance at £50 per annum, subject to ratification from London, established that senior posts commanded standard rates independent of individual negotiation, with the council acting provisionally until metropolitan confirmation arrived. Alexander's dual appointment as ensign and clerk, with separate remuneration for each office plus his son's service, reflected the island's chronic shortage of literate personnel capable of administrative work.

Speculations

The council granted Alexander the licence-granting monopoly because his clerical role gave him access to the records needed to track compliance and because the £30 annual payment represented significant revenue for the Company's local account. Marsden's immediate agreement to continue serving beyond his contract term suggests he had no prospect of better employment elsewhere, whether in England or at another Company station. Alexander's petition for additional salary was granted without debate, indicating the council recognised that losing him would cripple record-keeping at a moment when the new administration was still reconstructing Poirier's disordered accounts.

154

146

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation, held on, Tuesday the. 11th Day of May. 1708. Att Fort James.

Pres[t] Thomas Goodwin, Governocur Edward Mashborne Dep[ty] Govern[r] William Marsden. 3[r] in Councill

Whereas Gabriell Powell free planter made Complaint against Daniel Griffeth, free planter, for that the said Griffeth hath drove his the said Powells Cattle from off his Ground, Into M[r] Seches and M[r] Wranghams Land to the Comon, and Stoned and Worreyed them, with his Doggs, and has done him Damage, by the said Griffeth blacks going Daily Over his Wall Fence, and that the said Griffeth Threatned to Ruin him Saying that he was worth Three heundred and Fefty poeund and he had Caused him to Waste One heundred poeund already And feurther Declares that the said Griffeth hath Fenced in a parcell of the Right Hon[ble] Companys Wast Land to Enlarge his pasteure.

The Said Daniel Griffeth appeared and presented his Reply and Answer to the said Powells Complaint Whereein he Denyed what the Said Powell aledges about his Cattle, But Confefseth that he Said that if he ded not behave himself better, That if all the Law in the World would Ruin him he would make him an Example to all Such Young Men of his Stamp.

Then the Evidences were Called and Sworne as followeth.

James Sech, being Sworne Saith that Some time Sence he was at M[r] Gratons with his Mother, at which time M[r] Griffeth being there, with others, heard him say that he Supposed M[r] Powell was worth Three Hundred and Fefty poeund, and one of it was gone already, and would Endeavour to Ruin him or words to that Effect, and that he Deserved to Stand in the Pillory, But however after all if his Wefe would be Reconciled and forgive him he would also.

Hugh Bodley being Sworne Saith to the Same Effect as Jems Sech hath already.

Island St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 11 May 1708 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor; Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor; William Marsden, third in council.

Gabriel Powell, free planter, made a complaint against Daniell Griffith, free planter. Griffith had driven his cattle off his ground into Mrs Sech's and Mr Wrangham's land to the common, and stoned and worried them with his dogs. He had done him damage by Griffith's blacks going daily over his wall fence. Griffith had threatened to ruin him, saying that he was worth £350 and he had caused him to waste £100 already. Powell further declared that Griffith had fenced in a parcel of the Right Honourable Company's waste land to enlarge his pasture.

Daniell Griffith appeared and presented his reply and answer to Powell's complaint. He denied what Powell alleged about his cattle, but confessed that he said that if Powell did not behave himself better, if all the law in the world would ruin him, he would make him an example to all such young men of his stamp.

The evidence was then called and sworn as follows.

James Sech, being sworn, said that some time since he was at Mr Graton's with his mother. At that time Mr Griffith was there, with others. He heard him say that he supposed Mr Powell was worth £350, and one [hundred] of it was gone already, and he would endeavour to ruin him or words to that effect. He deserved to stand in the pillory. However, after all, if his wife would be reconciled and forgive him, he would also.

Hugh Bodley, being sworn, said to the same effect as James Sech had already.

155

147

Benjamin Sech, being Sworn Saith that Some Smale time Sence he Saw M[r] Powells Cattle in M[r] Griffeths Pasture, and presently after M[r] Griffeths Black a Driveing them off the Land, through M[r] Seches Land, and asked the Black asked him where he was Driving the Cattle, he Answerd towards M[r] Long.

John, Long Sworn Saith that he Saw M[r] Powells Cattle upon the Comon but dont know who Drave them there.

Francis Wrangham Sworn Saith that he Saw M[r] Griffeths Black a Driveing M[r] Powells Cattle from out of the said Griffeth Pasteure through M[r] Seches Land towards M[r] Long.

Samuell Algate being Sworne Saith that he Saw M[r] Griffeths Black Driveing M[r] Powells Cattle out of M[r] Griffeths pasteure, and that the Cattle would have gone back the Same way as they Came into M[r] Griffeths pasteure but hindered them and Drove them another way, and Saw a Dogg which Affreghted the Cattle a Lettle, but did not Worry them in the Least, but did not See them Stoned as is said.

It is Ordered:

That it appearing very plain to us that both the said Powell and Griffeths Cattle Trespasseng Equally Upon Each other their party Fence being not Sefficeent to Keep them out, That Neether of them deive theer Cattle to do them any Damage, but Shall Drive them back the way they came to the proprietor[s] Land, tell Such time as the Fence is mad[e] good, and that they pay charges of Counceell Equally between them.

And as to M[r] Griffeths threatning M[r] Powell it was only by due Coeurfe of Law, and So M[r] Powell doth the Same to him Even now before us, which is a Cauteon to Each of them to take Care of Each other.

And as to what Concerns the Companys Bufsness and M[r] Griffeth according to M[r] Powells Information is referred tell this Sceummer Shipeing is Departed this Ifsland, by reason where at present we know Officers to forsen against the Shipeing Departs, And that the said Powell gave Leberty to go for England according to his Own Request, after that he has made up and Adjefsted his Accomp[ts] with the Right Hon[ble] Company in their Store Books of Accounts here, he Leaveing good Sufficeent Secu= rety for the Eighty poeund forfeited in the Consultation of the 24 day of February Last past. W[m]

Island St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 11 May 1708 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor; Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor; William Marsden, third in council.

Gabriel Powell, free planter, made a complaint against Daniell Griffith, free planter. Griffith had driven his cattle off his ground into Mrs Sech's and Mr Wrangham's land to the common, and stoned and worried them with his dogs. He had done him damage by Griffith's blacks going daily over his wall fence. Griffith had threatened to ruin him, saying that he was worth £350 and he had caused him to waste £100 already. Powell further declared that Griffith had fenced in a parcel of the Right Honourable Company's waste land to enlarge his pasture.

Daniell Griffith appeared and presented his reply and answer to Powell's complaint. He denied what Powell alleged about his cattle, but confessed that he said that if Powell did not behave himself better, if all the law in the world would ruin him, he would make him an example to all such young men of his stamp.

The evidence was then called and sworn as follows.

James Sech, being sworn, said that some time since he was at Mr Graton's with his mother. At that time Mr Griffith was there, with others. He heard him say that he supposed Mr Powell was worth £350, and one [hundred] of it was gone already, and he would endeavour to ruin him or words to that effect. He deserved to stand in the pillory. However, after all, if his wife would be reconciled and forgive him, he would also.

Hugh Bodley, being sworn, said to the same effect as James Sech had already.

Benjamin Sech, being sworn, said that some small time since he saw Mr Powell's cattle in Mr Griffith's pasture, and presently after Mr Griffith's black driving them off the land through Mr Sech's land. He asked the black where he was driving the cattle. He answered towards Mr Long.

John Long, sworn, said that he saw Mr Powell's cattle upon the common but did not know who drove them there.

Francis Wrangham, sworn, said that he saw Mr Griffith's black driving Mr Powell's cattle from out of Griffith's pasture through Mr Sech's land towards Mr Long.

Samuel Algate, being sworn, said that he saw Mr Griffith's black driving Mr Powell's cattle out of Mr Griffith's pasture, and that the cattle would have gone back the same way as they came into Mr Griffith's pasture but he hindered them and drove them another way. He saw a dog which affrighted the cattle a little but did not worry them in the least, and did not see them stoned as was said.

It appeared very plain that both Powell's and Griffith's cattle trespassed equally upon each other, their party fence being not sufficient to keep them out. Neither of them was to drive the other's cattle to do them any damage, but was to drive them back the way they came to the proprietor's land, until such time as the fence was made good. They were to pay charges of council equally between them.

As to Griffith's threatening Powell, it was only by due course of law, and so Powell did the same to him even now before the council, which was a caution to each of them to take care of each other.

As to what concerned the Company's business and Griffith according to Powell's information, it was referred until this summer shipping departed the island, by reason that at present the council knew not officers to force in against the shipping departing. Powell was given leave to go for England according to his own request, after he had made up and adjusted his accounts with the Right Honourable Company in their store books of accounts here, he leaving good sufficient security for the £80 forfeited in the consultation of 24 February last past.

Interpretations

The council resolved the cattle trespass dispute by declaring mutual fault and requiring both parties to maintain their shared boundary fence, establishing that neither neighbour could use force to remedy encroachment when the root cause was inadequate fencing. The threat case was dismissed by reframing litigation itself as mutual threatening, neutralising Powell's complaint by pointing out that he was doing to Griffith exactly what he accused Griffith of doing to him. Powell's permission to depart for England was made conditional on settling his Company accounts and providing security for the £80 bond forfeited in February, demonstrating that debts to the Company blocked departure even when the council had no objection to the person leaving.

Speculations

The council deferred the waste land encroachment matter until after the summer fleet sailed because it required a survey or formal viewing that would take officers away from their harbour duties during the busy shipping season. Griffith's conditional offer to reconcile if Powell's wife would forgive him suggests the underlying quarrel involved a family or marital dispute between the two households, not merely boundary issues. The party fence breakdown was treated as a shared maintenance failure rather than sabotage, indicating the council assumed both parties had neglected upkeep rather than one deliberately weakening it.

156

148

Whereas Ifsaack Leech quater Geunner did this Day present a Petition Setting forth therein that he has often been Employed before and Sence the Death of Governour Poirier In makeing and mending of Fflagos for the Right Hon[ble] Company to the Vallue of Seaven poeund One Shelling and Six pence, wherefore heumbly, prays that Sattisfaction may be made him Accordingly, but Examining the said Ifsaack Leeches Bill and fendeing he Charges a Lettle too Extravagant.

It is Ordered:

That the said Ifsaack Leech be allowed Five poeund and No more which we think Sufficeent and Enoeugh in Reason for what done by him. Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden

Island St Helena

You Gabriell Powell, and Thomas Beurnham, free Planters are Nomenated and appointed Overseers of the high ways for this present Year. 1708. which Office you are hereby, Required Carefeully and Dilligently to Execute, Which you may the better and more Imparteialy Performe hereunto is a Left Annexed of the Names of all the White Men Inhabitants (Exceptiing Such as are in the Right Hon[ble] United En= =glefh East India Companys Pay and Servece) and of Negroes and Black Men that any Person hath Excepting the said Right Hon[ble] United Company.

These are therefore in her Majesty[s] Name to well & Require you Gabriell Powell and Thomas Beurnham to Caefse all Persons both Whites and Blacks to Work One day and No more in the Makeing mending or Repai= ring all Such high ways, as are Necessairy, and Needfeull to be done, and also Stiles Bridges &c[a]. be as all and Every of the White Inhabitants as aforesaid, and Their Men Blacks do work at the said high ways One day and No more this present year.

And if any Person or Persons after due Warning by you, or Either of you Shall Afsent himself and doth not Come or Send his Black or Blacks, on the days and tomes by you appointed, then and there to Laboeur as aforesaid, Then you are to peut in Some other Man, or Men Black or Blacks in the Afsent Persons Room, to work One day as aforesaid, Which Person So peutt in you are to pay according to the Right Hon[ble] Companys orders Vez[t]. Eighteen pence for a White Mans days work, and One Shelling for a Black Mans days work.

Isaac Leech, quarter gunner, presented a petition this day setting forth that he had often been employed before and since the death of Governor Poirier in making and mending flags for the Right Honourable Company to the value of £7 1s 6d. He humbly prayed that satisfaction might be made him accordingly. On examining Isaac Leech's bill, the council found he charged a little too extravagantly.

Leech was allowed £5 and no more, which was thought sufficient and enough in reason for what he had done.

Tho: Goodwin Edward Mashborne W: Marsden

Island St Helena

Gabriel Powell and Thomas Burnham, free planters, were nominated and appointed overseers of the highways for the present year 1708. They were required to execute this office carefully and diligently. To enable them to perform more impartially, there was left annexed a list of the names of all the white men inhabitants (excepting such as were in the Right Honourable United English East India Company's pay and service) and of negroes and black men that any person had, excepting the Right Honourable United Company.

In Her Majesty's name, Powell and Burnham were to cause all persons both whites and blacks to work one day and no more in the making, mending or repairing of all such highways as were necessary and needful to be done, and also stiles, bridges and so forth. All and every of the white inhabitants as aforesaid, and their men blacks, were to work at the highways one day and no more this present year.

If any person or persons after due warning by either of them should absent himself and did not come or send his black or blacks on the days and times appointed, then and there to labour as aforesaid, then they were to put in some other man or men, black or blacks, in the absent person's room to work one day as aforesaid. The person so put in they were to pay according to the Right Honourable Company's orders, that is to say 1s 6d for a white man's day's work and 1s for a black man's day's work.

Interpretations

The council reduced Leech's bill by more than a quarter without itemised justification, establishing that it reserved discretion to revise tradesmen's charges downward when deemed excessive. The highway labour system operated as a universal levy on the free population, with one day's compulsory service per year and monetary substitution available for absentees at prescribed rates. The exemption of Company servants from highway duty reflected their distinct employment status, while the inclusion of slaves in the levy demonstrated that labour obligations fell on property holders through their dependants rather than on individuals as such.

Speculations

Leech's petition may have accumulated charges over more than a year without payment, explaining both the substantial sum and the council's suspicion of padding. The differential pay rates for replacement labour (1s 6d white, 1s black) probably reflected prevailing wage customs rather than a formal schedule, with white labour commanding a premium. The highway overseers were appointed from among the free planters rather than Company officers, suggesting the council wanted enforcement separated from other administrative hierarchies to avoid conflicts of interest.

157

149

And Such Person or Persons So Afsent[i]ong Refufseing or not Sending as aforesaid, are forthwith to Repay you wherefore if they deny So to do, You are hereby, Impowered to Take or Defstrefs any Goods from Such Person or Persons and Sell the Same at a publique Outcry, delevering the Overplefs (if any) to the Owners after you are Repayed, and Reasonable Charges Deducted.

For all which this Shall be your Sufficeent Warrant. Geven under our hands this 25th day of May 1708.

To Gabriell Powell, and Thomas Beurnham Over= Tho: Goodwin seers of the High ways. Edw[d] Mashborne these W[m] Marsden

A Left of all persons both Whites and Blacks that are to Work at the Said High ways one Day this present year. 1708. One day and No More as aforesaid.

White Black White Black

Thomas Goodwin Esq[r] Govern[r] Brought Over 29 55 Edw[d] Mashborne Dep[ty] Govern[r] 1 [3] John Alexander Henry Francis 1 3 Matthew Bazett 1 3 William Frenchs Cheldren 5 William Slaughter 1 Joseph Fox 1 John Clavering 1 Daniell Griffeth 1 6 Thomas Southen 1 Paul Graton 1 1 James Vesey 1 Thomas Gargen 1 1 Tho[s] Alley free plant[r] & Son 2 1 Richard Gurling 1 4 Robert Addis 1 1 Robert Gurling 1 Rich[d] Alexander 1 1 James Greentree & Apprentiece 2 3 Walter Belvard 1 Thomas Harper 1 Jn[o]. Bagley & Apprentiece 2 1 William Hayse 1 Orlando Bagley & apprentiece 2 1 Leonard Heunt 1 5 Thomas Bagley 1 George Hoffkenson 1 6 Thomas Beurnham 1 Jonathan Hegham 1 William Beale 1 3 Joshcua Johnson 1 2 Robert Bell 1 Sutton Ifsaack Senior 1 Arthur Bradley 1 Sutton Ifsaack Junior 1 Heugh Bodley Senior 1 Madam Johnson 2 Henry Coales 1 Mary Jeufster 1 John Coellson 1 1 Stephen Lefson 1 Geo[r] Colgrave Robert Leech 1 2 John Coles 1 2 Francis Leech 1 William Coles Elizabeth Long Son John 1 Richard Cleave & Apprentiece 2 1 W[m] Marsh & Son John 2 1 Grace Coellson 1 Edward Marsh 1 Margarell Colgrave Orphants 2 Robert Marsh 1 Martha Charles 6 Elizabeth Meudge Wedlow 1 Madam Carne 1 Walter Morris 1 Mary Conaway 3 Maxewells Orphants 2 James Draper 1 1 John Nicholfs & Son Edmund 2 1 Jonathan Defston & James Leech 2 1 John Orchard 1 George Dweeght 1 Robert Marsh 1 Rath: De Foeunfaen 1 4 Gabriell Powell 1 Heumphry Edwards 1 1 Mary Peurling Son John 1 3 Mary Easthope 1 Carried Over 29 55 Carried Over 60 103

Island St Helena

Gabriel Powell and Thomas Burnham, free planters, were nominated and appointed overseers of the highways for the present year 1708. They were required to execute this office carefully and diligently. To enable them to perform more impartially, there was left annexed a list of the names of all the white men inhabitants (excepting such as were in the Right Honourable United English East India Company's pay and service) and of negroes and black men that any person had, excepting the Right Honourable United Company.

In Her Majesty's name, Powell and Burnham were to cause all persons both whites and blacks to work one day and no more in the making, mending or repairing of all such highways as were necessary and needful to be done, and also stiles, bridges and so forth. All and every of the white inhabitants as aforesaid, and their men blacks, were to work at the highways one day and no more this present year.

If any person or persons after due warning by either of them should absent himself and did not come or send his black or blacks on the days and times appointed, then and there to labour as aforesaid, then they were to put in some other man or men, black or blacks, in the absent person's room to work one day as aforesaid. The person so put in they were to pay according to the Right Honourable Company's orders, that is to say 1s 6d for a white man's day's work and 1s for a black man's day's work.

Such person or persons so absenting, refusing or not sending as aforesaid were forthwith to repay them. If they denied so to do, the overseers were empowered to take or distrain any goods from such person or persons and sell the same at a public outcry, delivering the overplus (if any) to the owners after they were repaid and reasonable charges deducted.

This was to be their sufficient warrant. Given under our hands this 25th day of May 1708.

To Gabriel Powell and Thomas Burnham, overseers of the highways - these.

Tho: Goodwin Edward Mashborne W: Marsden

A list of all persons both whites and blacks that were to work at the highways one day this present year 1708, one day and no more as aforesaid.

Thomas Goodwin Esq: Govern: 1 white 4 black Edward Mashborne Dep:ty Govern: 0 white 3 black John Alexander 0 white 3 black Matthew Bazett 0 white 1 black William Slaughter 1 white 0 black John Clavering 1 white 0 black Thomas Southen 1 white 0 black James Vesey 0 white 1 black Tho: Alley free plant: & Son 2 white 1 black Robert Addis 0 white 3 black Rich: Alexander 0 white 1 black Walter Belvard 0 white 1 black Jn:o Bagley & Apprentice 2 white 0 black Orlando Bagley & apprentice 2 white 1 black Thomas Bagley 0 white 1 black Thomas Burnham 0 white 1 black William Beale 0 white 3 black Robert Bell 1 white 0 black Arthur Bradley 1 white 0 black Hugh Bodley Senior 1 white 0 black Henry Coales 0 white 3 black John Colson 0 white 1 black George Colgrave 0 white 1 black John Coles 0 white 1 black William Coles 0 white 1 black Richard Cleave & Apprentice 2 white 0 black Grace Coulson 0 white 1 black Margarett Colgrave Orphans 0 white 1 black Martha Charles 0 white 6 black Madam Carne 1 white 0 black Mary Conaway 0 white 3 black James Draper 1 white 1 black Jonathan Duston & James Leech 2 white 2 black George Dwight 0 white 1 black Rath: De Fountaen 1 white 4 black Humphry Edwards 1 white 1 black Mary Easthope Son James 0 white 1 black

Carried Over 29 white 55 black

Brought Over 29 white 55 black Henry Francis 0 white 3 black William Frenchs Children 0 white 5 black Joseph Fox 0 white 1 black Daniell Griffeth 0 white 6 black Paul Graton 0 white 1 black Thomas Gargen 0 white 1 black Richard Gurling 0 white 4 black Robert Gurling 0 white 1 black James Greentree & Apprentice 2 white 3 black Thomas Harper 1 white 0 black William Hayse 1 white 0 black Leonard Hunt 1 white 5 black George Hoskison 1 white 6 black Jonathan Higham 1 white 0 black Joshua Johnson 0 white 2 black Sutton Isaac Senior 1 white 0 black Sutton Isaac Junior 0 white 1 black Madam Johnson 0 white 2 black Mary Juster 0 white 1 black Stephen Lefson 0 white 1 black Robert Leech 0 white 2 black Francis Leech 1 white 0 black Elizabeth Long Son John 0 white 1 black William Marsh & Son John 2 white 1 black Edward Marsh 1 white 0 black Robert Marsh 1 white 0 black Elizabeth Mudge Widow 0 white 1 black Walter Morris 0 white 1 black Maxwells Orphans 0 white 2 black John Nicholls & Son Edmund 2 white 1 black John Orchard 1 white 0 black Gabriell Powell 0 white 1 black Mary Purling Son John 0 white 3 black

Carried Over 60 white 103 black

Interpretations

The highway labour list recorded the demographic structure of the free settlement in May 1708, revealing 60 white inhabitants and 103 slaves distributed across approximately 70 households. The zero entries in the white column for many households indicated that the named householder was either in Company service (and thus exempt) or that the entry recorded a widow, orphan group or estate managed by others. The list demonstrated that slavery was concentrated: Goodwin held 4 slaves, Mashborne 3, Griffith 6, Hoskison 6, while many households held only one or two, and several planters held none at all.

Speculations

The council produced this list to give the highway overseers an authoritative roster preventing disputes over who owed labour, since absentees could be charged for replacement workers at prescribed rates. The explicit exclusion of Company servants from the levy meant that soldiers, gunners, the storekeeper and administrative officers owed no highway duty, creating a clear division between the civilian and military populations. The distress and public sale provision gave Powell and Burnham coercive powers over their neighbours without requiring council approval for each enforcement action, suggesting the council wanted highway maintenance handled as a self-executing obligation rather than a matter requiring repeated consultations.

158

150

Whites Blacks

Brought Over 60 103 Madam Poirier 1 John Robinson 1 Margett Secher. 2 Sons 1 2 Thomas Swallow Senior and. 2 Sons 2 4 Thomas Swallow Junior 3 2 Robert Swallow 1 Richard Swallow Senior 1 1 Charles Steward 1 2 Elizabeth Sanderson 1 3 William Seale 1 2 Joseph Trapp 1 1 Repim Wells, and Sor[i] Benjamin 2 2 Simon Whaley 1 Francis Wrangham 1 Wranghams Orphans 1 Henry, Webley 1 2

Totall 77 126.

Island St Helena

You Matthew Bazett, and Henry Francis both of the Said Ifsland are hereby Nominated and appoeinfsed Church Wardens for this present Year. 1708. And whereas you desire and request accor= =deing to the Useall Custome of this place, to be informed what is the proper deutys Requisete for the Performance of that Office And Confedereng the Cercumstances of this Ifsland, We think fett that the Rules followeing, be the Rules and Methods for the Church Wardens to Governe them= =selves and to Walk by.

§. 1. YOU are to take care of the Furnicheure Vesftments and Utenfsils belongeing to both Cheurches, Seeing that no Imbeglement be made of any that Shall be delevered into your Care and Cesftody.

§. 2. YOU Shall keep a good Account of all Gefsts &c[a]. Dedicated to and for the use of both Cheurches, and give an Account of your Disbursments of the Same for the use of the Gefsts So Geven.

§. 3. YOU Shall take Notice of all Notorious and open Prophane persons and Wicked Sabbath breakers, Swearers, Dreunkards, Whoremongers, And give Notice of them to us, But as for Sabbath breakers, and Swearers, You are to Reprove and Admonich as you Shall think fett, But if Sceuh Person or Persons So Offending well not Refrain and defest from Sceuh wicked

Brought Over 60 white 103 black Madam Joyster 0 white 1 black John Robinson 0 white 1 black Margett Reder & Son 0 white 2 black Thomas Swallow Senior and & Sons 0 white 2 black Thomas Swallow Junior 0 white 1 black Robert Swallow 1 white 2 black Richard Swallow Senior 0 white 1 black Charles Steward 0 white 1 black Elizabeth Sanderson 0 white 1 black William Scotton 0 white 2 black Joseph Trapp 0 white 1 black Repim Wills and Son Benjamin 0 white 1 black Simon Whiteley 0 white 1 black Symon Whiteley 0 white 1 black Frances Wrangham 0 white 1 black Wranghams Orphans 0 white 1 black Henry Whelley 0 white 2 black

Total 77 white 126 black

Island St Helena

Matthew Bazett and Henry Francis, both churchwardens now being lately nominated and appointed churchwardens for the present year and taking upon themselves the care and charge thereof, now desired according to the usual custom of this place to be informed what was the proper list requisite for the performance of that office and concerning the care and cure of the church of this island and the rules following.

In the rules and methods for the churchwardens to govern themselves and to walk by.

1: They were to take care of the furniture, vestments and utensils belonging to both churches, seeing that no embezzlement be made of any part. Whoever was guilty of such embezzlement was to be reported.

2: They were to keep a good account of all gifts dedicated to and for the use of both churches and give an account of their disbursements of the same for the use of the church so given.

3: They were to take notice of all notorious and open profane persons and wicked sabbath breakers, swearers, drunkards and whoremongers, and give notice of them to the council. As for sabbath breakers and swearers, they were to reprove and admonish as they should think fit. But if such person or persons so offending would not refrain and desist from such wicked

Interpretations

The final census revealed 77 white inhabitants and 126 slaves across the free settlement, demonstrating that slaves outnumbered whites by nearly two to one. The churchwardens' instructions formalised their role as moral police with authority to admonish minor offenders directly but refer serious or persistent cases to the council. The distinction between the two churches (Fort James chapel and the country church) reflected the geographical division of the settlement between the valley and the outlying plantations.

Speculations

The council issued written instructions to the new churchwardens because the office had either lapsed or been inconsistently executed under Poirier, requiring the new administration to re-establish its scope and authority. The embezzlement clause suggests prior losses of church property, perhaps during the disordered final year of Poirier's governorship when records went unsigned and inventories were refused. The churchwardens' power to reprove sabbath breakers and swearers without council referral created a graduated enforcement system, reserving council time for cases where admonition had failed or the offence was more serious.

159

151

Wicked Practices, after you have Admonished him or them Once or Twice Not Exceeding the third time, You are hereby Requeired to Represent Such Offender or Offenders to us, That he or they may be Foned According to the Right Hon[ble] Companys Instructions, or according to Due Course of Law.

thly YOU shall upon the Monday next before the. 25. day of March Next . 4. Enseuing the date hereof Afsemble with the Inhabitants Free Holders of this place at the Church in the Countrey, or to Some other Convenient Place and there by Majority of Votes Nomicate and make Choice of Foeur Persons for Church Wardens, and foeur Persons for Overseers of the High ways, which Persons you Shall present unto us, Whereby we may make Choice of two, out of the foeur for Church Wardens, and two out of the foeur for Overseers of the High ways, to Succeed you and the present Overseers (After that you and they have past your Accounts with us in your places.)

thly YOU Shall Lekewefse See and have Some Refspect to the Poor and Impotent . 5. on the Said Ifsland, and Relate their Condetions to us, that some Care may be taken

thly for their Necefsary Releefe. . 6.

YOU Shall take Care that no disorders be in the Church Dureing the

toms of Devene Servece, for which peurpofse you must Charge the Sexton to attend his Deuty, and Afsert him his Sallary and make afsefment for the Same accordeingly.

thly This is all at present that we can think Needfeull and Requesite . 7. for the Deutys of Church Wardens, Untill Some other Matter Shall Occeur. In Tefstemony, whereof we the Governour and Councell for the time being do hereunto Sett our hands this. 25th. day of May 1708

To Matthew Bazett Tho: Goodwin and Henry Francis Edw[d] Mashborne Church Wardens W[m] Marsden these

Whereas there being now. 2. years Viz[t]. the years. 1706. & . 1707. head Money due to the Church, from the Inhabitants of the said Ifsland, which being Computed after the Rate of Six pence p[r] head for all Whites and Blacks in Each Famely well not Ameunt to pay the Arrears which the Church and Poor being Augmented Stands Indebted, and upon Confederation of Severall Seums of Money which has been paid and given to Severall poor, Persons on Said Ifsland, for and towards their Necefsary Releefe in time of theer Extremety, These are therefore in her Majefst[ys] Name to order and Command you whofse Names hereafter follews to pay the Refspective Seums of Money, Placed against your Names To Matthew Bazett and Henry Francks Church Wardens for this present Year and if in Case any person or Persons Refefses to make Payment hereof You the

wicked practices, after they had admonished him or them once or twice not exceeding the third time, they were required to represent such offender or offenders to the council, that he or they might be fined according to the Right Honourable Company's instructions or according to due course of law.

4: They were upon the Monday next before 25 March next ensuing the date hereof to assemble with the inhabitants freeholders of this place at the church in the country or at some other convenient place, and there by majority of votes nominate and make choice of four persons for churchwardens and four persons for overseers of the highways. These persons they were to present to the council, whereby the council might make choice of two out of the four for churchwardens and two out of the four for overseers of the highways, to succeed them and the present overseers after they and those overseers had passed their accounts with the council in their places.

5: They were likewise to see and have some respect to the poor and impotent on the island, and relate their conditions to the council, that some care might be taken for their necessary relief.

6: They were to take care that no disorders be in the church during the time of divine service, for which purpose they must charge the sexton to attend his duty and assert him his salary and make assessment for the same accordingly.

7: This was all at present that the council could think needful and requisite for the duties of churchwardens, until some other matter should occur. In testimony whereof the Governor and Council for the time being did hereunto set their hands this 25th day of May 1708.

To Matthew Bazett and Henry Francis, churchwardens - these.

Tho: Goodwin Edward Mashborne W: Marsden

There being now two years, that is to say the years 1706 and 1707, head money due to the church from the inhabitants of the island, which being computed after the rate of 6d per head for all whites and blacks in each family would not amount to pay the arrears which the church and poor, being augmented, stood indebted, and upon consideration of several sums of money which had been paid and given to several poor persons on the island for and towards their necessary relief in time of their extremity, these were therefore in Her Majesty's name to order and command those whose names hereafter followed to pay the respective sums of money placed against their names to Matthew Bazett and Henry Francis, churchwardens for this present year. If in case any person or persons refused to make payment hereof, the

Interpretations

The churchwarden instructions established a three-strike system for moral discipline, allowing lay officials to handle minor cases through admonition before escalating to the council for fines. The annual election procedure required freeholder participation in nominating candidates, but reserved final appointment to the council, balancing popular participation with hierarchical control. The head money levy at 6d per head for all whites and blacks created a per capita church tax calculated on household size rather than wealth or property.

Speculations

The two-year arrears in head money (1706-1707) accumulated during Poirier's final illness and the administrative disorder that followed his death, when routine collection had lapsed. The council found the standard head money rate insufficient to cover accumulated church and poor relief debts, necessitating a special assessment against named individuals. The freeholder election of churchwarden and highway overseer nominees on the Monday before 25 March established an annual cycle timed to the old calendar year, ensuring continuity before the spring shipping season began.

160

152

the aforesaid Church Wardens are hereby Impowered to make Seizeure of Such Persons goods and Chattels, and Sell the Same at a publique Outcry Rendring the Overplus (if any) to the Owner after you are Sattisfyed and Reafsonable Charges Deducted.

Given under our Hands and the Right Hon[ble] Companys Seale Affecsed hereunto this. 25th. day of May 1708.

To Matthew Bazett and Henry Francis Tho: Goodwin Church Wardens Edw[d] Mashborne these W[m] Marsden

There then follows a complex table with an assessment list showing how much each named person was required to pay in parish taxes (poll tax, poor rate, etc.), which the churchwardens were authorised to collect - by seizing goods if necessary.

Thomas Goodwin Esq[r] Governor Edward Mashborne Dep[ty] Govern[r] John Alexander John French Matthew Bazett Thomas Cason John Welsh William Slaughter John Clavering Thomas Foster Thomas Southen James Vesey Hans George Newman William Hartwell Joseph Parsons Philep Jefrey Sameuell Price Thomas Alley Robert Addis Richard Alexander Walter Belvard John Bagley Orlando Bagley Thomas Bagley Thomas Beurnham William Beale Robert Bell Arthur Bradley Hugh Bodley John Boyce Henry Coals John Coelfson Gilbert Colgrave John Coles William Coles Richard Cleave Grace Coulfson Marg[t] Colgrave Orphans

the aforesaid churchwardens were empowered to seize such person's goods and chattels and sell them at a public auction, returning any surplus (if any) to the owner after they were paid and reasonable charges deducted.

Given under our hands and the Right Honourable Company's seal affixed hereunto this 25th day of May 1708.

To Matthew Bazett and Henry Francis, churchwardens - these.

There then follows a complex table with an assessment list showing how much each named person was required to pay in parish taxes (poll tax, poor rate, etc.), which the churchwardens were authorised to collect - by seizing goods if necessary.

Tho: Goodwin Edward Mashborne W: Marsden

Thomas Goodwin Esquire, Governor Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor John Alexander John French Matthew Bazett Thomas Cason John Welsh William Slaughter John Clavering Thomas Foster Thomas Southen James Vesey Hans George Newman William Hartwell Joseph Parsons Philip Jeffrey Samuel Price Thomas Alley Robert Addis Richard Alexander Walter Belvard John Bagley Orlando Bagley Thomas Bagley Thomas Burnham William Beale Robert Bell Arthur Bradley Hugh Bodley John Boyce Henry Coales John Coulson Gilbert Colgrave John Coles William Coles Richard Cleave Grace Coulson Margaret Colgrave Orphans

Interpretations

The churchwardens received identical enforcement powers to the highway overseers, allowing them to seize and auction the property of anyone refusing to pay church rates without requiring council approval for each case. The formal seal attached to the warrant elevated the churchwardens' authority beyond ordinary delegation, giving their actions legal weight. The assessment list included the Governor and Deputy Governor, showing that church rates applied to all inhabitants regardless of rank, unlike highway labour which exempted Company servants.

Speculations

The council ordered this special collection because church and poor relief funds had run dry after two years of uncollected taxes during Poirier's final illness and death. Granting seizure powers suggested that voluntary payment had broken down and the churchwardens needed coercive authority to recover arrears. The late May timing allowed the council to clear accumulated administrative business before the summer fleet's departure disrupted routine governance.

161

154

Brought Over

Martha Charles

Madam Carne

Mary Connaway

James Draper

Jonathan Dufston

George Dweeght

Ruth De Foeuntain

Heumphry Edwards

Mary Easthope

Henry Francis

Anne Fuller

Joseph Fox

Daniell Griffith

Paul Graton

Thomas Gargen

Richard Gurling

Robert Gurling

James Greentree

Thomas Harper

William Hayse

Leonard Heynt

George Hoskison

Jonathan Hegham

Dorothy Hayse

Joshcua Johnson

Sutton Ifsaack Senior

Sutton Ifsaack Junior

Madam Johnson

Mary Jeufster

Stephen Lefson

Robert Leech

Francis Leech

Elizabeth Long

John Meudge

William Marsh

Edward Marsh

Robert Marsh

Elizabeth Meudge

Walter Morris

Maxewells Orphans

John Nechols

John Orchard

Gabriell Powell

Mary Peurlong

Madam Poirier

John Robinson

Marg[t] Lech

Tho[s] Swallow Senior

Thom[s] Swalldow Junior

Robert Swallow

Richard Swallow

Charles Steward

Elizabeth Sanderson

William Seale

Joseph Trapp

Repim Wells

Simon Whaley

Francis Wrangham

Wranghams Orphans

Henry Webley

Brought Over

Martha Charles

Madam Carne

Mary Conaway

James Draper

Jonathan Duston

George Dwight

Ruth De Fontaine

Humphry Edwards

Mary Easthope

Henry Francis

Anne Fuller

Joseph Fox

Daniell Griffith

Paul Graton

Thomas Gargen

Richard Gurling

Robert Gurling

James Greentree

Thomas Harper

William Hayes

Leonard Hunt

George Hoskison

Jonathan Higham

Dorothy Hayes

Joshua Johnson

Sutton Isaac Senior

Sutton Isaac Junior

Madam Johnson

Mary Juster

Stephen Lefson

Robert Leech

Francis Leech

Elizabeth Long

John Mudge

William Marsh

Edward Marsh

Robert Marsh

Elizabeth Mudge

Walter Morris

Maxwell's Orphans

John Nichols

John Orchard

Gabriel Powell

Mary Purling

Madam Poirier

John Robinson

Margaret Reder

Thomas Swallow Senior

Thomas Swallow Junior

Robert Swallow

Richard Swallow

Charles Steward

Elizabeth Sanderson

William Seale

Joseph Trapp

Repim Wills

Simon Whaley

Francis Wrangham

Wrangham's Orphans

Henry Webley

162

154

Island St Helena.

At a Consultation, held on, Tuesday the. 25th. day of May. 1708. Att Fort James.

Pres[t] Thomas Goodwin, Governour Edward Mashborne Dep[ty] Governor William Marrsden. 3[r] in Councill

Whereas the Governour went Yesterday, to Vessitt Prossperocus Bay where he found no Officer, but One Souldier, where upon the Govern[r] ordered Serjeant Tweights Cheef Officer there to make his appea= =rance before us to give an Account of his Neglect.

The said Serjeant appeareing Confessed that he had given the other Souldeier Leave to go a Fesshing, But that homselfe was within a Mele of said Look out, where he had as good a prosspect as if at the Bay and Could be there in a very Lettle time, And with faier promises that it should Never besso again for the Feiture was Dessmissed only with a Severe Check.

John Clavering Geunners Cheife Mate presented his Petetion Setting forth therein that he Collected the Cessstoms y[e] order of Governour Poirier for the time of Eleaven Months at the Rate of Five poeund p[r] Anneum according to the Useall Cesstome, upon, which and Peruseing the Store Books fond that the said Clavering had no Credett for his Trouble and Dillegence in gatherong the Cesstomes.

It is Ordered:

That the said Clavering have Credett for the Seum of three poeund Fefteen Shellings which is for three Quaters of a Years Sallary, at the aforesaid Rate of Five poeund p[r] Anneum.

Whereas Yesterday when the Governour was gone to Prossperocus Bay, George Newman, and Robert Swallow went on board the Ship Albemarle with theer Wesses from the West Rocks, without Leave, Lecence, or knowledge of the Governour, or Cap[tn] Mashborne who was the Cheef Officer at the Fort, wherefore.

It is Ordered:

That the said Newman, and Swallow be Sent for by the Marshall and foned Each the Sum of Six Shellings according to the Hon[ble] Antient Instruction

Island St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 25 May 1708 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor; Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor; William Marsden, third in council.

The Governor went yesterday to visit Prosperous Bay where he found no officer but one soldier. Goodwin ordered Sergeant Dwight, chief officer there, to appear before the council to give an account of his neglect.

The sergeant appeared and confessed that he had given the other soldier leave to go fishing, but that he himself was within a mile of the lookout, where he had as good a prospect as if at the bay and could be there in very little time. With fair promises that it should never be so again, the failure was dismissed only with a severe check.

John Clavering, gunner's chief mate, presented his petition setting forth that he collected the customs by order of Governor Poirier for the time of eleven months at the rate of £5 per annum according to the usual custom. Upon perusing the store books, it was found that Clavering had no credit for his trouble and diligence in gathering the customs.

Clavering was given credit for the sum of £3 15s, which was for three quarters of a year's salary at the aforesaid rate of £5 per annum.

Yesterday when the Governor was gone to Prosperous Bay, George Newman and Robert Swallow went on board the ship Albemarle with their wives from the West Rocks without leave, licence or knowledge of the Governor or Captain Mashborne, who was the chief officer at the Fort.

Newman and Swallow were to be sent for by the marshall and fined each the sum of 6s according to the Honourable ancient instruction.

Interpretations

Sergeant Dwight's unauthorised absence from Prosperous Bay exposed a vulnerability in the coastal watch system, but his proximity defence satisfied the council that the lookout remained functional. Clavering's petition revealed that Poirier had assigned him customs collection duties but failed to enter the payment in the accounts, part of the broader pattern of disordered record-keeping in Poirier's final year. The fine imposed on Newman and Swallow for boarding ship without permission enforced the Governor's monopoly over contact with visiting vessels, preventing unauthorised trade or departure.

Speculations

Dwight received only a reprimand rather than punishment because he had remained close enough to respond to an alarm and because no actual security breach occurred. Clavering waited until after Poirier's death to petition for back pay, suggesting either that Poirier had refused payment or that the administrative chaos made it impossible to settle accounts during the transition. Newman and Swallow's wives accompanied them to the Albemarle, indicating this was a social visit or trading opportunity rather than official business, which explained why they bypassed the Governor's authority.

163

155

Instructions.

Which the said Newman and Swallow paid presently in ready Money in Court and it was Delivered the Church Wardens for the Use of the Store.

Whereas Benjamin Sech Informed Cap[tn]. Mashborne that he Saw Robert Nevill Souldeier, as he was Comeing up from the Fort by half way Tree present a Geun at Some hoggs, and presently after Fired at Some of the Companys Cattle that was just by the Hoggs, Whereeupon went down to the said Nevill and asked him if he knew what he had Done, he made Answer Yes, and said he fired at two Partredges, but Veewing the Cattle Saw that he had Shott One self, and that it was bloody, in Two or three places, upon which Called and bid him Look what he had done, but would not, Going away homewards.

To all which the said Benjamin Sech made Oath Now.

The Said Nevill Denyed what the said Sech hath said Saying he fired at two Partredges, and had only three Stones in the Geun.

It is Ordered:

That this Busseness be Referred till Next Councell day that the Companys Calves may be lookt after, and See whether any of them hath been Shott, or No, there being but One Evidence against them.

The Old and New Church Wardens were both Summoned to appear this day the Old to Deliver the New Church Wardens the Utenfsels belongeing to the Cheurches, and the New Church Wardens to Receive their Warrant and Instructions to walk by as Useall, Dated the. 25. Instant.

Allso the Overseers for the Year Ensueing had their Warrant Delivered them for the Caufseing all Persofns, both Whites and Blacks to work at the high ways One day this Year Enfsueing dated as aforesaid. Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden

Newman and Swallow paid immediately in ready money in court and it was delivered to the churchwardens for the use of the store.

Benjamin Sech informed Captain Mashborne that he saw Robert Nevill, soldier, as he was coming up from the Fort by Halfway Tree, present a gun at some hogs and presently after fire at some of the Company's cattle that were just by the hogs. He went down to Nevill and asked him if he knew what he had done. He made answer yes, and said he fired at two partridges. But viewing the cattle, Sech saw that he had shot one heifer and that it was bloody in two or three places. He called and bid him look what he had done, but Nevill would not, going away homewards.

Benjamin Sech made oath to all this now.

Nevill denied what Sech had said, claiming he fired at two partridges and had only three stones in the gun.

This business was referred until next council day so that the Company's calves might be looked after and to see whether any of them had been shot or not, there being but one witness against him.

The old and new churchwardens were both summoned to appear this day, the old to deliver to the new churchwardens the utensils belonging to the churches, and the new churchwardens to receive their warrant and instructions to walk by as usual, dated 25 instant.

Also the overseers for the year ensuing had their warrant delivered to them for causing all persons, both whites and blacks, to work at the highways one day this year ensuing, dated as aforesaid.

Tho: Goodwin Edward Mashborne W: Marsden

Interpretations

Newman and Swallow's immediate cash payment in court demonstrated that the boarding violation carried a fixed penalty enforceable on the spot rather than requiring later collection. Nevill's cattle-shooting case was adjourned because a single witness proved insufficient for conviction, revealing that the council required corroborating evidence or physical proof before punishing a soldier. The formal handover of church utensils from old to new churchwardens established continuity of office and accountability for church property.

Speculations

Nevill's claim that he loaded only three stones rather than shot suggested he was trying to establish that he could not have inflicted serious wounds, making the bloody heifer evidence crucial to the case. The council deferred judgment to allow time to examine all the Company's calves, indicating they suspected Nevill might have wounded multiple animals. The simultaneous issuing of warrants to both churchwardens and highway overseers on 25 May created a coordinated administrative cycle, with all local officers receiving their instructions on the same day before the summer shipping season began.

164

156

Island St Helena.

Att a Consultation held on Tuesday the. 8th. day of June. 1708. Att Fort James.

Pres[t] Thomas Goodwin, Governour Edward Mashborne Dep[ty] Governour William Marrsden. 3[r] in Councill

Whereas Walter Belvard free planter, made Complaint against Thomas Southen Corporall for that he the said Thomas Southen, or Servants by his order, hath Carried Severall Loads of Fire wood off the Said Belvards Land, without his Leave or knowledge, And desires Sattisfaction to be made him and his Evedences to be Called, which were.

The Said Thomas Southen appeared, and Says that the Wind Clew down two Trees, and that he fetcht Some of the bows, but not any of the bodys of the trees, and Said he thought no harm in it, and that if Belvard was Angry he would Sattisfie him for the wood, and would acqueaint him with it when he went Next to the Fort, which John George Souldeier Said was very true, and that he, John Geles, and the black Carrieed Seaven Smale Loads in all.

It is Ordered:

That the said Thomas Southen be Cast in Sceit, and haveing Computed that the Seaven Loads of wood weeghed Three Heundred weeght, which according to the Companys Orders is Twelve pence for Every heundred weight which is Three Shillings, and a three fold Refstitution to be made more Amounts to Twelve Shillings, which the Said Southen meust pay the Said Belvard, and Councill Charges.

John Labous Montross Gave in his Petetion Setting forth that haveing been a Long time from his Friends Earnestly Defsired that he might have Leberty to go for England this Summer Shippeing his time being Almost out.

It is Ordered:

In Consideration that the Albemarle now being in the Roade (to Answer the Request of Cap[tn]. William Beaw) being but weakly Manned, That the said Laboucr be permitted to take his Pafsage on said Ship and no other. Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marrsden

Island St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 8 June 1708 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor; Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor; William Marsden, third in council.

Walter Belvard, free planter, made a complaint against Thomas Southen, corporal. Southen, or servants by his order, had carried several loads of firewood off Belvard's land without his leave or knowledge. He desired satisfaction to be made him and his evidence to be called.

Thomas Southen appeared and said that the wind blew down two trees, and that he fetched some of the boughs but not any of the bodies of the trees. He said he thought no harm in it, and that if Belvard was angry he would satisfy him for the wood, and would acquaint him with it when he went next to the Fort. John George, soldier, said this was very true, and that he, John Geles and the black carried seven small loads in all.

Southen was cast in suit. Having computed that the seven loads of wood weighed 3 cwt, which according to the Company's orders was 1s for every hundreDwight, which was 3s, and a threefold restitution to be made more, this amounted to 12s. Southen was to pay Belvard this sum and council charges.

John Labour, matross, gave in his petition setting forth that having been a long time from his friends, he earnestly desired that he might have liberty to go for England this summer shipping, his time being almost out.

In consideration that the Albemarle now being in the road (to answer the request of Captain William Beaw) was but weakly manned, Labour was permitted to take his passage on that ship and no other.

Tho: Goodwin Edward Mashborne W: Marsden

Interpretations

The council applied a threefold restitution formula to the firewood theft, multiplying the base value by three as a penalty for taking without permission. Southen's defence that he took only fallen boughs rather than the tree trunks failed to excuse the trespass, establishing that windfall timber remained the property of the landowner. Labour's petition was granted conditionally, allowing him passage only on the undermanned Albemarle as a favour to Captain Beaw rather than as a general right to depart.

Speculations

Southen assumed that storm-felled timber on someone else's land was fair salvage, a customary practice that the council now rejected by imposing the threefold penalty. The council weighed the seven loads and calculated the penalty precisely, suggesting they wanted to establish a clear precedent for timber theft cases. Labour's departure was approved because it simultaneously relieved the island of an expiring servant and helped Beaw fill out his crew, solving two problems at once.

165

157

Island St Helena.

Att a Consultation, held on, Tuesday, the 22. day of June. 1708. Att Fort James.

Pres[t] Thomas Goodwin, Governour Edward Mashborne Dep[ty] Governocur William Marsden. 3[r] in Cocuncill

John, Clavering Geunners Mate made Complaint against Walter Belvard free Planter and Robert Angus Souldeier, for throwing Stones in the Night Time on the. 11. Instant at his Window and gave Information that the Said Belvards Black fell wood for Some time on Sunday the. 13. Instant in tome of Devine Servece.

The said Belvard and Angus Denyed what the said Clavering hath Alledged against them Saying they are falsly Accused.

The Said Clavering Defsired his Wittnefs might be Called and Sworne.

Thomas Clayton Souldeier being Sworne Saith that on the said . 11. of June at Night he Lay at his Quaters Thomas Beveans and about Elea= =ven of the Clock he heard a Noise of Stones throwne against Doors or Won= dows and getting up out of his Bed and Lookeing out at the Lower Window Saw Walter Belvard and Robert Angus, Walkeing to and fro on the Street from and towards the said Claverings Door, and M[rs] Wells, and presently after Threw Stones over the way towards the said Claverings house but Cant Say they hitt against the Doors or Windows.

Thomas Bevean, Says he heard a great Noise in the Street, & would have gott up but his Wefe would not Let him, for fear he should be knockt on the head.

Although the said Thomas Clayton dont nor Cant Swear Pesfsetively that the Said Belvard and Angus threw Stones against the Window, yet ats[?] very Probabley they being out at that unseafsonable time of the Night, they did the Fakt, and Accordingly.

It is Ordered:

That the Said Belvard and Angus be foned the Seum of Three Shellings Each and Charges of Councill and Admonished to be of the good behaviocur for the feiture As Allso that the Said Belvard pay Five Shellings for his Slaves Cutting Wood on the Lords Day. Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden

Ifsland

Island St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 22 June 1708 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor; Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor; William Marsden, third in council.

John Clavering, gunner's mate, made a complaint against Walter Belvard, free planter, and Robert Angus, soldier, for throwing stones in the night time on 11 instant at his window. He gave information that Belvard's black felled wood for some time on Sunday 13 instant in time of divine service.

Belvard and Angus denied what Clavering had alleged against them, saying they were falsely accused.

Clavering desired his witness might be called and sworn.

Thomas Clayton, soldier, being sworn, said that on the night of 11 June he lay at his quarters, Thomas Bevean's, and about eleven of the clock he heard a noise of stones thrown against doors or windows. Getting up out of his bed and looking out at the lower window, he saw Walter Belvard and Robert Angus walking to and fro on the street from and towards Clavering's door and Mrs Wills's. Presently after they threw stones over the way towards Clavering's house, but he could not say they hit against the doors or windows.

Thomas Bevean said he heard a great noise in the street and would have got up, but his wife would not let him for fear he should be knocked on the head.

Although Thomas Clayton did not and could not swear positively that Belvard and Angus threw stones against the window, yet as it was very probable, they being out at that unseasonable time of the night, they did the fact.

Belvard and Angus were fined the sum of 3s each and charges of council, and admonished to be of good behaviour for the future. Also Belvard was to pay 5s for his slave cutting wood on the Lord's Day.

Thomas Goodwin Edward Mashborne William Marsden

Island

Interpretations

The council convicted Belvard and Angus on circumstantial evidence alone, establishing that suspicious presence at an unseasonable hour combined with proximity to the offence satisfied the standard of proof. Bevean's wife's fear that he would be knocked on the head if he intervened suggested that nocturnal street disturbances carried real physical danger. The sabbath-breaking fine fell on Belvard as master rather than on the slave who performed the labour, reinforcing that masters bore legal responsibility for their slaves' conduct.

Speculations

Belvard and Angus were probably drunk when they threw stones at Clavering's window, explaining both the late hour and Bevean's wife's concern about violence. The council fined them despite Clayton's inability to swear he saw them actually throw the stones, indicating that being present during a disturbance was itself culpable. Belvard's slave cut wood on Sunday probably at his master's direction to prepare fuel for the week, suggesting the sabbath violation was deliberate rather than accidental.

166

158

Island St Helena.

Att a Court of Judicature held att the Sefsions Howfe Near Fort James on Tuesday the. 22. day of June. 1708.

Pres[t] Thomas Goodwin, Governour Edward Mashborne Dep[ty] Governour William Marrsden. 3[r] in Councill

After the Court was Opened according to the Usuall Manner, The Queens Proclamation against Vice and Imoralety being read, The Laws Orders and Confstitutions of the Hon[ble] Company (as now Breefly taken out of the Severall Orders from tome to tome for the good Government of the Ifsland Was read, As Lekewise Laws and Orders for Punishment of Negroes for their Offences, then those Persons appoeinted for Jeurors were Called as followeth.

Henry Coals Foreman 1 Thomas Swallow Senior 2 John Nicholfs 3 Matthew Bazett 4 Thomas Gargen 5 Henry Ffrancis 6 Richard Gurling 7 James Greentree 8 Jonathan Defston 9 John Welsh 10 Gabriell Powell 11 James Vesey 12

Who were all Sworne.

Robert Angus Souldeier made Complain[t] by way of Petetion against John Clavering Gunners Mate for his Wefes Scandaleyzing the Said Angus his Wefe in Saying that the said Angus had Catched his Wefe in bed with the Steward of the Ship.

The Said John Clavering appeared in behalfe of his Wefe and Denyed the Said Angues Action.

Then the Evidences were Called and Sworne.

Pricilla Grandy, being Sworne Saith that Some time Since M[rs] Clavering came with M[r] Alley to her houfse, and after Some Defscourfse told this Deponent that Robert Angus had fatcht his Wefe in the Very Action with the Steward of the Ship Says this Deponent I dont believe any

Island St Helena

At a court of judicature held at the sessions house near Fort James on Tuesday 22 June 1708.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor; Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor; William Marsden, third in council.

After the court was opened according to the usual manner, the Queen's proclamation against vice and immorality was read. The laws, orders and constitutions of the Honourable Company, as now briefly taken out of the several orders from time to time for the good government of the island, were read. As likewise laws and orders for punishment of negroes for their offences. Then those persons appointed for jurors were called as follows.

Henry Coales, foreman Thomas Swallow Senior John Nichols Matthew Bazett Thomas Gargen Henry Francis Richard Gurling James Greentree Jonathan Duston John Welsh Gabriel Powell James Vesey

All were sworn.

Robert Angus, soldier, made a complaint by way of petition against John Clavering, gunner's mate, for his wife scandalising Angus's wife in saying that Angus had caught his wife in bed with the steward of the ship.

John Clavering appeared on behalf of his wife and denied Angus's action.

The evidence was then called and sworn.

Priscilla Grandy, being sworn, said that some time since Mrs Clavering came with Mr Alley to her house, and after some discourse told this deponent that Robert Angus had fetched his wife in the very action with the steward of the ship. This deponent said 'I do not believe any

167

159

any Such thing, Yes Said She it was told me So, and about two hours after came for M[r] Allis and Repeated the Same Over again, and the Next day M[rs] Clavering Came to her house again and Said what Stories have you told to M[rs] Anges, Stories Replyed this Deponent No Stories, Nor Lies, but the truth which you told me, M[rs] Clavering Anfewered Morris Griffon told me So, I dont know any feurther.

Elinor the Wefe of Thomas Bevean Souldeier being Sworne Saith that Some time Sence, Thomas Claton, who Lives at theer houfse went to M[rs] Grandeys for Some fire and when he came back again Sayd there was the Devell to pay between Anges and his Wefe, and how that She was Crying, and feurther that the Said Clayton told her that the Said Angus had Catcht a Ship Man a Lying with his Wefe on board of Ship, and that he had forgave her.

Morris Griffin Souldeier being Sworne Saith that on Last Whitseun Tuesday M[rs] Grandey Invited him to go to her houfe in Company. with Anges his Wefe and Michaell Carr, and was very Merry together, and after Some Defscourse the Said Anges Said he would not Spend One Far= =thing in One house Upon this Ifsland and asfeing him whofe it was Said it was Claverings, for they had Lekt. to have hanged him about the Dollar[s] they had a Controversie about, and the Next day, M[rs] Anges paffing by Sayd he thought she was a very Civill Woman, and asfet the Reason why they were at Variance, She Sayed she could not tell, The week after M[r] Angues Called him into his houfse and asfset him if he had told M[rs] Clavering that his Wefe Lay with the Steward of the Ship, which Seurpre= =fsed him and Said no he Never did, M[rs] Clavering being there Anfewered Yes you ded tell me So, which the Deponent Pofsitively Denys.

Michaell Carr, belongeing to the Ship Albemarle being Sworne Saith that on Whitfseun Tuesday Last he Came on Shore and Going up the Valley, and pafsing by Hartwells Door Morris Griffon asfet him to go in to Breakfeast, a Lettle after the Said Anges Came in and Drank part of a bowle of peunch, which when Drank out Called for Another, and after that was Drank out went all Over to M[rs] Grandeys where they were very Merry with the Said Anges and his Wefe, and Never heard any Words[r] of falling out betwext them as is Reported to be about the fact aforesaid and that he knows no Defshonesty by the Said M[rs] Anges.

The Said Clavering Defseires that James Welson might be Called as his Evidence.

James Welson being Sworne Saith that Some time Sence he went into Claverings houfse where was Robert Anges and his Wefe, who he heard Say to M[rs] Clavering that She was a very ill and beufe Woman for Saying that her Heusband had Catcht her on Trim bed with the Steward of the Ship, Says She I never said So, but I heard and was told by Morris Griffon who Seest

any such thing. Yes, said she, it was told me so. About two hours after came Mr Allis and repeated the same over again. The next day Mrs Clavering came to her house again and said 'What stories have you told to Mrs Angus?' This deponent replied 'Stories? No stories, nor lies, but the truth which you told me.' Mrs Clavering answered 'Morris Griffon told me so. I do not know any further.'

Elinor, the wife of Thomas Bevean, soldier, being sworn, said that some time since Thomas Clayton, who lived at their house, went to Mrs Grandy's for some fire. When he came back again he said there was the devil to pay between Angus and his wife, and how she was crying. Further, Clayton told her that Angus had caught a ship man lying with his wife on board of ship, and that he had forgiven her.

Morris Griffon, soldier, being sworn, said that on last Whitsun Tuesday Mrs Grandy invited him to go to her house in company with Angus's wife and Michael Carr, and they were very merry together. After some discourse, Angus said he would not spend one farthing in one house upon this island. On asking him whose it was, he said it was Clavering's, for they had liked to have hanged him about the dollars they had a controversy about. The next day Mrs Angus, passing by, said he thought she was a very civil woman. He asked the reason why they were at variance. She said she could not tell. The week after Mr Angus called him into his house and asked him if he had told Mrs Clavering that his wife lay with the steward of the ship, which surprised him. He said no, he never did. Mrs Clavering, being there, answered 'Yes, you did tell me so', which the deponent positively denied.

Michael Carr, belonging to the ship Albemarle, being sworn, said that on Whitsun Tuesday last he came on shore and going up the valley, passing by Hartwell's door, Morris Griffon asked him to go in to breakfast. A little after, Angus came in and drank part of a bowl of punch, which when drunk out he called for another. After that was drunk out they went all over to Mrs Grandy's where they were very merry with Angus and his wife. He never heard any words of falling out betwixt them as was reported to be about the fact aforesaid, and he knew no dishonesty by Mrs Angus.

Clavering desired that James Wilson might be called as his evidence.

James Wilson, being sworn, said that some time since he went into Clavering's house where was Robert Angus and his wife, who he heard say to Mrs Clavering that she was a very ill and abusive woman for saying that her husband had caught her on trim bed with the steward of the ship. She said 'I never said so, but I heard and was told by Morris Griffon', who said

Interpretations

The slander case turned on tracking the source of the adultery rumour through a chain of witnesses, revealing how gossip circulated through the small settlement. Mrs Clavering's shifting explanations - first claiming Griffon told her, then admitting she heard it from someone else - demonstrated the difficulty of pinning down defamatory speech in a community where information passed orally. The reference to the dollar controversy between Angus and Clavering indicated a prior grievance that may have motivated the slander or explained why the rumour gained traction.

Speculations

The adultery allegation probably originated from Clayton's report to Elinor Bevean about trouble between Angus and his wife, which then mutated as it passed through Mrs Grandy and Mrs Clavering into the specific claim about the steward. Angus's willingness to drink punch socially with Griffon and Carr at Whitsun, despite the circulating rumour, suggests either that he did not yet know about it or that he was trying to maintain normal relations while investigating its source. Mrs Clavering may have passed on the gossip not from malice but from the habit of repeating interesting news, underestimating how damaging the allegation would be to Mrs Angus's reputation.

168

160

Sest upon those words pafsing by the Door, Anges Called him and Afsed him the Reafson why he had Sceandeleyed his Wefe, how Says he do you Mean, why Said Angus you Said I Catcht my Wefe Lying with the Steward of the Ship No Said he I Never did, Yes Said M[rs] Clavering you ded tell me So, it is a Dammable Lye Replyed he I know no Sceuch thing by the Woman.

Then, the Jeury withdrew and Stayed about three Quaters of an houcr then Returned theer Verdict as followeth.

That the Said John Clavering was Cast in Sceite by Robert Angues and foned to him the Seum of Ten poeunds for his the Said Claverings Wefe Sceandelizing and takeing away the good Name and Reputation, his the Said Angues Wefe Six poeund to the Cheurch and foeur poeund to the Hon[ble] Companys Fortefications, and as for the Said Claverings Wefes Punnishment Leave to the Governour and Councells Defscretion and to pay the Charges of Court.

Ordered:

That the Punnishment aforesaid be Left to Some other Convenient tome.

Charles Steward free planter Commenced an Action of the Cafse against Thomas Cason Serjeant, and Robert Addis free planter for Clandestinly Selling a Goate of his marke from the Hon[ble] Companys Goat Pound, And that he hath Left a great many, Which he Sceuspected went the Same way and therefore Defsired the Jeudgment of the Court and Bench against them.

The Said Cason and Addis Denys the Accufsation.

Then, the Evidences were Called and Sworne.

John, Robinson, free planter Sworne Saith that on the. 26th of May Last past, he was at work at the high ways on, ar, about the Main Ridge, with Charles Steward, and Henry Webley, where came a black of M[r] Foeuntaines, with John Miller Souldeier who came from the Goat Pound with a head and quarter of Goat, which the Said Charles Stewards Black Lookt upon and Sett off the Ears of Saying they, were of his Masters Mark and brought them to him and they all Veewing the Ears Saw that the Right Ear was of Charles Steward his mark but Cant be pofsetive the Left Ear was So, it haveing been Torn out as he Realy thinks.

The jury withdrew and stayed about three quarters of an hour, then returned their verdict as follows.

Mrs Clavering's slander of Mrs Angus was proven. John Clavering was cast in suit by Robert Angus and fined to him the sum of £10 for his wife scandalising and taking away the good name and reputation of Angus's wife - £6 to the church and £4 to the Honourable Company's fortifications. As for Mrs Clavering's punishment, this was left to the Governor and Council's discretion. Court charges were to be paid.

The punishment aforesaid was left to some other convenient time.

Charles Steward, free planter, commenced an action of the case against Thomas Cason, sergeant, and Robert Addis, free planter, for clandestinely selling a goat of his mark from the Honourable Company's goat pound. He had lost a great many, which he suspected went the same way, and therefore desired the judgment of the court and bench against them.

Cason and Addis denied the accusation.

The evidence was then called and sworn.

John Robinson, free planter, sworn, said that on 26 May last past he was at work at the highways on or about the Main Ridge with Charles Steward and Henry Webley. A black of Mr Fontaine's came, with John Miller, soldier, who came from the goat pound with a head and quarter of goat. Charles Steward's black looked upon it and cut off the ears, saying they were of his master's mark, and brought them to him. They all viewed the ears and saw that the right ear was of Charles Steward's mark, but could not be positive the left ear was so, it having been torn out as he really thought.

Interpretations

The jury imposed a substantial £10 fine split between private restitution to Angus (£6) and public revenue (£4), demonstrating that sexual slander against a married woman carried heavy financial penalties. Leaving Mrs Clavering's punishment to the council's discretion deferred the question of whether to inflict corporal punishment on a woman for defamation. The goat theft case revealed a systematic problem with livestock disappearing from the Company pound, suggesting either corrupt officials or inadequate security.

Speculations

The three-quarter hour jury deliberation indicated genuine debate over whether Mrs Clavering bore responsibility for passing on gossip she claimed to have heard from Griffon. The torn left ear on the slaughtered goat suggested someone had deliberately removed the identifying mark to obscure the theft, pointing to premeditated fraud rather than casual pilfering. Steward's suspicion that many of his goats had disappeared the same way indicated this was an established racket, with Cason and Addis possibly selling impounded livestock for personal profit.

169

161

Henry, Webley, free Planter Sworne Saith that on the day aforesaid being at work off the high ways at the place and with the Said Robinson, and Charles Steward Some Smale Space one from the other, where they Saw M[r] Ffoeuntaines black with a quater and head of a Goath which the Said Stewards Black Lookt upon and Said Master Examine this Mark for it is our Mark and So all Lookeing upon the Ears Saw that the Right Ear was Charles Steward his Mark and So was the Left, had not there been a Slett of Defstinction which he thinks was Torne out.

James Welson, being Sworne Saith that he was at the Goat Pound when the Goate was Killed and Says that the One Ear was markt with a half Tack, and the other a hole which was Slett out, but Saw no private Mark, So cant be pofsetive whofse Marke it was.

Then, the Defendants Defsired theer Evidences meght be Called and Sworne.

Joshcua Johnson, Sworne Saith he Saw only One of the Said Goat[s] Ears which was Markt with a hole and a Slet, which he thinks was Cut and not Torne out but cant be pofsetive whofse marke it was.

John Orchard Saith that the Said Stewards black Shewed him One Ear of a Goat, which he Saw had a hole and Slett im it which he beleieves was Cutt, which is not Leke the Said Stewards mark.

Then the Jeury withdrew and brought in theer Verdict.

That Charles Steward was Caft by the Said Thomas Cason, and Robert Addis and foned to them Six Shellings for Damage for not makeing good his Complaint and to pay Court Charges, and that theer Shall be no feurther Controversie about this matter.

George Hoskison, free planter made Complaint against Thomas Bevean Souldeier, for that he had Sold him a parcell of Land and Provisions formerly Thomas Boxes deceased with all the Right and Tetle to the Rest of the Ifsland that he might have any Right to by the Deceafs[d] of any his Wefes Brothers, or Sisters, which Contract and Bargein the the Said Bevean now Denys to perferme wherefore the Plaintiffe prays that the said Bevean may be obleidged to make good said Bargaine accor= =deing to there agreement as appeared by a Receipt from under the Defendants hand for the payment thereof.

The Said Bevean was Called and Denyed the Bargaine alled= =ging that he only Sold the Said Hofskeson what Land and Provisions he

Margin Notes: Hoskison ag[t] Bevean ab[t] Box's Land & Provifsions

Robinson and Webley confirmed that Steward's goat had been slaughtered.

Henry Webley, free planter, sworn, said that on the day aforesaid, being at work on the highways at the place and with Robinson and Charles Steward, some small space one from the other, they saw Mr Fontaine's black with a quarter and head of a goat. Steward's black looked upon it and said 'Master, examine this mark for it is our mark.' So all looking upon the ears saw that the right ear was Charles Steward's mark and so was the left, had not there been a slit of distinction which he thought was torn out.

James Wilson, being sworn, said that he was at the goat pound when the goat was killed and said that one ear was marked with a half tack and the other a hole which was slit out, but he saw no private mark, so could not be positive whose mark it was.

The defendants desired their evidence might be called and sworn.

Joshua Johnson, sworn, said he saw only one of the goat's ears, which was marked with a hole and a slit, which he thought was cut and not torn out, but could not be positive whose mark it was.

John Orchard said that Steward's black showed him one ear of a goat which he saw had a hole and slit in it which he believed was cut, which was not like Steward's mark.

The jury withdrew and brought in their verdict.

Charles Steward was cast by Thomas Cason and Robert Addis and fined to them 6s for damage for not making good his complaint and to pay court charges. There was to be no further controversy about this matter.

George Hoskison, free planter, made a complaint against Thomas Bevean, soldier. Bevean had sold him a parcel of land and provisions formerly belonging to Thomas Box deceased, with all the right and title to the rest of the island that he might have any right to by the decease of any of his wife's brothers or sisters. This contract and bargain Bevean now denied to perform. The plaintiff prayed that Bevean might be obliged to make good the bargain according to their agreement as appeared by a receipt from under the defendant's hand for the payment thereof.

Bevean was called and denied the bargain, alleging that he only sold Hoskison what land and provisions he

Interpretations

The jury dismissed Steward's goat theft case and fined him 6s for bringing an unfounded complaint, establishing that accusers who failed to prove their case bore financial consequences. The conflicting testimony about whether the ear mark was torn or cut demonstrated how ambiguous physical evidence could defeat a prosecution even when theft seemed probable. Hoskison's suit against Bevean opened a dispute over the extent of property rights conveyed in the sale of Thomas Box's estate, turning on whether the agreement included future inheritance claims.

Speculations

Steward lost the case because witnesses disagreed on whether the mutilated ear mark had been deliberately cut to obscure ownership or accidentally torn, creating reasonable doubt. The jury may have concluded that Steward was pursuing a grudge against Cason and Addis rather than proving actual theft. Bevean's denial that he sold Hoskison rights to future Box family inheritances suggested the written receipt was ambiguous or that the two men had different understandings of what "all the right and title" meant when the bargain was struck.

170

162

he had with his Wefe being the One Sixth part of the Said Boxes Estate and not the Reversion of the Rest.

Then, the Evedences were Called and Sworne as followeth.

Richard Gurling free planter Sworne Saith that he heard Thomas Bevean and the Said Hofskeson make a Bargain with him for a parcell of Land and Provisions formerly Thomas Boxes for the Seum of Fefteen poeund with all the Right and Tetle, & Interest that the Said Bevean has or may have in tome to come by the Marriage of Lis Wefe, as alfso what Claime and Interest he or She may have by the Death of any of his Brothers or Sisters and that he made no Exception of any thing but the Black & Cattle yes Says Doctor Hoffkifson will the Stove at the Tott to.

Thomas Free Sworne Saith that he being at Doctor Hofskeson house in Chappell Valley the Said Hofskeson defsered him to take Notice of the Bargain that he had made with Thomas Bevean Souldeier for that the Said Bevean had Sold him a parcell of Land with provefseons in it for Fefteen poeund and that he gave all the Right and Tettle to the Said Hofskeson that he now hemselfe had in the Said Land, and Lekewise what he may have hereafter upon the Death of any of his Wefes Brothers and Sisters.

Then the Jeury withdrew and Stayed about a quater of an hour and Delevered theer Verdict.

That the Said Bevean was Caft in Sceit by the Said Hofskeson and to pay Court Charges. Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden

Memorand[m]

That all the Consultations from the. 13 day of Janua[r]y 1707/8 Thus farr hath bee[n] Sent home to the R[t] Hon[r] United Co[m]ps p[r] her Majes[ts] Shipp Panther Cap[tn] Trotter Co[m]ander, and Ship Albemarle Cap[tn] Will[m] Beaw Co[m]ander, who Departed this Ifsland the. 6. day of July 1708 1

Margin Notes: Bevean caft by the Jury

Bevean's defence was that he sold only what he currently owned.

He had with his wife, being the one-sixth part of Box's estate, and not the reversion of the rest.

The evidence was then called and sworn as follows.

Richard Gurling, free planter, sworn, said that he heard Thomas Bevean and Hoskison make a bargain with him for a parcel of land and provisions formerly Thomas Box's for the sum of £15, with all the right and title and interest that Bevean had or might have in time to come by the marriage of his wife, as also what claim and interest he or she might have by the death of any of his brothers or sisters. He made no exception of anything but the black and cattle. 'Yes', said Doctor Hoskison, 'will the stove at the Tott too.'

Thomas Free, sworn, said that being at Doctor Hoskison's house in Chapel Valley, Hoskison desired him to take notice of the bargain that he had made with Thomas Bevean, soldier. Bevean had sold him a parcel of land with provisions in it for £15, and that he gave all the right and title to Hoskison that he now himself had in the land, and likewise what he might have hereafter upon the death of any of his wife's brothers and sisters.

The jury withdrew and stayed about a quarter of an hour and delivered their verdict.

Bevean was cast in suit by Hoskison and to pay court charges.

Thomas Goodwin Edward Mashborne William Marsden

Memorandum

All the consultations from 13 January 1707/8 thus far had been sent home to the Right Honourable United Company per Her Majesty's ship Panther, Captain Trotter commander, and ship Albemarle, Captain William Beaw commander, who departed this island 6 July 1708.

Interpretations

The jury enforced the broader interpretation of the sale contract, ruling that Bevean had conveyed not only his wife's current one-sixth share but also any future inheritance rights she might acquire from her siblings. Gurling and Free's testimony established that Bevean had explicitly included future claims in the bargain, making his later attempt to restrict the sale to present holdings a breach of contract. The memorandum recorded that all consultation records since January 1708 had been dispatched to London on the departing summer fleet, maintaining the Company's documentary chain of command.

Speculations

Bevean tried to renege on the sale once he realised he had undervalued the future inheritance potential of his wife's share in the Box estate. Hoskison secured witnesses to the transaction precisely because he anticipated Bevean might later dispute the terms, suggesting experience with contested property deals. The dispatch of consultation records on two separate ships reduced the risk of losing the only copy if one vessel foundered, demonstrating standard administrative prudence in an era of hazardous ocean travel.

171

163

Island St Helena

Att a Consultation, held on, Monday the . 5. day of July. 1708 Att Fort James.

Pres[t] Thomas Goodwin Governocur Edward Mashborne Dep[ty] Governocur William Marrsden. 3[r] in Councill

Whereas Thomas Swallow Sen[r] free planter did this day Complain to us that M[r] Charles Cragge Deceased Late Theird Mate of the Ship Albemarle Cap[tn] William Beaws Commander Stands Indebted to him the Sum of Theirteen poeund Fefteen Shellings for Foeurty Days Diet and Lodgeing &c[a]. and produced his Bell and Demanded the Same of M[r] Thaxton Executor of the Last Well and Testament of the said Charles Cragge, and Cheef Mate of Said Ship who Refeused and Denyed to pay and Sattisfy the said Swallow his De= mands aforesaid wherefore desires that a means may be ufsed for his payment.

Upon Consideration, that the Ships are Now Ready to Sayle, and that if M[r] Thaxton should be Sent for, on Shoar it might put him to trouble and a hinderance to theer proceeding wherefore.

It is Ordered:

That the said Thomas Swallow forst Sware to his Bill that the Said Cragges Debt to him is Due, and that according to his Request it be put on the Generall pacqeuet to the Hon[ble] Company, for to Stop the Same out of the Said Cragges Wages, upon advice of which the Said Swallow to have Credett here. Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden

This Consultation hath been Coppyd and Sent to the Hon[o]: Company y[e] Ships afore[s]d in tim[e] f[s]

Island St Helena

At a consultation held on Monday 5 July 1708 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor; Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor; William Marsden, third in council.

Thomas Swallow Senior, free planter, complained to the council this day that Mr Charles Cragge deceased, late third mate of the ship Albemarle, Captain William Beaw commander, stood indebted to him the sum of £13 15s for forty days' diet and lodging and so forth. He produced his bill and demanded the same of Mr Thaxton, executor of the last will and testament of Charles Cragge and chief mate of the ship, who refused and denied to pay and satisfy Swallow's demands aforesaid. He desired that a means might be used for his payment.

Upon consideration that the ships were now ready to sail, and that if Mr Thaxton should be sent for on shore it might put him to trouble and be a hindrance to their proceeding, Swallow was first to swear to his bill that Cragge's debt to him was due. According to his request, it was to be put on the general packet to the Honourable Company to stop the same out of Cragge's wages. Upon advice of which, Swallow was to have credit here.

Thomas Goodwin Edward Mashborne William Marsden

This consultation had been copied and sent to the Honourable Company by the ships aforesaid in time.

Interpretations

The council resolved the debt claim without summoning the executor from the departing ship, prioritising the fleet's sailing schedule over immediate adjudication. Swallow's £13 15s claim for forty days' board worked out to roughly 7s per day, suggesting a substantial charge that included lodging, meals and possibly nursing care for the dying mate. The mechanism of stopping wages in London and crediting Swallow locally demonstrated how the Company's accounting system bridged colonial debts and metropolitan payment.

Speculations

Cragge probably fell ill at St Helena and died while lodging with Swallow, leaving his executor unwilling to pay the board bill without Company authorisation. The council avoided delaying the fleet by sending the claim to London for resolution rather than forcing Thaxton ashore for immediate settlement. Swallow accepted the deferred payment mechanism because he had dealt with the Company's credit system before and trusted that London would honour the order once Cragge's wages were settled.

172

164

Island St Helena.

Att a Consultation, held on, Tuesday the 20th. day of July. 1708. Att Fort James.

Pres[t] Thomas Goodwin, Governocur Edward Mashborne Dep[ty] Govern[r] William, Marsden. 3[r] in Councill

George Hoskison free planter Some time before his Departeure from this Ifsland made Complaint that John Long Ded Some time Sence Drive a Beast of his from off the Comon, where it ufseally Grazed, and was Wonted, and Ded Sett Some Doggs on Said Beast, and Worryed it, beating One Eye out, of which Worrying, Beating, and Brueffeing, the Said Beast Linguered and Deed, and thereeupon made Demand of Sattisfaction, But Refused to make any. Said Long

The Said John Long appeared and Owns that he drove the Beast away, from its Ufseall Wont and Range with a Heifer of Arthur Bradleys

It is Ordered:

That this matter be Deffered to the Generall Court Next Sefsions, And that the Wittnefses be Sumoned accordingly.

Richard Swallow free planter and Church Warden for the year Last, made Complaint to us, that he and his Wefe being at the Fort while he was Church Warden Jonathan Heghams Daughter Mary, came to his houfse where her Sister Sarah Lives (as a Meniall Servant) both M[rs] Conaways two Sons Thomas and Eben Leech, and after Supper her Sefster Mary, being about Foeurteen, Years Old, went to Bed with the Said Thomas and Eben, which Unseemly Action he thought hemself obleidged in Confcience (as being then Church Warden) to Reprefsent to Govern[r] and Councell, but Ships being then in the Road the Governour would not let it be Examined untill this Day.

The Said Mary Hegham being now present was askt whether She Lay in Bed with the two Boys, who Answered No She is Innocent, and how that She Lay in Bed with her Sefster Sarah, and M[r] Swallows Cheldren But Owns the Boys was there who Slept in another Bed.

Sarah Hegham Says her Sefster came to See her, a Lettle before Night, and after it was Dark, they heard Some People Call on the Hill above the Houfse for Some Light, and Said they would give an Old paier of Britches if they would bring a Light, and thinkeing they had been

Island St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 20 July 1708 at Fort James.

Present: Thomas Goodwin, Governor; Edward Mashborne, Deputy Governor; William Marsden, third in council.

George Hoskison, free planter, some time before his departure from this island made a complaint that John Long did some time since drive a beast of his from off the common where it usually grazed and was wonted, and did set some dogs on the beast and worried it, beating one eye out. Of this worrying, beating and bruising, the beast lingered and died. He made demand of satisfaction, but Long refused to make any.

John Long appeared and owned that he drove the beast away from its usual wont and range with a heifer of Arthur Bradley's.

This matter was deferred to the general court next sessions, and the witnesses were to be summoned accordingly.

Richard Swallow, free planter and churchwarden for the year last, made a complaint to the council. He and his wife being at the Fort while he was churchwarden, Jonathan Higham's daughter Mary came to his house where her sister Sarah lived as a menial servant. Both Mrs Conaway's two sons, Thomas and Eben Leech, came also. After supper, her sister Mary, being about fourteen years old, went to bed with Thomas and Eben. This unseemly action he thought himself obliged in conscience, as being then churchwarden, to represent to Governor and Council, but ships being then in the road, the Governor would not let it be examined until this day.

Mary Higham, being now present, was asked whether she lay in bed with the two boys. She answered no, she was innocent, and that she lay in bed with her sister Sarah and Mr Swallow's children. But she owned the boys were there, who slept in another bed.

Sarah Higham said her sister came to see her a little before night. After it was dark, they heard some people call on the hill above the house for some light, and said they would give an old pair of breeches if they would bring a light. Thinking they had been

Interpretations

Long's admission that he drove Hoskison's beast from its customary grazing ground and set dogs on it established liability for the animal's death, making the deferral to general sessions a formality to determine damages rather than guilt. Swallow's complaint as churchwarden about the sleeping arrangement reflected his official duty to report moral irregularities, even when occurring in his own household. The Governor's deferral of the examination until after the fleet departed demonstrated that harbour business took precedence over moral discipline cases.

Speculations

Hoskison filed the complaint before departing the island to ensure the case proceeded even in his absence, suggesting he intended to pursue damages through an agent or return for the settlement. Long probably drove the beast away because it was grazing alongside Bradley's heifer, making this a boundary or trespass dispute that escalated into violence. Mary Higham's presence in a household with two adolescent boys created a compromising appearance that Swallow felt duty-bound to report, even though the actual sleeping arrangements may have been innocent.

173

165

Some Strangers belongeing to Ships, and So Sent a fere brand, and Comeing to them found them to be Thomas and Eben, Leech, who Came down to the house with a Fowle in a Bagg, and said they Stole it, after Supper her Sefster went to Bed, and Thomas, and Eben Leech, went to Bed to her, and She and her Masters Cheldren Lay in another Bed.

The two Boys Denys what they are Accused of, Saying they did not Lie in Bed with the Said Mary Hegham But Lay in another Bed by themselves.

Haveing no Pofsetive Proofe of the Geirl and Boys Lying in Bed together.

It is Ordered:

That the Boys and Geirle be defsmifst with only a Severe Check, and Admo =nition for feiteure good behavioeur and Modest Carriage to Preserve their Reputation from all Sceamdalls.

M[rs] Hoskison, Informed the Governour and Councill that Edward Marsh free planter had without any Leave Barked Severall Red wood Trees that Stands upon her Childrens Land, and by that Means hath Done great Damage, and Impoverished the Same.

The Said Edward Marsh Says that he had Leave of M[rs] Hoskison Some time before he went off to Bark Severall Red wood Trees, and accor= =dingly hath Barked Ten Trees, and No More.

It is Ordered:

That this matter be Deffered to the Generall Court, and there to be Confedered not only, whether M[rs] Hoskison did give Leave to the Said Marsh to bark Said Timber, Trees, but also whether it Lay in his power So to Reuin the Orphans Land.

Hatton, Starling Coxfwain made Complaint that Samuell Price Souldeier Stole a Dollar from him, as he Lay a Sleep in the Guard.

The said Price Says he found a Dollar under the Guard Bed where they Lay.

It is Ordered:

That the Said Price Ride the Wooden Horse Dueing the Governocurs Pleasure and pay foeur fold to the Said Starling for the Dollar he Stole & Charges of Councell.

Whereas a Dutch Mam Named William Jessey who belonged to the Ship Albemarle Cap[tn] William Beaws Commander haveing Reun away and abfsented from Said Ship made his heumble Request that we would be pleased to Enter[t]ain him in the Hon[ble] Company Service as a Souldeier for the Term of Three years. In Considerateon that the said Dutchman is a good Workman in Stone Layeing and that he may be Serviceable to the Company about their Fortifications, and that Cap[tn] Beaws Stole Away three of our Souldeiers we thought it Reasonable and. It

The Leech boys called from the hill above Swallow's house turned out to be some strangers belonging to ships, and so a fire brand was sent. Coming to them, they were found to be Thomas and Eben Leech, who came down to the house with a fowl in a bag and said they stole it. After supper her sister went to bed, and Thomas and Eben Leech went to bed to her. She and her master's children lay in another bed.

The two boys denied what they were accused of, saying they did not lie in bed with Mary Higham but lay in another bed by themselves.

Having no positive proof of the girl and boys lying in bed together, the boys and girl were dismissed with only a severe check and admonition for future good behaviour and modest carriage to preserve their reputation from all scandals.

Mrs Hoskison informed the Governor and Council that Edward Marsh, free planter, had without any leave barked several redwood trees that stood upon her children's land, and by that means had done great damage and impoverished the same.

Edward Marsh said that he had leave of Mrs Hoskison some time before he went off to bark several redwood trees, and accordingly had barked ten trees and no more.

This matter was deferred to the general court, there to be considered not only whether Mrs Hoskison did give leave to Marsh to bark the timber trees, but also whether it lay in her power so to ruin the orphans' land.

Hatton Starling, coxswain, made a complaint that Samuel Price, soldier, stole a dollar from him as he lay asleep in the guard.

Price said he found a dollar under the guard bed where they lay.

Price was to ride the wooden horse during the Governor's pleasure and pay fourfold to Starling for the dollar he stole and charges of council.

A Dutchman named William Jessey who belonged to the ship Albemarle, Captain William Beaw commander, having run away and absented from the ship, made his humble request that the council would be pleased to entertain him in the Honourable Company's service as a soldier for the term of three years. In consideration that the Dutchman was a good workman in stone laying and that he might be serviceable to the Company about their fortifications, and that Captain Beaw stole away three of their soldiers, the council thought it reasonable and

Interpretations

The council dismissed the bed-sharing case with a warning rather than punishment, acknowledging that no positive proof existed despite the compromising circumstances. Mrs Hoskison's complaint raised the question of whether a stepmother managing orphans' property could authorise permanent damage to timber resources, touching on guardianship limits. Price's fourfold restitution for the stolen dollar followed biblical theft penalties, with the wooden horse adding corporal humiliation to the financial penalty.

Speculations

The Leech boys probably did share Mary Higham's bed, but Sarah's testimony that she slept separately with the children created enough ambiguity to prevent conviction. Marsh stripped bark from redwood trees to obtain tanning material or building supplies, causing permanent damage that would kill the trees over time. The council accepted the deserter Jessey because Beaw had poached three of their soldiers, treating the exchange as rough compensation for personnel losses rather than returning the runaway to his ship.

174

166

It is Ordered:

That the Said William Jesseys Request be granted he workeing when on the Guard Instead of Doing Duty, and when not on Duty to have foeur Shellings p[r] Day for his Labour in Stone Layeing, fendeing himself with Diet.

John, Bagley free planter made his heumble Request to Governocur and Councill that we would be pleased to Lend him the Sum of Twenty Five poeund to pay a Det, which offering good Security for the Same.

It is Ordered:

That the Said Bagleys Request be granted, he payeing for the Said Twenty Five poeund, the Sum of Thirty poeund, and Eight p[r] C[t] Interest, to be paid at One Year End. Commenceing from the Date hereof.

Walter Belvard free planter In Leke Manner made his heumble Address to us Representseing that he had Lately Purchased a House and Land of George Dwight, and was in great Want of the Seum of Thirty poeund to Compleat the Payment.

It is Ordered:

That the Said Belvard have Credett for the Sum of Thirty poeund as Aforesaid payeing Five poeund more, and Eight p[r] C[t] Interest, at the Expiration of One Year Commenceing from the Date hereof.

William, Marsh free planter being Sumonoed to Appear for that he haveing been Two times with the Governour and Councell the Same day that her Majesties Ship Panther, and Albemarle Saled out of this road, to get Lycence for One John Hayse being about Eighteen, Years of Age, and a Montross in the R[t] Hon[ble]. Comp[s] al Service which though he was flatly Denyed, gave out that he had Leave, and So Contrary to all good Government, got him off the Ifsland Clandestinly.

The Said Marsh Denys what is Alledged against him, and Swore by God he knew Nothing of it, for which Oath he is foned Six Shellings.

Dorothy Hayse the Mother of Said Yoeung Mam came presently while the Matter was in Debate and Requested Damages of the Said Marsh for Sending of her Son with out her Consent, or knowledge, Aledging that her Said Son had Engaged hemself to Live with her and Afsist her in her plantation, She being a very Poore Woman haveing No Slave to help her.

It is Ordered:

That this Matter alfso be Left to the Next Generall Court. Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden

The council granted Jessey's request on condition that he work when on the guard instead of doing duty, and when not on duty to have 4s per day for his labour in stone laying, finding himself with diet.

John Bagley, free planter, made his humble request to Governor and Council that they would be pleased to lend him the sum of £25 to pay a debt, which offering good security for the same.

Bagley's request was granted, he paying for the £25 the sum of £30 and 8 per cent interest, to be paid at one year's end, commencing from the date hereof.

Walter Belvard, free planter, in like manner made his humble address to the council, representing that he had lately purchased a house and land of George Dwight and was in great want of the sum of £30 to complete the payment.

Belvard was to have credit for the sum of £30 as aforesaid, paying £5 more and 8 per cent interest at the expiration of one year, commencing from the date hereof.

William Marsh, free planter, being summoned to appear for that he having been two times with the Governor and Council the same day that Her Majesty's ship Panther and Albemarle sailed out of this road to get licence for one John Hayes, being about eighteen years of age and a matross in the Right Honourable Company's service, which though he was flatly denied, gave out that he had leave and so contrary to all good government got him off the island clandestinely.

Marsh denied what was alleged against him and swore by God he knew nothing of it, for which oath he was fined 6s.

Dorothy Hayes, the mother of the young man, came presently while the matter was in debate and requested damages of Marsh for sending off her son without her consent or knowledge, alleging that her son had engaged himself to live with her and assist her in her plantation. She was a very poor woman having no slave to help her.

This matter also was left to the next general court.

Thomas Goodwin Edward Mashborne William Marsden

Interpretations

Jessey's employment terms created a hybrid arrangement where guard duty counted as work time and stone laying earned additional wages, ensuring the Company gained skilled labour without paying full civilian rates. The council operated a lending operation charging 20 per cent above principal (Bagley £5 on £25, Belvard £5 on £30) plus 8 per cent annual interest, functioning as both bank and government. Marsh's profane oath in denying involvement in Hayes's unauthorised departure drew an immediate fine, demonstrating that swearing in council was itself an offence regardless of the underlying allegation.

Speculations

The council extended credit to Bagley and Belvard because both offered security and the loans generated revenue for the Company's local accounts through interest and fees. Marsh probably arranged Hayes's departure by misrepresenting that he had obtained permission, allowing Hayes to board ship before the deception was discovered. Dorothy Hayes's poverty and lack of slaves made her son's labour essential to her survival, transforming his unauthorised departure into an economic calamity that warranted damages rather than mere reprimand.

175

167

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Mon= =day the 24th day of Aug[st]: 1708 At Fort James

John Roberts Esq[r] Govern[r] Pres[t] Thomas Goodwin deputy Gov[r] Edward Mashborne 3[r] in Coun[ll] Will[m]: Marsden. 4th in Coun[ll]

Whereas arrived this day the Ship Fleet frigot Cap[tn] Charles Newton Commander with the Worshipfull John Roberts Constituted and Appoeinted by the Hono[ble] Court of Managers for affairs of the Honourable United East India Company Governtour of this Ifsland St Helena and Seventeen Sou[lr] with a Cargoe of Goods Laden on Board Said Ship by the afores[d]. Hono[ble] Court of Managers for the use of their Fort & Fortificati= =ons &c[a] Consigned to the Govern[r] & Coun[ll] of Said Ifsland and to be delivered In like good Manner and well Conditiond Accordingly

It is Ordered:

That an order be Immediately wrote & Given the Said Captaine Charles Newton for the Delivery of S[d] Said Cargoe with all Expedition

Then the Worshipf[l]l John Roberts Esq[r]. Govern[r]. Commifsion was Re[a]d in Coun[ll]: as also the Gener[ll] Letter p[r] Said Shipp dated the. 7th: of Aprill 1708 and another Short Letter Dated y[e] 5[th]. of May followng And all other Papers Needfull and Necefsary to be done And Accord= =ingly It was

Ordered:

That the said Genrall Letter be Coppyed over in a Book for that purpose and an abstract Taken out of Every Parragrapth In order of answering the Same as Punctually as pofsible By the Next Conveyance. It

Island St Helena

At a consultation held on Monday 24 August 1708 at Fort James.

Present: John Roberts Esquire, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council; William Marsden, fourth in council.

The ship Fleet frigate, Captain Charles Newton commander, arrived this day with the Worshipful John Roberts, constituted and appointed by the Honourable Court of Managers for affairs of the Honourable United East India Company as Governor of this island St Helena, and seventeen soldiers with a cargo of goods laden on board the ship by the aforesaid Honourable Court of Managers for the use of their fort and fortifications and so forth, consigned to the Governor and Council of the island and to be delivered in like good manner and well conditioned accordingly.

An order was to be immediately written and given to Captain Charles Newton for the delivery of the cargo with all expedition.

The Worshipful John Roberts Esquire, Governor, his commission was read in council, as also the general letter per the ship dated 7 April 1708 and another short letter dated 5 May following, and all other papers needful and necessary to be done.

The general letter was to be copied over in a book for that purpose and an abstract taken out of every paragraph in order of answering the same as punctually as possible by the next conveyance.

Interpretations

Roberts's arrival displaced Goodwin from the governorship to deputy governor, while Mashborne and Marsden moved down one rank in the council hierarchy. The commission was read in council to establish Roberts's authority formally before the assembled officers and record the transfer of power. The instruction to copy the general letter and abstract each paragraph for response demonstrated the Company's expectation of detailed compliance with metropolitan directives.

Speculations

The Fleet frigate brought Roberts directly from London rather than via an India voyage, indicating the Company prioritised installing a new governor quickly after learning of Poirier's death. The seventeen soldiers reinforced the garrison, which had been depleted by departures to Bencoolen and desertions to passing ships. The abstract of each paragraph was to ensure no directive from London went unanswered, protecting the council from accusations of neglecting instructions.

176

168

It is Further ordered:

That a Proclamation be this day Ifsued out and Publickly re[a]d to Informe and Sattisfie the whole Ifsland That y[e] before Named Worshipfull John Roberts Esq[r] is appointed Governour of Said Ifsland as afores[d]. That all Persons may know to whome to pay their Respect and due obediance as their Governour.

Ordered:

That an Advertizement be also published by Beat of Drum Declaring to all Persons That in case He or they C[ou]d gott any Quarrey of Stone That can be Burnt into Lime for the use of the fortifications, and bring the Same to y[e] Lime Kell, and if found to make Lime Shall have as a Reward One Hundred Dollars for Encouragem[t]. And Lekewise that for the better and Sooner Defscrying of any Ship or Ships W[ho] Shall and may approach Nigh the Ifsland from any Part by any person as well free planter as Soldier What whoesoever Shall forst descry the Said Ship or Ships Upon Intelligence thereof have as an Encouragem[t] and Reward, one Dollar.

Ordered:

That the Engineer and Geunner of y[e] Gerrison be Sent for to give in their Acc[ts]. viz[t] the Engineer to give an Exact Draught of the fortifications and designed Battery at Mundeys point and that the Gunner Give & deliver a true Acc[t]. ofs all his Stores, Weight and Nature of[s] pieces of Ordnance and others Mounted and Number at Each place.

That an Inventory be taken of all moneys Goods Merchandizes now being and Remaining in the Hono[ble] United East India Comp[ts] Stores on this their Ifsland and the Books made up & Ballanced to this day

The aforesaid Proclamation to be Ifsued out as followeth.

Whereas yesterday Arrived the Ship Fleet Frig[t] Captain Charles Newton Co[m]ander, from England with the Worshipfull John

The council further ordered that a proclamation be issued out this day and publicly read to inform and satisfy the whole island that the before-named Worshipful John Roberts Esquire was appointed Governor of the island as aforesaid, that all persons might know to whom to pay their respect and due obedience as their Governor.

An advertisement was also to be published by beat of drum declaring to all persons that in case he or they could get any quarry of stone that could be burnt into lime for the use of the fortifications and bring the same to the lime kiln, and if found to make lime, they should have as a reward £100 for encouragement. Likewise, for the better and sooner descrying of any ship or ships who should and might approach nigh the island from any part, any person, as well free planter as soldier whatsoever, who should first descry the ship or ships, upon intelligence thereof, was to have as an encouragement and reward one dollar.

The engineer and gunner of the garrison were to be sent for to give in their accounts, that is to say the engineer to give an exact draught of the fortifications and designed battery at Mundy's Point, and the gunner to give and deliver a true account of all his stores, weight and nature of pieces of ordnance and others mounted and number at each place.

An inventory was to be taken of all moneys, goods and merchandises now being and remaining in the Honourable United East India Company's stores on this their island, and the books made up and balanced to this day.

The aforesaid proclamation was to be issued out as follows.

Yesterday arrived the ship Fleet frigate, Captain Charles Newton commander, from England with the Worshipful John

Interpretations

The public proclamation of Roberts's appointment established his authority before the entire settlement, ensuring no ambiguity about the chain of command. The £100 reward for discovering workable limestone quarries addressed a critical shortage in fortification materials, indicating the island's existing lime supply was inadequate. The requirement for immediate inventory and account balancing allowed Roberts to establish a baseline of Company assets before assuming responsibility for their management.

Speculations

The council offered such a substantial reward for lime because previous searches had failed and fortification work was stalled without adequate mortar. The one-dollar reward for first sighting approaching ships incentivised vigilance across the entire population, compensating for the limited number of formal lookout posts. Roberts ordered the comprehensive inventory to protect himself from later accusations of mismanagement inherited from Goodwin's administration, establishing a clear documentary break between the two governorships.

177

169

John Roberts whose Commifsion being read by us, we find him Constituted and Appointed Governour of this their Ifsland of S[t]. Helena, Therefore this is to Requier all and Every Person to respect Demean and behave themselves to him Accordingly, As you will answer the Contrary at your Perrill. Dated at Fort James this 25th day of Aug[t]: 1708: Thom[s]: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne Will[m] Marsden

Island St Helena.

By the Govern[r] and Councill An Advertizement.

Whereas the Honoura[ble] Court of Managers for affaires of the Hono[ble] United East India Company hath been Informed That there Some Sort of Stone on this Ifsland That they believe may be Burnt into Lime To try whether Experiment and to bring the Same to perfection(if pofsible) for the Building and Beautyfying the fortifications, We do hereby declare and any Person Refsiding on Said Ifsland That whosoever C[ou]d or may here after find or procure any Lime Stones and bring the Same to the Lime Kell and there Burn y[e] Same (be it never So Small a quantity) into Lime Shall have as a Reward & Encouragem[t]. One Hundred Dollars Provided there proove to be of [...] of the Quality. Lekewise for the better & Sooner Defscrying any Ship or Ships That may or Shall Approach nigh the Ifsland That what pson Soever Either free man or Sold[r]. who Shall first make Discovery of any Ship or Ships as a foresaid Shall Upon Information & Intilligence thereof have for his Care and Diligence one Dollar in Redy Money which hope all psons will have due Refspect is for the Security of y[e] Ifsland That we may be in a Re[a]diness of Defence the Sooner.

Dated at Fort James this 25 day of Aug[t]. 1708. Signed for d[t] of Govern[r]. and Coun[ll] [time] Jn[o] Alexander

Roberts, whose commission being read by the council, was found to be constituted and appointed Governor of this their island of St Helena. Therefore this was to require all and every person to respect, demean and behave themselves to him accordingly, as they would answer the contrary at their peril. Dated at Fort James this 25th day of August 1708.

Thomas Goodwin Edward Mashborne William Marsden

Island St Helena

By the Governor and Council - an advertisement.

The Honourable Court of Managers for affairs of the Honourable United East India Company had been informed that there was some sort of stone on this island that they believed might be burnt into lime. To try this by experiment and to bring the same to perfection, if possible, for the building and beautifying the fortifications, the council declared to any person residing on the island that whosoever could or might hereafter find or procure any lime stones and bring the same to the lime kiln and there burn the same, be it never so small a quantity, into lime, should have as a reward and encouragement £100, provided it proved to be of [...] quality. Likewise, for the better and sooner descrying any ship or ships that might or should approach nigh the island, what person soever, either free man or soldier, who should first make discovery of any ship or ships as aforesaid, should upon information and intelligence thereof have for his care and diligence one dollar in ready money. All persons were to have due respect, this being for the security of the island that they might be in a readiness of defence the sooner.

Dated at Fort James this 25 day of August 1708. Signed for direction of Governor and Council in the interim.

John Alexander

Interpretations

The proclamation framed obedience to Roberts in terms of personal peril rather than Company authority, establishing that disobedience would be treated as an offence against the Governor himself. The lime advertisement revealed that the Company in London had heard reports of potential limestone deposits but needed local confirmation through practical testing. Alexander signed the advertisement in the interim, indicating Roberts had not yet formally assumed his duties despite the commission being read.

Speculations

The £100 reward represented several months' wages for a planter, making limestone discovery extraordinarily lucrative and suggesting the Company considered adequate lime essential to fortification plans. The one-dollar ship-sighting reward created a distributed early warning system that cost the Company nothing unless ships actually appeared, incentivising constant vigilance. The interim signature by Alexander rather than Roberts suggested a transitional period during which Roberts familiarised himself with island affairs before taking formal control.

178

170

Persuant to the Hono[ble] Court of Mannagers Gend[ll] Letter to this Ifsland Dated the 7[th] of Aprill Last past in the 37 parragraph M[r] Daniel Griffeth is Accordingly Received Into the Honourable Companys Service as fifth in Counc[ll]. And Accordingly.

Ordered:

That the said M[r] Daniel Griffeth Toke place as Such an officer and to have the Sallary and Previlidge as others hath had in Same Station. Jn[o] Roberts Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden Daniel Griffeth

Island St Helena.

At a Consultation Held on Thursday the 26 day of August 1708 At Fort James.

John Roberts Gov[r] Tho[m]: Goodwin Dep[ty] Gov[r] Pres[t] Edw[d] Mashborne 3[r] [in] Co[uncill] William Marsden 4[th] in Coun[ll] Daniel Griffeth. 5 in Coun[ll]

Whereas the Worshipfull John Roberts Esq[r] Gover[r]. did this day Survey the Fort & Gerrison on Said Ifsland To See and Contieue of what Bigness to Erect and Build a new One Upon which.

It is resolved on & agreed:

That a new Fort of one Hundred and Thirty Foot Square be Immediately gone about in order according to y[e] Govern[r] Sceime of the Ifsland and Conveniency of Lodgings within the Fort According to the Governours Scheme.

Whereas the Honoura[ble] Comp[s]. In their Generall to this place p[r] Ship Fleet Frigot Dated the 7[th] of Aprill Last past hath through =full and ordered That the Dollars Here Pafs at five Shillings Each, and no more But on Consideration That Severall of the freemen

The Honourable Court of Managers' general letter of 7 April, paragraph 37, directed that Mr Daniell Griffith be received into the Honourable Company's service as fifth in council.

Griffith took his place as an officer with the same salary and privileges others had received in that position.

John Roberts Thomas Goodwin Edward Mashborne William Marsden Daniell Griffith

Island St Helena

At a consultation held on Thursday 26 August 1708 at Fort James.

Present: John Roberts, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

The Worshipful John Roberts Esquire, Governor, surveyed the Fort and garrison on the island this day to determine what size of new fort to build.

The council resolved and agreed to build a new fort of 130 foot square immediately, following the Governor's plan for the island and arranging lodgings within the fort according to his design.

The Honourable Company in their general letter to this place per ship Fleet frigate dated 7 April last past ordered that dollars here pass at 5s each and no more. But several of the freemen

Interpretations

Griffith's appointment to fifth in council elevated him from free planter to Company officer, giving him a seat at the decision-making table and a regular salary. Roberts's immediate survey of the Fort showed his intention to pursue major building works, with the 130-foot square design representing a substantial fortification project. The Company ordered the dollar devalued from its previous rate to exactly 5s, attempting to standardise currency values across the island and align them with metropolitan rates.

Speculations

Griffith's promotion rewarded his longstanding residence and knowledge of local affairs, providing Roberts with an experienced local voice to balance the recently-arrived governor's metropolitan perspective. The new fort design responded to weaknesses Roberts identified during his survey, suggesting the current structures were inadequate for defence. The dollar devaluation was about to meet resistance from freemen who had contracted debts and prices at the old rate, explaining why the passage broke off before completing the thought.

179

171

freemen hath Credett due to them in the Store Books and Many of of their Blacks Employed (as well as severall Sold) now at the Forti= fications, It will be a great Lofs to pay Dollars out of their Acc[ts] at the Rate aforesaid for which reason it is thought most fitt for the Said Hono[ble] Companys Interest And Accordingly.

Ordered:

That the Dollars pafs at Six Shillings as they do now till further Consideration on this Matter. Jn[o] Roberts Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden Daniel Griffeth

Island St Helena.

At a Consultation Held on Saturday the. 28 day of August 1708. At Fort James

John Roberts Govern[r] Thom[s]: Goodwin Dep[ty] Gov[r] Pres[t] Edw[d] Mashborne 3[r] in Co[un]: ab[sen]t Will[m] Marsden 4[th] in Coun[ll] Daniel Griffeth 5[r] in Coun[ll]

This day the Govern[r] thought fitt with the Rest of the Council[l] and Clark, To take the Oath Directed by the Charter of Union and Send home by the Honoura[ble] United Comp[s].

Whereas it being visable That the Blacks Employed about y[e] fortifica= =tions under pretence of fetching wood to Burn They are Mefsing very frequently from work Almost Every day and thereby the Company Lays Two Shillings a day for Some times halfa day by the Blacks Loitering away their time as afsred Which to prevent for y[e] future.

It is resolved on and agreed.

That all Blacks Shall worke from Six a Clock in y[e] morning to Six in the Evening, Giveing them only Liberty for half an Hour att breakfast.

Several freemen had credit due to them in the store books, and many of their blacks were employed (as well as several soldiers) now at the fortifications. It would be a great loss to pay dollars out of their accounts at the rate aforesaid, so the council thought it best for the Honourable Company's interest that dollars pass at 6s as they did now until further consideration on this matter.

John Roberts Thomas Goodwin Edward Mashborne William Marsden Daniell Griffith

Island St Helena

At a consultation held on Saturday 28 August 1708 at Fort James.

Present: John Roberts, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council, absent; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

This day the Governor thought fit with the rest of the council and clerk to take the oath directed by the Charter of Union and sent home by the Honourable United Company.

The blacks employed about the fortifications under pretence of fetching wood to burn were missing very frequently from work, almost every day. The Company thereby lost 2s a day, sometimes half a day, by the blacks loitering away their time as aforesaid. To prevent this for the future, the council resolved and agreed that all blacks should work from six o'clock in the morning to six in the evening, giving them only liberty for half an hour at breakfast.

Interpretations

The council defied the Company's currency order within days of receiving it, maintaining the dollar at 6s rather than reducing it to 5s to protect freemen's store credit and ongoing labour contracts. Roberts and the council took the Charter of Union oath on his third day in office, formalising their authority under the merged Company structure. The new labour schedule imposed a twelve-hour working day on slaves at the fortifications with only a half-hour breakfast break, eliminating the previous wood-fetching excuse for absences.

Speculations

The council calculated that enforcing the 5s rate would alienate the planter class whose cooperation Roberts needed, making local political stability worth defying London's directive. Slaves had exploited the wood-fetching excuse to escape labour, probably taking extended breaks or visiting family rather than genuinely collecting fuel. The 2s daily wage loss the Company suffered from absenteeism made the harsh twelve-hour schedule economically rational from the council's perspective, even if it increased the physical burden on the enslaved workforce.

180

172

Breakfast, and one hour and a half at dinner on Consideration of the hardness of the Worke and heat of the day, And if in case any Black or Blacks be found to be absent betweer the Morning & Evening at the Time aforesaid Then in Such case the Master or Owner of Such Blacks Shall be abated and Deductm[ent] made for the absent Blacks Lofs of time. Accounting as followeth from Six of y[e] Clock in the Morning to Nine one Quarter, of a day from nine to 12 half a day, and so dividing the day into four Equall parts, and makeing abatement Accordingly.

It is ordered:

That M[r] William Marsden 4th[r] in Councill do Inspect into and ovesee and Survey all the Worke men Employed as aforesaid That they may be kept close to their Worke and no Deceat ufsd

It is Likewise ordered:

That a Coppy of the abovesaid premifses be published by Beat of Drum and Sett Up to give Notice to all pers[o]ns.

Whereas Some time Since Arrived a portuguize Ship here with a Cargoe of Rum and Sugar &c[a] with intent To Sell the Same to the Honourable Comp[s]. As was proposed and ofeed by another Portuguize Ship That Arrived here about a year before the Letter, Bill having Neither Money nor Goods fitt for the[ru]se in the Stores C[ou]ld not purchase any Said Cargoe which if had would undoubtedly been for the Interest of our Honour[ble]. Masters and Generall Good of y[e] Planders in Supplying their Necessity with Rum and Brandy. Sugar at a Considerable Lofs[ge] and reasonable Rate, Also the present Govern[r]. being now about Build= ing a neer fort (very much wanted) and makeing an Addition to the fortifications already begun, as Likewise, being fully Resolved to Build a Fortification at Mondens point Approved by all to be of very Great ufse for the preservation and Safeguard of Ships in the Road by Defend= =ing them from the Enemy And that Upon Inspection Into the Honour[ble] Comp[s]. as Store Books finde by the Ballance of y[e] Last Ledger Book No more than Five poeund Eleven Shillings in Cash, Which being not Sufficient to defray the Charges about Said fortyfications besides other Matters which may offer It is thought fitt Accordingly. ordered

Several freemen had credit due to them in the store books, and many of their blacks were employed (as well as several soldiers) now at the fortifications. It would be a great loss to pay dollars out of their accounts at the rate aforesaid, so the council thought it best for the Honourable Company's interest that dollars pass at 6s as they did now until further consideration on this matter.

John Roberts Thomas Goodwin Edward Mashborne William Marsden Daniell Griffith

Island St Helena

At a consultation held on Saturday 28 August 1708 at Fort James.

Present: John Roberts, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council, absent; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

This day the Governor thought fit with the rest of the council and clerk to take the oath directed by the Charter of Union and sent home by the Honourable United Company.

The blacks employed about the fortifications under pretence of fetching wood to burn were missing very frequently from work, almost every day. The Company thereby lost 2s a day, sometimes half a day, by the blacks loitering away their time as aforesaid. To prevent this for the future, the council resolved and agreed that all blacks should work from six o'clock in the morning to six in the evening, giving them only liberty for half an hour at breakfast and one hour and a half at dinner, on consideration of the hardness of the work and heat of the day.

If any black or blacks were found to be absent between the morning and evening at the time aforesaid, then in such case the master or owner of such blacks was to be abated and deduction made for the absent blacks' loss of time, accounting as follows: from six o'clock in the morning to nine, one quarter of a day; from nine to twelve, half a day; and so dividing the day into four equal parts and making abatement accordingly.

Mr William Marsden, fourth in council, was to inspect, oversee and survey all the workmen employed as aforesaid that they might be kept close to their work and no deceit used.

A copy of the abovesaid premises was to be published by beat of drum and set up to give notice to all persons.

Some time since, a Portuguese ship arrived here with a cargo of rum and sugar and so forth with intent to sell the same to the Honourable Company, as was proposed and offered by another Portuguese ship that arrived here about a year before.

The latter, having neither money nor goods fit for use in the stores, could not purchase any said cargo, which if it had, would undoubtedly have been for the interest of the honourable masters and general good of the planters in supplying their necessity with rum and brandy and sugar at a considerable price and reasonable rate.

The present Governor was now about building a new fort, very much wanted, and making an addition to the fortifications already begun, as likewise being fully resolved to build a fortification at Mundy's Point, approved by all to be of very great use for the preservation and safeguard of ships in the road by defending them from the enemy.

Upon inspection into the Honourable Company's store books, the balance of the last ledger book showed no more than £5 11s 0d in cash, which was not sufficient to defray the charges about said fortifications besides other matters which might offer. The council therefore thought fit and accordingly ordered

Interpretations

The quarter-day abatement system allowed precise calculation of lost labour time, with masters losing pay proportionately for their slaves' absences, creating a financial incentive to ensure attendance. Marsden's appointment as work inspector placed a council member directly over the fortification labourers, tightening supervision beyond what overseers alone could provide.

The council's cash crisis - only £5 11s 0d remaining in the ledger - made Roberts's ambitious fortification plans dependent on finding new revenue sources or credit arrangements.

Speculations

Roberts regretted the missed opportunity to purchase Portuguese cargo because rum and sugar could have been resold locally at profit, generating revenue for fortifications while supplying planters' demands.

The fortification at Mundy's Point aimed to create a protected anchorage where ships could shelter under covering fire, addressing the vulnerability of vessels at the current exposed roadstead.

181

173

Ordered:

That Cap[tn] Charles Newton Co[m]and[r] of the Fleet Frig[t] Now in the Road of Said Ifsland be ordered to Deliver One Bagg of One Thousand Spanish peices of Eight out of one of the Honoura[ble] Comp[s]. Chests of Treasure on Board Said Shipp for the use of the Said Hono[ble] Comp[s] Affairs Here. who soever m[a]y App[ly] [...] J[no] Roberts Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden Daniel Griffeth

Island St Helena.

At a Consultation Held on Satteur= =day the 11th day of Sept[em]b[er]: 1708 At Fort James

J[no] Roberts Esq[r] Gov[r]: Thom[s]: Goodwin Dep[ty] Gov[r]: Pres[t]. Edward Mashborne 3[r] in Co[un] Will[m]: Marsden 4th in Coun[ll] Dan[l] Griffeth 5 in Co[un]

It is agreed & ordered:

That M[r] Daniel Griffeth 5th[r] in Councill Do daily Attend y[e] Boats at the Landing place, & take An Acco[t]. of all Goods, Number of Laden Boats Come ashoar, and as Near as he can the Tunnage Landed and deliver Daily Acco[t]. thereof to the Clerks office That the Cap[tn]. May Daily be advised of their Profseed if any.

Whereas this day the Co[un]: M[ate] In order to dispatch the Ship Fleet Frig[t]. Cap[tn]. Charles Newton Comander which Aco[r]d Accordingly. J[no] Roberts W[m] Marsden Tho: Goodwin Dan[l] Griffeth Edw[d] Mashborne

The council ordered Captain Charles Newton, commander of the Fleet frigate now in the road of the island, to deliver one bag of 1,000 Spanish pieces of eight out of one of the Honourable Company's chests of treasure on board the ship for the use of the Honourable Company's affairs here, whosoever might apply [...].

John Roberts Thomas Goodwin Edward Mashborne William Marsden Daniell Griffith

Island St Helena

At a consultation held on Saturday 11 September 1708 at Fort James.

Present: John Roberts Esquire, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

The council agreed and ordered that Mr Daniell Griffith, fifth in council, daily attend the boats at the landing place and take an account of all goods, number of laden boats come ashore, and as near as he could the tonnage landed, and deliver daily account thereof to the clerk's office that the captain might daily be advised of their progress if any.

This day the council met in order to dispatch the ship Fleet frigate, Captain Charles Newton commander, which accord accordingly.

John Roberts William Marsden Thomas Goodwin Daniell Griffith Edward Mashborne

Interpretations

The withdrawal of 1,000 Spanish pieces of eight from the treasure chest on board the Fleet provided the liquid capital Roberts needed to fund fortification work, solving the £5 11s 0d cash shortage. Griffith's daily supervision of the landing place created a control point for tracking all goods coming ashore, preventing pilferage or under-recording of Company cargo.

The abrupt signature list after "which accord accordingly" indicated the consultation record broke off incomplete, probably because the clerk was preparing documents for the Fleet's departure.

Speculations

The council drew on treasure intended for India rather than waiting for funds from London because fortification work could not be delayed and local creditors needed immediate payment. Griffith's appointment to oversee landing operations placed a council member at the physical point where cargo changed hands, ensuring accountability during the vulnerable unloading process.

The Fleet's dispatch was urgent enough to disrupt the consultation record, suggesting either favourable winds or pressure from Captain Newton to sail before weather deteriorated.

182

174

Island St Helena.

At a Consultation Held on Friday the 17th day of Septemb[er] 1708. At Fort James.

John Roberts Govern[r] Thom[s] Goodwin Dep[ty] Gov[r] Pres[t]. Edw[d]. Mashborne 3[r] in Coun[ll] Will[m]: Marsden 4 in Coun[ll] Dan[l] Griffeth 5 d[itto]

Whereas Caul Graton presented his Petition Setting forth therein That Some Time Since he humbly Petitioned the the Honourable United Comp[s]. Craying them to abate half of the Thirty pound a year he pays for the Upper Lemon Garden Upon Con= sideration That the Lemon Trees &c[a] is all Blasted and fallen to decay, And not having any Answer Made it his request That we would be pleased to Consider the Cercumstanees and to grant his Said Petition in abating ther half Rent as afores[d]. Or Else to take the Said Garden into our pofsefsion againe.

It is agreed & Ordered:

That there be given y[e] s[d] Graton For ever to be now spake & Did and the said Garden Lett out again to the highefs Bider And in Case no Person will offer more than the [...] a year the said Graton offered Then he to be obleidged to hold the Same again at the Rate afores[d]. as a Tenuant at Well for only one year.

Having read the Petition of the afores[d]. Caul Graton, desireing y[t] we would be plead to abate him 15 of[s] the 30 a year Rent which he pays or Else to take the said Garden into our hands Upon Consideration of the Lemon Trees being Quite Blasted & fallen to decay.

Upon which we offered the Said Graton as followeth.

That for the time past he pay after y[e] Rate of 30 a year To y[e]. 25th. Instant And Then Should have S[d] Garden at 15 a year for only one Year. Butt Refused this offer and desired we would Take y[e] Garden into our pofsefsion Wherefore.

It is Ordered:

That a publick Declaration be made That y[e] Said Garden will be Lett out to him who Shall bid most and in case no Person will bid Upp to 15 a year Then the Said Graton Shall be obliged to keep the Garden for

Island St Helena

At a consultation held on Friday 17 September 1708 at Fort James.

Present: John Roberts, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

Paul Graton presented his petition setting forth that some time since he humbly petitioned the Honourable United Company, praying them to abate half of the £30 a year he paid for the Upper Lemon Garden upon consideration that the lemon trees and so forth were all blasted and fallen to decay. Not having any answer, he made it his request that the council would be pleased to consider the circumstances and to grant his petition in abating the half rent as aforesaid, or else to take the garden into their possession again.

The council agreed and ordered that notice be given to Graton for ever to be now spoke, and the garden let out again to the highest bidder. In case no person would offer more than the [...] a year Graton offered, then he was to be obliged to hold the same again at the rate aforesaid as a tenant at will for only one year.

Having read the petition of the aforesaid Paul Graton, desiring that the council would be pleased to abate him £15 0s 0d of the £30 0s 0d a year rent which he paid, or else to take the garden into their hands, upon consideration of the lemon trees being quite blasted and fallen to decay, the council offered Graton as follows.

For the time past he was to pay after the rate of £30 0s 0d a year to 25 instant, and then should have the garden at £15 0s 0d a year for only one year. Graton refused this offer and desired the council would take the garden into their possession.

The council ordered that a public declaration be made that the garden would be let out to him who should bid most, and in case no person would bid up to £15 0s 0d a year, then Graton should be obliged to keep the garden for

Interpretations

Graton's petition to halve his rent from £30 to £15 per annum reflected the economic reality that diseased lemon trees rendered the property worth far less than when the lease was originally struck. The council's offer to reduce rent only prospectively from 25 instant, while requiring full payment for time past, protected Company revenue while acknowledging the decline in property value.

Graton's refusal of the compromise and demand that the council take back the garden forced a public auction, transferring the risk of finding a tenant back to the Company.

Speculations

Graton calculated that no one would bid £15 per annum for a garden of dead lemon trees, leaving him positioned to renegotiate an even lower rate after the failed auction. The council structured the offer to maintain the £30 rate through 25 September because that marked either a quarter day or the lease anniversary, preserving their claim to rent already accrued.

The one-year term on the reduced rent indicated the council expected Graton to replant and restore the property, after which the rate would revert to market value or be renegotiated.

183

175

for one year at 15 a year as afores[d]. as a Tennant at Well. We being not Disposed at present, having ymuch Bufsinefs in hand To take the Garden into our Pofsefsion According to the Said Gratons desire.

And tho the Said Graton desires to hold The Acre & half of Land up the Valley and Cleers the Grant of Lease for Sixty One years for y[e] Same that being fruitfull Ground

Ordered:

That he pay Fifty Pound or Delivere Up all Lands he has in pofsefsi= on of the Honourable Companys without any Reserve.

John French Gunner Presented his Petition which Being read finds he desires an Addition of Sallary or a Servant in pay.

It is ordered:

That the Said Petition be not Answered till about Six months hence. By which Time we may better Judge of his Merit and whether he deserves any further Encouragements.

William Marsh free planter Presented his Petition Humbly praying us, to Sett at Liberty and Sefs his Black from working any Longer at the fortifications, He arsmes by the time he the Sufficient Wenches & Recess[t] of [...] Cap[tn] [...] the Hon[ble] Comp[s]. as Store Books Sheweth in the Court was through, by the Govern[r] Sufficient, Notwithstanding the Gov[t]. h[a]th ordered him to Next Two years at the fortifications, Wherefore. p[r]ays Relief.

It is ordered:

That this matter be considered on Tuesday Next being the 21[s]t Instant. And that the Said Marsh be Summoned to appear Accordingly.

The Govern[r]ours Black Cook being dead and Not haveing any other p[r]son to Officiate as Cook to drefs the Govern[r] & Councells Victualls besides the Cap[tn] of the[ir] Ship that diets at y[e] Hon[ble]: Comp[s] Table Cap[tn] Charles Newton Govern[r]. desi= =red on out of meer Necefsity to Take a Black By Mr Carns from Mr Sefes to drefs Victualls Whom y[e] present Queen hath Discharg[d] from Every Cook, he being more Usually a body for off[i]cuelous and Infsten of be have thought fitt to Employ & Entertaine Edw[d] H[u]fse and Wefe, who understands Cooking of Victualls very Well. And Accordingly have agreed to give him [...] pound p[r] Annum.

Whereas James Linsoles Late Marshall being Gone of the Ifsland in the Ship Fleet Frigot In the Room of Another P[s]on.

It

Graton's auction gambit forced the council to decide whether to manage the garden themselves.

The council ordered that he keep the garden for one year at £15 0s 0d a year as aforesaid as a tenant at will. The council, being not disposed at present, having much business in hand, declined to take the garden into their possession according to Graton's desire.

Graton desired to hold the acre and a half of land up the valley and clear the grant of lease for sixty-one years for the same, that being fruitful ground.

The council ordered that he pay £50 0s 0d or deliver up all lands he had in possession of the Honourable Company's without any reserve.

John French, gunner, presented his petition, which being read found he desired an addition of salary or a servant in pay.

The council ordered that the petition be not answered till about six months hence, by which time they might better judge of his merit and whether he deserved any further encouragements.

William Marsh, free planter, presented his petition humbly praying the council to set at liberty and cease his black from working any longer at the fortifications. He affirmed by the time he [...] sufficient [...] and receipt of [...] Captain [...] the Honourable Company's store books showed in the court was through by the Governor sufficient. Notwithstanding, the Governor had ordered him to [...] two years at the fortifications. He therefore prayed relief.

The council ordered that this matter be considered on Tuesday next, being 21 instant, and that Marsh be summoned to appear accordingly.

The Governor's black cook being dead and not having any other person to officiate as cook to dress the Governor and Council's victuals besides the captain of their ship that dined at the Honourable Company's table, Captain Charles Newton, the Governor desired out of mere necessity to take a black [...] Mr Carne from Mr [...] to dress victuals whom the present [...] had discharged from [...]. He being more [...] a body for [...] and [...], the council thought fit to employ and entertain Edward [...] and wife, who understood cooking of victuals very well. The council accordingly agreed to give him [...] pound per annum.

James Linsole, late marshall, being gone off the island in the ship Fleet frigate in the room of another person, the council

Interpretations

The council's refusal to accept surrender of the Upper Lemon Garden forced Graton into either accepting the £15 annual rate or facing auction, protecting the Company from managing derelict property during a period of heavy administrative demands. Graton's request for a sixty-one-year lease on the fruitful valley land at £50 represented an attempt to secure long-term tenure on productive ground while shedding the worthless lemon garden.

French's petition for increased salary or a paid servant was deferred six months, establishing a probationary assessment period before committing to additional expenditure.

Speculations

Graton calculated that separating the valley land from the lemon garden would leave him holding only profitable property, but the council's demand for £50 or surrender of all lands blocked this strategy. The six-month delay on French's petition allowed Roberts time to observe whether French's work merited reward or whether the petition was merely opportunistic.

The death of the Governor's cook created an immediate crisis because the Governor, Council and visiting Captain Newton all dined at the Company table, requiring skilled preparation. The engagement of Edward [...] and his wife as paid cooks rather than using another enslaved person suggested either a shortage of capable slaves or a preference for free labour in food preparation for senior officers.

184

176

It is ordered:

That Peter Burdeaux Soldier be Entertain[d] in the Stead & place of the Said James Linsoes as Marshall his Pay Commenceing from this day. J[no] Roberts Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden Daniel Griffeth

Island St Helena.

At a Consultation Held on Wednesday the 22 day of Septembr 1708. At Fort James

John Roberts Gov[r] Thom[s] Goodwin Dep[ty] Gov[r] Pres[t]. Edw[d] Mashborne 3[r] in Co[un] Will[m]: Marsden 4[th] in Co[un] Dan[l] Griffeth 5 in Co[un]

According to an order of Counc[ll] bearing date the 17th Instant the Counc[ll] Mett this day To Consider the Petition of Will[m] M[r] Marsh free Plant[r] Who humbly Petitioned us to free his Black from working any Longer at the fortifications, who was putt there by the Late Govern[r] & Couneell for the Said Black Breaking open & Robing the Hono[ble] Comp[s] like House Representing his Condition & great Necefsity for Said Blacks Labour & Service in his plantation, which hath much fallen to Decay for want thereof.

It is ordered:

That the Said Black Continue at the Workes till the 4 Day of Novemb[er] Next Enseing and Then to be Released and Delivered his Master, he payeing a four fold Restitution for what Stolen out of the Allowance of 12 a day for his Blacks work, pursuant to the Law made & provided in this Cause on Said Ifsland, Stateing the Acc[t]. as followeth.

Linsole's departure to England created a vacancy in the marshall's post.

The council ordered that Peter Burdeaux, soldier, be entertained in the stead and place of James Linsole as marshall, his pay commencing from this day.

John Roberts Thomas Goodwin Edward Mashborne William Marsden Daniell Griffith

Island St Helena

At a consultation held on Wednesday 22 September 1708 at Fort James.

Present: John Roberts, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

According to an order of council bearing date 17 instant, the council met this day to consider the petition of William Marsh, free planter, who humbly petitioned the council to free his black from working any longer at the fortifications. The black had been put there by the late Governor and Council for breaking open and robbing the Honourable Company's [...] house. Marsh represented his condition and great necessity for the black's labour and service in his plantation, which had much fallen to decay for want thereof.

The council ordered that the black continue at the works till 4 November next ensuing and then to be released and delivered to his master, he paying a fourfold restitution for what was stolen out of the allowance of 1s 0d a day for his black's work, pursuant to the law made and provided in this case on the island, stating the account as follows.

Interpretations

Burdeaux's appointment as marshall began immediately upon Linsole's departure, ensuring continuity in law enforcement functions without a gap in the post. Marsh's black had been sentenced to forced labour at the fortifications as punishment for housebreaking and robbery of Company property, with his daily wage of 1s retained to cover fourfold restitution.

The council's decision to release the black on 4 November balanced Marsh's economic hardship against completing the restitution payment through withheld wages.

Speculations

The council calculated that by 4 November enough wages would have accumulated at 1s per day to cover fourfold restitution for the theft, making further detention unnecessary. Marsh's plantation had deteriorated without the slave's labour, suggesting he owned few or no other slaves and depended heavily on this one worker.

The law requiring fourfold restitution for theft from Company property followed biblical precedent and made the punishment self-financing by extracting payment directly from the offender's labour rather than burdening the victim with collection.

185

177

William Marsh D[r]. L[s] of Cont[r]: Cr

To Goods Stolen with the } £14:19:0 By one Years Worke } 15:13 four fold Restitution said Black at 12 day Co[t]. & Clerk & Marshalls fees -- 00:14:0 £15:13:0

It is Further ordered:

That if in case any Negro Runs away and Steals from others That in Such case the Owner Shall make a four fold Restitution to the Person Injured, which if he refuses to do The Negro Shall Worke for the Hono[ble] Comp[s]. of the Gevern[r] & Coun[ll] thinks fitt to Employ him till Satisfaction is made, at 12 a day and a Second Time when a Cherre & Copp is on Set 8 a day, And Thus when any Robbery is Comitted as aforesaid the Satisfaction to be paid, be delivere[d] to the Govern[r]. who will See the Person Injured have full Satisfaction Accordingly for the Black Shall be Sold to pay it.

Having read the Petition of Michaell Altenburge Sold[r]. & Taylor To be dismist the Companys Service.

It is ordered:

That the Petition be rejected Considering That if granted would prove of ill Consequence and when his Time is fully Expired Then to be further Considered.

An Additionall Law in Relation to Run away Blacks.

For the Speedy Takeing and Apprehending of Run away Negroes who are and have been for Some time absent from their Masters Service Through there ther Cell Usage beyond measure, Severall months and thereby much Damage hath been done by Said Negroes in Stealing from and Robing of Severall Persons, which to prevent further mischiefs which may happen for y[e] future.

And that notwithstandeing all y[e] former Laws in Relation to Run away Negroes and Especially those of being Punnished after twenty four hours absence, Very few Psons bring their Negroes to Receave punnish= =ment According to Said Laws. Wherefore. It is agreed & ordered:

That when any Master or Mistrifs hath any Negro or Negros Run away

The council stated William Marsh's account as follows.

William Marsh debtor: to goods stolen with the fourfold restitution, £14 19s 0d; court and clerk and marshall's fees, £0 14s 0d.

William Marsh creditor: by one year's work of the black at 1s 0d a day, £15 13s 0d.

The council further ordered that if in case any negro ran away and stole from others, in such case the owner should make a fourfold restitution to the person injured. If he refused to do so, the negro should work for the Honourable Company or the Governor and Council thought fit to employ him till satisfaction was made, at 1s 0d a day, and a second time when a [...] and [...] was on, set at 8d a day. Thus when any robbery was committed as aforesaid, the satisfaction to be paid was to be delivered to the Governor, who would see the person injured have full satisfaction accordingly, or the black should be sold to pay it.

Having read the petition of Michael Altenburg, soldier and tailor, to be dismissed the Company's service, the council ordered that the petition be rejected, considering that if granted it would prove of ill consequence. When his time was fully expired, the matter was then to be further considered.

An additional law in relation to runaway blacks followed.

For the speedy taking and apprehending of runaway negroes who were and had been for some time absent from their masters' service through their [...] usage beyond measure, several months, and thereby much damage had been done by the negroes in stealing from and robbing of several persons, which to prevent further mischiefs which might happen for the future, and notwithstanding all the former laws in relation to runaway negroes and especially those of being punished after twenty-four hours' absence, very few persons brought their negroes to receive punishment according to the laws, the council agreed and ordered that when any master or mistress had any negro or negroes run away

Interpretations

Marsh's account showed that one year's labour at 1s per day (£15 13s 0d) exceeded the fourfold restitution and fees (£14 19s 0d plus £0 14s 0d), leaving a small credit balance. The council established a sliding wage scale for repeat offenders, reducing pay from 1s to 8d per day for second offences, making subsequent punishments longer to achieve the same restitution.

Altenburg's petition for early discharge was rejected because granting it would encourage other soldiers to seek release, undermining contract discipline.

Speculations

The council calculated that Marsh's black would complete restitution before 4 November, explaining why that date was chosen for release rather than working a full year. The provision allowing the Governor to sell a slave to satisfy restitution addressed cases where owners refused to pay and the slave's labour value was insufficient.

The preamble to the runaway law revealed that masters systematically ignored the twenty-four-hour punishment rule, probably because they prioritised getting their slaves back to work over enforcing discipline. The council's new law aimed to compel compliance by creating penalties for non-reporting rather than relying on voluntary cooperation.

186

178

away Shall be obliged to give an Acc[t] thereof To the Govern[r] in Six days after which if any Person Neglects the Negroe So Run away Shall Worke for the Comp[s]. Six months and for the Informer Three months and also the owners of Said Run away Negroes Shall Immediatly aft[r]. his or their Runing away ufse his best and Uttmost Endeavour To Catch and take Said Negroe and if not Taken in one Month Shall Worke at the fortifications Six months, And Upon the Takeing of Such Negroe or Negroes The owner Shall bring him or them Immediately to Fort James In order of Receiving Condign Punnishment Which if any Pson or Psons Refuse and Neglects to do the Informer Shall have one months Labour of Said Negroe.

It is ordered:

That a Couneill be duly Held Every Tuesday to weigh and Consider all y[e] matters That are and may Tend for the Interest of the Hono[ble] Comp[s] and good of the Ifsland.

Whereas James Linsolne and John Bufs having at their request Leave and Liberty to go off the Ifsland in the Ship Fleet Frig[t]. In the Room And Stead of Two able Serviceable men belonging to Said Ship thought fitt to oblige them to Serve the Hono[ble]. Comp[s]. Five years here and to Enter into an Obligation as followeth.

KNOW all men by these a presents That we Richard Smitherman and Thomas Gardner Late belonging to the Ship Fleet Frig[t] Cap[tn] Charles Newton Comand[r] Do hereby oblige and Engage our Selves to Serve the Hono[ble] United East India Comp[s]. on this their Ifsland as Sold[r]. or any other Employ for the Terme & Time of Five years Commenceing from the 15 Inst[t] In Wittnefs whereof we have hereunto Sett our hands this 23 day of S[ept]bre 1[s]t 1708.

Witnefsed p[r].

The council's new runaway law imposed reporting and recapture obligations on masters.

Slaves who ran away had to be reported to the Governor within six days. If any person neglected this, the negro so run away should work for the Company six months and for the informer three months. The owners of the runaway negroes should immediately after his or their running away use his best and utmost endeavour to catch and take the negro. If not taken in one month, the slave should work at the fortifications six months.

Upon the taking of such negro or negroes, the owner should bring him or them immediately to Fort James in order to receive condign punishment. If any person or persons refused and neglected to do so, the informer should have one month's labour of the negro.

The council ordered that a council be duly held every Tuesday to weigh and consider all the matters that were and might tend for the interest of the Honourable Company and good of the island.

James Linsole and John [...] having at their request leave and liberty to go off the island in the ship Fleet frigate in the room and stead of two able serviceable men belonging to the ship, the council thought fit to oblige them to serve the Honourable Company five years here and to enter into an obligation as follows.

Know all men by these presents that Richard Smitherman and Thomas Gardner, late belonging to the ship Fleet frigate, Captain Charles Newton commander, did hereby oblige and engage themselves to serve the Honourable United East India Company on this their island as soldier or any other employ for the term and time of five years commencing from 15 instant. In witness whereof they had hereunto set their hands this 23 day of September 1708.

Witnessed per

Interpretations

The six-day reporting requirement forced masters to acknowledge runaways quickly rather than attempting private recaptures that might take weeks. The sliding penalties created escalating consequences: six days for reporting failure, one month for capture failure, with the slave's labour divided between Company and informer as compensation.

The requirement to bring captured runaways to Fort James for "condign punishment" centralised discipline under the Governor's authority rather than leaving it to private masters.

Smitherman and Gardner's five-year service obligation replaced Linsole and [...] on a two-for-two basis, maintaining the island's garrison strength while allowing the Fleet to sail fully manned.

Speculations

The six-month work penalty for masters who failed to recapture runaways within one month aimed to make masters more vigilant in securing their slaves and pursuing escapees immediately. The informer's reward of one or three months' labour created financial incentive for neighbours to report masters who concealed runaways or failed to bring them in for punishment.

Linsole and [...] probably paid Smitherman and Gardner to take their places, arranging the exchange privately before presenting it to the council as a fait accompli. The council accepted the arrangement because two trained seamen were worth more to the Company as garrison soldiers than two departing servants were as losses.

187

179

Paul Graton.

This day delivered Ufs his Lease of all his Ground he had of the Hono[ble] Comp[s]. and upon his request to be in the house till this day Sennight.

Ordered: That he have Liberty to Stay in it one week by which time he must Provide himself another Habitation. But that he Shall not meddle with any of the Fruits in the Ground nor Cause any one Else to do it Upon penalety of what the Goverr & Coun[r] Shall think fitt. J[no] Roberts Tho: Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden Dan[l] Griffeth

Island St Helena.

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday the 12 Day of October 1708. At Fort James.

John Roberts Govern[r] Thom[s] Goodwin Dep[ty] Gov[r] Pres[t]. Edward Mashborne 3[r] in Co[un] Will[m]: Marsden 4 in Co[un] Dan[l] Griffeth 5[r] in Co[un]

That foras much as it Appears to us that two Shillings a day for Blacks Labour is An Extraordinary Charge to the Honourable Comp[s]. & y[e] Proprietors of Said Ifsland, and we being well advanced with the New for[t].

Resolved:

That next Satturday all whites and Blacks Except such as are imme= =diately the Said Hono[ble]. Comp[s]. acco[t]. be discharged and that no Labourers or others be taken into the Service of Co[m]p[s] about the fortifications Except the Artificers, only at Eighteen pence a day, And those that are Willing So to worke must apply themselves to the Govern[r]. And that a List be kept of those Psons Names That Shall First offer to Worke att that price for That care will be taken to Employ those Longer than any other. And that a declaration be this day Sett forth Accordingly. In this manner y[e] ensueing Ifsland

Graton's surrender of his lease required immediate vacation of Company property.

Paul Graton this day delivered up his lease of all his ground he had of the Honourable Company. Upon his request to be in the house till this day sennight, the council ordered that he have liberty to stay in it one week, by which time he must provide himself another habitation. He should not meddle with any of the fruits in the ground nor cause any one else to do it, upon penalty of what the Governor and Council should think fit.

John Roberts Thomas Goodwin Edward Mashborne William Marsden Daniell Griffith

Island St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 12 October 1708 at Fort James.

Present: John Roberts, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

Forasmuch as it appeared to the council that 2s 0d a day for blacks' labour was an extraordinary charge to the Honourable Company and the proprietors of the island, and the council being well advanced with the new fort, the council resolved that next Saturday all whites and blacks except such as were immediately the Honourable Company's account be discharged, and that no labourers or others be taken into the service of the Company about the fortifications except the artificers, only at 1s 6d a day. Those that were willing so to work must apply themselves to the Governor. A list was to be kept of those persons' names that should first offer to work at that price, for care would be taken to employ those longer than any other. A declaration was to be set forth this day accordingly in this manner, the ensuing island

Interpretations

Graton's surrender of the lease stripped him of both the derelict Upper Lemon Garden and the fruitful valley land, having refused the council's £50 buy-out offer. The one-week grace period allowed him time to secure alternative housing but prohibited him from harvesting fruit, preventing him from extracting value from property he no longer held.

The council's wage reduction from 2s to 1s 6d per day for fortification labour reflected confidence that the major construction phase neared completion and fewer workers were needed. The preference system for early applicants created competition among labourers to secure positions before the list filled.

Speculations

Graton probably surrendered the lease because he could not afford even the reduced £15 annual rent on the blasted lemon garden and refused to pay £50 for permanent tenure of the valley land. The prohibition on fruit harvesting prevented Graton from conducting a final clearance of valuable crops before departure.

The council cut the labour rate because abundant workers competed for limited positions, allowing the Company to dictate terms rather than paying premium wages. The preferential hiring of early applicants ensured a ready pool of labour willing to work at the reduced rate rather than risk unemployment.

188

180

Island St Helena.

By the Govern[r] & Coun[ll] A Declaration.

Whereas the Govern[r] and Coun[ll]. Finding that they will heur no Occasion for any more Blacks, or whites, Except the Honourable Comp[s]. Sold[r], Pres[t] & Blacks that are Immediately at Worke at the fortifications and Considering That the New fort is well Advanced have Resolved to Discharge Said Whites and Blacks on Satturday Next being not designed to go about any other Work Than what is Already begun. But for the Encouragement of those That are Inclined to the Lyds proms[t]. and have Blacks if they Apply themselves to the Governour, he will Allow them Eighteen pence a day if they come in Time, for that we Can Employ But few.

Dated at Fort James this 12th day of October 1708. Signed p[r] order of Gov[r] and Council[l] fome Jn[o]. Alexander

The Governour & Coun[ll]. having Since their last Declaration about the Lime Stone had Five Samples of Stones Brought them and have Gotten to the quantity of Five Eun[r] which Burns and Sements as well as any Chalk But there being no more at that Place, and the nofse of the Lime Stone being Found has Hindered the people from Seeking for any quantety more, or bringing any other Samples. Therefore.

Ordered:

That a declaration be againe Sett forth, That all People may be Ren= sible, we have not the quantity of Lime Stone as was Expected and whomsoever Shall hereaft[r] find any quantity of Stone That will Burne into Lime Shall be Resolved According to y[e] Quantety they Shall find, And that the Declaration de[v]un in these words follownig.

Island St Helena.

By the Govern[r] & Coun[ll]. A Declaration.

Whereas the Govern[r] and Coun[ll]. Finding That y[e] Lime Stone which was found by Aron Johnson to be not nigh Enough to furnish & [Com]pleat the

The council issued a declaration terminating most fortification labour.

Island St Helena

By the Governor and Council - a declaration.

The Governor and Council, finding that they would have no occasion for any more blacks or whites except the Honourable Company's soldiers, [...] and blacks that were immediately at work at the fortifications, and considering that the new fort was well advanced, had resolved to discharge the whites and blacks on Saturday next, being not designed to go about any other work than what was already begun. But for the encouragement of those that were inclined to [...] and had blacks, if they applied themselves to the Governor, he would allow them 1s 6d a day if they came in time, for the council could employ but few.

Dated at Fort James this 12th day of October 1708. Signed per order of Governor and Council [...].

John Alexander

The Governor and Council, having since their last declaration about the lime stone had five samples of stones brought them and had gotten to the quantity of five [...] which burned and cemented as well as any chalk, but there being no more at that place, and the noise of the lime stone being found had hindered the people from seeking for any quantity more or bringing any other samples, the council ordered that a declaration be again set forth, that all people might be sensible the council had not the quantity of lime stone as was expected. Whosoever should hereafter find any quantity of stone that would burn into lime should be rewarded according to the quantity they should find. The declaration ran in these words following.

Island St Helena

By the Governor and Council - a declaration.

The Governor and Council, finding that the lime stone which was found by Aaron Johnson to be not nigh enough to furnish and complete the

Interpretations

The Saturday discharge date gave labourers three days' notice to seek alternative employment or return to plantation work. The reduction to 1s 6d per day and the limit on positions created a buyer's market where the Company dictated terms to workers rather than competing for scarce labour.

The five stone samples brought after the initial £100 reward announcement produced only five [...] of usable lime, insufficient for large-scale fortification work. The "noise" of the discovery discouraged further searching because people assumed the reward had been claimed and the search concluded.

Speculations

The council terminated mass labour hiring because the fort's foundation and walls had reached a stage where only skilled artificers were needed for finishing work. Aaron Johnson's discovery of workable limestone probably earned him the £100 reward, but the deposit was too small to supply ongoing construction needs.

The second declaration aimed to restart the search by clarifying that the reward remained available and that Johnson's find had been inadequate, dispelling the assumption that the limestone problem was solved.

189

181

the new fort and fortifications These are therefore To give Notice To all Persons That Shall find any Lime Stone And bring the Same to the Govern[r] for Proofs thereof Shall have a Sufficient Reward According to y[e] Quantity So found. And any one that please may have a Sample of the Lime Stone Already found at the Fort.

Dated at Fort James this 12th. day of Octob[er] 1708. Signed p[r] order of Gov[d] & Council[l] [fome] Jn[o]. Alexander

Further ordered:

That Aron Johnson Sold[r] who was the First That Found a Lime Stone on this Ifsland tho but a Small quantity have As an Encouragem[t]. and Reward The Sume of Twenty Dollars Given him, And that Walter Belvard who brought a Sample from another place of y[e] Same Stone have Two Dollars Reward.

Ordered:

That the Govern[r]. and Counc[il]l do meet Daily at the Honourable Comp[s] as Ware House To Settle the Prizes on the Fleet Frig[t] and Wesmorelands Cargoes.

Report has been Made to the Govern[r] this day That our Late Consultations has been Reveald and Divulged Downe which Tends to the Destruction of our Honour[ble] Masters affirs and Occasions the People to Dispise their Govern[m]t. and is a Hinderance to those in Coun[ll] from giving their opinions as they Could do, Least they Should be Rendered obstructers to the People, So that our Votes Tends as the People would have it and not as it ought to be, The Secrecy of the Oath being not Inserted in that S[en]t by our Hon[ble] Masters, However we Shall by these three Resolves make it Altogether as Bindeing.

First: Resolved that whomsoever Shall Reveale the Secrets of these Consultations is a Traitor to the Hono[ble] United Comp[s] Lords pforfsed In Betraying his Trust, and is Unworthy of being in Counc[il]l.

Secondly. Resolv'd That whomsoever Reveals the Secrets of these Confultations is a betrayer of this Government and the cause of the being Rendered Despicable to the People. 3[d]

Johnson's small limestone discovery earned him partial compensation for the effort.

The council gave notice to all persons that should find any lime stone and bring the same to the Governor for proof thereof should have a sufficient reward according to the quantity so found. Any one that pleased might have a sample of the lime stone already found at the Fort.

Dated at Fort James this 12th day of October 1708. Signed per order of Governor and Council [...].

John Alexander

The council further ordered that Aaron Johnson, soldier, who was the first that found a lime stone on this island though but a small quantity, have as an encouragement and reward the sum of twenty dollars given him. Walter Belvard, who brought a sample from another place of the same stone, was to have two dollars reward.

The council ordered that the Governor and Council meet daily at the Honourable Company's warehouse to settle the prices on the Fleet frigate and Westmoreland's cargoes.

Report had been made to the Governor this day that the late consultations had been revealed and divulged down, which tended to the destruction of the honourable masters' affairs and occasioned the people to despise their government. This was a hindrance to those in council from giving their opinions as they could do, lest they should be rendered obstructers to the people. The council's votes tended as the people would have it and not as it ought to be, the secrecy of the oath being not inserted in that sent by the honourable masters. However, the council should by these three resolves make it altogether as binding.

First, the council resolved that whosoever should reveal the secrets of these consultations was a traitor to the Honourable United Company, lords [...], in betraying his trust, and was unworthy of being in council.

Secondly, the council resolved that whosoever revealed the secrets of these consultations was a betrayer of this government and the cause of it being rendered despicable to the people.

Thirdly

Interpretations

Johnson's twenty-dollar reward represented roughly one-fifth of the promised £100, reflecting that his discovery yielded usable but insufficient limestone. Belvard's two-dollar reward for bringing a sample from another location encouraged continued prospecting without committing to full payment until quantity was verified.

The leaked consultation records undermined council authority by exposing internal debates to public scrutiny, forcing councillors to moderate their positions to avoid popular backlash. The Charter of Union oath apparently lacked an explicit secrecy clause, creating a loophole the council now closed through formal resolutions.

Speculations

Someone with access to consultation records - probably a clerk or council member - had been sharing confidential deliberations with planters or soldiers, allowing the free population to mobilise opposition to unpopular measures. The council's concern that votes "tended as the people would have it" suggested that leaked information enabled public pressure campaigns that swayed council decisions.

The three-part resolution aimed to plug the leak by declaring any disclosure an act of betrayal punishable by expulsion from office, raising the stakes for the leaker beyond mere dismissal to accusations of treason against the Company.

190

182

Thirdly. Resolved That whomsoever Shall be Found Guilty of Revealing the Secrets aforesaid Shall be Suspended from his Employm[t]. till our Honourable Masters pleasure be further Knowne.

Ordered:

That the Governour and Council[l] do signe to these Resolves and also the Clerk of the Council[l] with them.

Ordered:

That no Books or Papers in the office be Read by any Person Except the Council[l] and the Clerk in whose Cusftody they are, Nor No Books whatsoever be Carried out of their Proper places.

And for as much as in Sundry Consultations There may be Severalls Parradgaphs That will or may be Necefsary & Proper for the People to Know and to be Spread abroad, and in Such case the Govern[r]. Shall be Judge and Direct what Shall be done and what not.

M[r]. Alexander Clerk of the Coun[ll]. Reporting to y[e] Govern[r]. That there being a great Deal of Writeing Bufsinefs to be done which will Lie very heavily on his own hands & impofsible to be Fully & duly Compleated without Some help.

Ordered:

That M[r] Griffith 5 in Coun[ll]. Do See to the Bringing ufs of y[e] Council[l]s Books &c[a]. and that the Said M[r] Alexander take his Direction therein.

Capt[n]. Mashborne being absent when the oath Sent here by the Honoura[ble] Comp[s] To be taken by their Servants was Accordingly Taken by the Gov[r] and Council[l] as may Appear in the Consultation Held y[e] 28[t] Aug[t]. Last did this day take the Same Oath.

A List of Persons that first offered to the Govern[r] their Blacks to Worke att the New fort att 18 a day. Blacks

Cap[t]. Goodwin 4 J[no] Roberts Cap[t] Mashborne 1 Tho: Goodwin M[r] Marsden 2 Edw[d] Mashborne M[r] Griffith 3 W[m] Marsden M[r] Blazee 1 Daniel Griffith M[rs] m[r] Poirier 1 Jn[o] Alexander Eliz[th] Midge 2 Cl[r] 14

The council's third resolution completed the secrecy framework with enforcement provisions.

Thirdly, the council resolved that whosoever should be found guilty of revealing the secrets aforesaid should be suspended from his employment till the honourable masters' pleasure be further known.

The council ordered that the Governor and Council sign to these resolves and also the clerk of the council with them.

The council ordered that no books or papers in the office be read by any person except the council and the clerk in whose custody they were, nor no books whatsoever be carried out of their proper places.

Forasmuch as in sundry consultations there might be several paragraphs that would or might be necessary and proper for the people to know and to be spread abroad, in such case the Governor should be judge and direct what should be done and what not.

Mr Alexander, clerk of the council, reporting to the Governor that there being a great deal of writing business to be done which would lie very heavily on his own hands and impossible to be fully and duly completed without some help, the council ordered that Mr Griffith, fifth in council, see to the bringing up of the council's books and so forth, and that Alexander take his direction therein.

Captain Mashborne, being absent when the oath sent here by the Honourable Company to be taken by their servants was accordingly taken by the Governor and Council as might appear in the consultation held 28 August last, did this day take the same oath.

A list of persons that first offered to the Governor their blacks to work at the new fort at 1s 6d a day followed.

Captain Goodwin 4 blacks Captain Mashborne 1 black Mr Marsden 2 blacks Mr Griffith 3 blacks Mr [...] 1 black Mrs [...] Poirier 1 black Elizabeth Mudge 2 blacks

Clerk 14

John Roberts Thomas Goodwin Edward Mashborne William Marsden Daniell Griffith John Alexander

Interpretations

The suspension penalty for leaking secrets deferred final judgment to London while immediately removing the offender from access to confidential information. The restriction on reading office books and papers to council members and the clerk alone closed the access gap that enabled the leak.

The Governor's authority to determine which consultation paragraphs could be publicised centralised information control, preventing selective leaking while allowing necessary public communication. Griffith's assignment to oversee the bringing up of council books relieved Alexander's clerical burden by delegating record maintenance to a council member.

Mashborne's delayed oath-taking on this day regularised his position after missing the 28 August ceremony when the other council members swore. The labour list showed that council members themselves offered their slaves for the reduced 1s 6d rate, with Griffith providing 3 blacks, Marsden 2 blacks, and others 1 or 2 blacks each, totalling 14 blacks.

Speculations

The council suspected that consultation records had been copied or read by someone with routine office access, prompting the blanket prohibition on anyone but the clerk handling the books. The Governor's gatekeeping power over public disclosure aimed to prevent the council from being outflanked by leaks that rallied popular opposition before policies could be implemented.

Alexander's complaint about workload probably reflected the increased volume of record-keeping under Roberts's more bureaucratic administration compared to Goodwin's tenure. The council members' slaves appearing on the labour list demonstrated their willingness to accept the reduced wage publicly, making it harder for other planters to demand the old 2s rate.

191

183

Island St Helena.

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday the 26 day of October 1708. At Fort James.

John Roberts Gov[r] Thom[s] Goodwin Dep[ty] Gov[r] Pres[t] Edw[d] Mashborne 3[r] in Coun[ll]: abfsent Will[m] Marsden 4 in Coun[ll] Dan[l] Griffith 5 in Coun[ll]: abfsent

Whereas Inocent free Planter Exhibited his Petition this day Setting forth therein That at his comeing out of England to this Ifsland as a Gen[t]leman and Inhabitant thereof was to have Two and Ten Acres of Land from the Hono[ble] Comp[s]. as their free Bounty and Gift, as all others did Enjoy & Pofsefs and makeing Demand of y[e] Same Afsoot as he had Sered his Contracted time was Denyed that which he Deemd his Right by the then Govern[r] Blackmore Saying to the Said Petit[r] What would Such a single Young Man as you do with Land & Cattle, So having no friend or Relation to Speake any further for him Could never Since have the grant & Allowance of Said Land & Cow. And is the only Pson agreived in this matter, all others That Came to the Ifsland Two Years after having had their Allotment And y[e] Said Petit[r]. Being now a very Poor Man, having a wife & Six Young Cheldren to maintaine Humbly Crav'd ufs to Commiserate his Poor and Deeplorable Condition, and to Grant him the Said 10 Acres of Land & Cow for his Reliefe and Better maintainance of himself and familly.

Ordered That the Petition be Answered.

That the then Lords Prop[ts]. for the Encouragement of People to Inha= bite this Ifsland Did grant as the Petit[r] Says, But it not Appearing any Way to us That he made any Demand in Writeing or otherwise for Said Land & Cow which if he had no Doubt but the then Governm[t] coould have Lett him Enjoyd the Same as others did and So beleive that he did not desigue then to Inhabit on the Ifsland, tho his mind hath Been Since Altered, And that after the Ifsland was Peopled there Came orders 27 years ago from y[e] Said Then Lords P[r]opit[s]. Not to make over any more Lands to the Inhabitants being Resolved to Retaine the Remainder for their owne Use, and we Seem to Wonder that the

Understood - that was a markdown heading rendering as bold, not intentional bold formatting. Here it is again with the heading marker removed so only Interpretations and Speculations carry bold.

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 26 October 1708 at Fort James.

Present: John Roberts, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; William Marsden, fourth in council. Absent: Edward Mashborne, third in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

Inocent, a free planter, presented a petition that day. He stated that when he came out from England to settle on the island as a gentleman and inhabitant, the Honourable Company had promised him two cows and ten acres of land as their customary free gift, just as every other settler received. When he completed his contracted term of service and applied for what he regarded as his entitlement, Governor Blackmore refused him. Blackmore told him that a single young man had no use for land or cattle. Having no friend or relation to press his case further, Inocent never afterwards obtained the grant. He noted that he alone among the settlers had been denied, since every other person who arrived on the island, including those who came two years after him, had received their allotment. Now a very poor man with a wife and six young children to support, he begged the council to take pity on his wretched condition and grant him the ten acres and cow for his relief and for the better maintenance of his family.

The council ordered that the petition receive a reply.

In its answer the council stated that the former Lords Proprietors had indeed made such grants to encourage people to settle on the island, as the petitioner described. However, no evidence appeared before the council that Inocent had ever made a formal request, in writing or otherwise, for the land and cow at the proper time. Had he done so, the council had no doubt that the government of the day would have allowed him the same provision granted to others. The council therefore concluded that he had not intended at that point to make his home on the island, although his mind had since changed. The council further noted that twenty-seven years ago, once the island was settled, the Lords Proprietors had sent orders forbidding any further grants of land to inhabitants, having resolved to keep the remainder for their own use. The council expressed surprise that [...]

Interpretations

The petition turns on a procedural defect rather than the merits of Inocent's claim. The council accepted that the original bounty of two cows and ten acres existed and that other settlers received it. Their refusal rested on the absence of any written or formal application at the proper time. This shows how the colonial administration used documentary evidence as the decisive test of entitlement, even where oral testimony and the pattern of grants to peers supported the claim. A right that was not exercised through the correct channel at the correct moment was treated as never having vested.

The 27-year-old standing order against further land grants gave the council a second, harder line of defence. Even if Inocent's claim had been properly recorded, the policy shift by the Lords Proprietors to retain remaining land for their own use closed the route to fresh allocations. This places the case within a broader pattern of early proprietorial generosity narrowing into long-term retention of the island's most valuable resource.

The reasoning attributed to Governor Blackmore, that a single young man had no need of land or cattle, shows that initial grants were treated as discretionary in practice, not automatic, despite being framed as a customary bounty. The presence of dependents and a settled domestic life appears to have influenced whether the gift was actually conferred, regardless of the formal entitlement.

Speculations

The council's emphasis on the absence of a written demand suggests a deliberate evidentiary strategy. By refusing the claim on procedural grounds rather than denying the substantive entitlement, the council avoided creating any precedent that might invite similar petitions from other long-settled inhabitants who could allege historical oversights. Framing the refusal around missing paperwork closed the door on Inocent without unsettling the wider regime of past grants.

Inocent's decision to petition only now, when burdened by a wife and six young children, points to the way poverty rather than principle drove the revival of dormant claims. A grant refused twenty or more years earlier became worth pursuing once subsistence pressures grew acute. The council's response, by anchoring the refusal in his apparent indifference at the time of arrival, implicitly acknowledged this reading: a man who did not press for land when single was treated as having waived the entitlement, even though that interpretation suited the council's interest in preserving the proprietors' reserved lands.

192

184

the Petition Should make Such a Demand of a thing that has been buried in oblevian these 27 or 28 Years.

And as to his poverty we dont Suppose that arises any other way than by his Blevs[t] and wish that his Children may not have Cause to Curse Such fathers behaviour.

Thomas Burnham free plantr Presented his Petition Setting forth that about one year Since he had a Grant for Ten Acres of the Honoura[ble] Comp[s] Wafte Land Lying Near the head of Same Valley which being to high the fort and very Convenient for fier Wood the fort Blacks hath Since that Time Cutt and Destroyd most part of the wood on said Land So that it Lies now Naked & bare Notwithstanding his forewarning the Blacks Sive[r]all Times. Wherefore humbly prays That we would be pleased to Acquitt and Discharge him from Said Land having no Lease for the Same, otherwise it will prove very Detrimentall to him.

That the granting of this Petition may be very Prejudiciall to the Lo[rd]: Proprie[ts]. and Inquest in the Gentlem[n] who has held the Land in eafsed to him & So Long in his [...]. and that if Blacks or any others had done him any Trefparses, The dore of Justice was Always open to Redress his Greviance So have made him full Satisfaction.

Besides many People upon this Ifsland has Land of the Lords Propriet[rs]. for Severall years and no Leafe which if this Petition be Granted will be a plea for others to Throw up their Land after they have had it Sometime in their pofsefsion and have had the Goodnefse and fruitfullnefs of it.

Therefore ordered:

That all people Holding Lands of the Lords Propriet[s]. of this Ifsland not having as yet Leases be Sumoned to take them Effe[c]tu[a]ly muft be made out Accordingly, And that M[r] Bazett be ordered to Bring in an Acco[t] and plott of the Land that hath been measured to them.

And that the Petitioner be answ[er]d, The Coun[r] R[t]: o[r] R[t] Surfsy and See what Damage hath been done to the Said Land and as he says the fort Blacks has Cutt down and Destroy[d] most of the wood, To be Enquired of him whom and when and his reson f[r], not Com= =plaining to the Govern[m]t. But Sufer[d] Such ag[ot] Cries of Ground to be defstroy[d]. And that this Govern[m]t. will do nothing in Relation to y[e] [Petetion] as yet Nor will they hear any ones P[r]aying at this Coun[r]: Bose in matters of this Importance and any thing mig[t] is Required, whether he himself did not Cutt downe Wood or Said Land or no. But in his answer gave no Satisfaction to Gov[r] & Counc[ll] Jn[o] Roberts Tho: Goodwin Dan[l] Griffith Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden

Understood. No bullet points anywhere, and when you correct me I will repost the full corrected text rather than an extract.

Here is the rewritten passage again with the candidate review removed and presented in continuous prose.

The council expressed surprise that the petition should revive a claim left dormant for twenty-seven or twenty-eight years. As to Inocent's poverty, the council took the view that it sprang from his own conduct, adding the wish that his children might never have cause to curse such fatherly behaviour.

Thomas Burnham, free planter, then presented his petition. About a year earlier he had received a grant of ten acres of the Honourable Company's waste land near the head of Same Valley. The ground sat above the fort and was conveniently placed for firewood. Since the grant, the fort slaves had cut down and destroyed most of the wood, leaving the land bare, despite Burnham having warned them off several times. Holding no lease for the ground, he asked the council to release him from it, since the grant would otherwise prove harmful to him.

The council considered that granting the petition would damage the Lords Proprietors' interest and expose the gentleman who had held the land in trust for so long [...]. If slaves or anyone else had committed trespasses against Burnham, the courts had stood open to him at all times, and full redress could have been obtained there.

Besides this, many people on the island held land from the Lords Proprietors for several years without any lease. To grant Burnham's petition would give them all a ground for throwing up their land once they had enjoyed its goodness and fertility for a time.

The council therefore ordered that all persons holding Lords Proprietors' land on the island who had no lease were to be summoned and have leases drawn up for them. Mr Bazett was directed to bring in an account and a plot of the land measured to each holder.

The council further ordered that the petitioner be answered as follows. The councillor on duty was to view and survey the land and assess what damage had been done. Since Burnham claimed that the fort slaves had cut down and destroyed most of the wood, he was to be questioned about who they were, when the cutting took place, and why he had not complained to the government at the time but had allowed such large stretches of ground to be despoiled. The government would do nothing on the petition for the present, nor hear anyone pleading at the council board in matters of this importance, until everything required had been answered, including whether Burnham himself had cut wood on the land. His answer gave no satisfaction to the Governor and Council.

Signed: John Roberts, Thomas Goodwin, Daniell Griffith, Edward Mashborne, William Marsden.

Interpretations

The order that all holders of Lords Proprietors' land without leases be summoned and have leases drawn up shows how a single awkward petition triggered a wider tenure-regularisation drive. The council recognised that informal grants, held for years on nothing more than possession, left the proprietors exposed if any holder chose, like Burnham, to walk away from unproductive ground. Formalising every holding into a lease shifted the relationship from discretionary occupation to binding contract, fixing tenants to their land and securing the proprietors' rents. Concentrating the survey and record-keeping function in Mr Bazett also placed the documentary basis of land tenure in a single administrative hand.

The pattern of the fort slaves cutting wood on granted land, with Burnham's warnings ignored, reveals a gap between the formal rights of a planter and the practical authority needed to enforce them. A free planter holding ten acres had no power to discipline Company-owned slaves, and the council's response that the courts were always open offered a procedural remedy that few small holders would in practice pursue against the fort establishment. The episode shows how Company labour, deployed without close supervision, could effectively consume private grants while the formal hierarchy of redress made restitution impractical.

The council's handling of Burnham's complaint reversed the usual position of complainant and respondent. Instead of investigating who had cut the wood, the council demanded that Burnham name the slaves, supply dates, justify his silence at the time, and account for his own conduct on the land. By the close of the entry he stood under suspicion of having cut the wood himself. This shows how the council used investigative procedure as a filter, declining to act on petitions until the petitioner's own conduct had been tested, and treating a request to surrender land as evidence of possible bad faith rather than a straightforward grievance.

The closing language of the Inocent decision, wishing that his children might never have cause to curse such fatherly behaviour, shows moral rhetoric carrying real administrative weight. The council's refusal rested not only on the absence of a written demand but on a characterisation of Inocent as the author of his own poverty. Casting the petitioner as morally responsible for his condition allowed the council to dismiss the claim without appearing harsh, while reinforcing the principle that current hardship created no retrospective entitlement to past bounty.

Speculations

The decision to formalise every unleased holding at this moment, rather than years earlier, points to the council using Burnham's petition as cover for a policy shift it had reason to want anyway. A general summons to take leases, if issued without provocation, would have alarmed the planters. Issued in response to a planter who had himself asked to be released, the order appeared defensive of the proprietors' interest rather than coercive of the tenants, and the threat that any holder might otherwise throw up his land once he had enjoyed its fertility provided a ready-made justification.

The insistence on questioning Burnham about whether he himself had cut the wood suggests the council suspected him of clearing the timber for sale or use and then seeking to surrender depleted ground back to the proprietors. The pattern fitted a recognisable opportunistic move of taking the grant, stripping the marketable resource and walking away once the land's value was spent. Demanding names, dates and his reasons for silence at the time was designed to expose that sequence rather than to gather evidence against the fort slaves, whom no one in practice intended to prosecute.

193

185

Island St Helena.

At a Consultation Held on Wednsday

the 27th day of Octob[er] 1708. At Fort James.

John Roberts Gov[r]

Thom[s] Goodwin Dep[ty] Gov[r]

Pres[t]. Edward Mashborne 3[r] in Coun[ll]

Will[m] Marsden 4[th] in Coun[ll]

Dan[l] Griffith 5 in Coun[ll]

Having Surveyed the Goods in the Store That Came

in the Fleet Frigot & Westmoreland as also what was there before.

have agreed That the said Goods be Sold at y[e] Rates Following.

v[i]z[t]

Iron Mongers Wares at 100 p[r] C[t]

Haberdashery Wares . 50

Tin mens Wares . 100

Stationary Wares . 50

Brasiers Wares . 50

Glafs Ware 100

Millianary . 30

Turnery Ware . 100

Hatts . 50

Woolen Goods . 50

Hosiery Ware . 75

Bread & Floure at 2[d] p[r] [lb]

Cap & Bisct 16 p[r]

India Tobacco

Virginia English Tobacco at 2[d] p[r] [lb]

Pomatts 15 Each

India Atk . 30 p[r] [lb]

Bongalee Soafse 6 p[r]

English . 12 p[r]

Ditto Marble 15

Sugar Candy . 18 p[r] [lb]

Goa Arrack 7 p[r] Gal[ln]

Batavia 5 [Do]

Beef 4

Settle 6

Mens Shoes . 5 p[r] [pr]

Womans D[o] ordinary 6 p[r]

Mens Slaver . 8

Here is the full rewritten text of the 27 October 1708 consultation again, with the vertical-list convention now properly applied throughout. No labour or demographic list appears in this passage, so the "4 blacks" convention does not arise here; it will be applied when such a list next appears.

Island of St Helena.

At a consultation held on Wednesday 27 October 1708 at Fort James.

Present: John Roberts, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

The council, having surveyed the goods in the store that arrived on the Fleet frigate and the Westmoreland, together with the stock already on hand, agreed that the goods were to be sold at the following rates.

Ironmongers' wares at 100 per cent advance

Haberdashery wares at 50 per cent

Tinmen's wares at 100 per cent

Stationery wares at 50 per cent

Braziers' wares at 50 per cent

Glassware at 100 per cent

Millinery at 30 per cent

Turnery ware at 100 per cent

Hats at 50 per cent

Woollen goods at 50 per cent

Hosiery ware at 75 per cent

Bread and flour at 2 d per pound

Cap and biscuit at 16 d per pound

India tobacco [...]

Virginia English tobacco at 2 d per pound

Pomatums at 1s 3d each

India attar at 2s 6d per pound

Bengal sauce at 6 d per piece

English sauce at 1 s per piece

Marble sauce at 1s 3d

Sugar candy at 1s 6d per pound

Goa arrack at 7 s per gallon

Batavia arrack at 5 s per gallon

Beef at 4 s

Settle at 6 s

Men's shoes at 5 s per pair

Women's ordinary shoes at 6 s per pair

Men's slippers at 8 s

Interpretations

The schedule of percentage advances on European manufactures shows the Company store operating as a controlled monopoly rather than a competitive market. By fixing markups in council, the administration set the profit margin on each class of imported goods directly, rather than allowing it to emerge from trade. The range from 30 per cent on millinery to 100 per cent on ironmongery, tinware, glassware and turnery reflects a judgement about which goods could bear a heavy advance: bulky, hard-to-substitute manufactures essential to island building and household use carried the highest margins, while specialised fashion goods such as millinery, where demand on a small garrison island was thin, were marked up modestly to ensure they would move. The tariff therefore operated as an instrument of both revenue extraction and stock management.

The consolidation of goods from the Fleet frigate and the Westmoreland with prior store inventory into a single tariff shows how the Company managed irregular shipping into a continuous retail operation. Each fleet arrival could otherwise have produced parallel pricing structures dated to its own cost base. By surveying all stock together and issuing one schedule, the council smoothed the supply pattern, prevented planters from waiting out higher-priced consignments and preserved the store's role as the sole orderly source of imported goods on the island.

The use of two distinct unit conventions within one schedule, percentage markups for European manufactures and fixed unit prices for foodstuffs, spirits and footwear, reflects the different sources and cost structures of the two classes. European goods arrived with invoiced prime costs against which a percentage advance could be applied, producing prices that tracked the Company's purchasing. Indian and East Indies goods such as Goa arrack, Batavia arrack, Bengal sauce and India attar, together with consumables and locally retailed lines, were priced in flat shillings or pence, fixing them irrespective of cost fluctuations and giving the council direct control over the cost of subsistence and small comforts on the island.

Speculations

The marked difference between Goa arrack at 7 s per gallon and Batavia arrack at 5 s suggests the council was using the price gap to manage consumption patterns rather than simply tracking cost. Batavia arrack, supplied through the Dutch East Indies trade, was the cheaper and probably more abundant spirit; pricing it lower made it the default ration drink. Goa arrack, carrying a Portuguese-Indian provenance and a 40 per cent premium, would have moved as a discretionary purchase. The tariff thereby separated the working spirit from the luxury spirit without the council having to ration either.

The decision to set hosiery at 75 per cent advance, between the 50 per cent on woollen goods and hats and the 100 per cent on hard manufactures, points to a judgement about durability and replacement frequency on the island. Stockings wore out quickly in the climate and on the rough work of fortification and planting, so demand was inelastic and steady. Pitching the markup above standard clothing but below structural goods captured the predictable replacement trade without driving men into makeshift substitutes that would erode the store's regular custom.

194

186

Mens Pumps at 4//6 p[r] [pr]

Womens Pannish . 4//6

Ditto Lace . 5//

Ditto Silver Lace . 6//4

Boys & Girles . 2//6

Boys Larger . 3//6

Childrens Pumps . 1//6

Sword. Belt & Cartouch Boxes at 50 p[r] C[t]

Pewter Measures . 75

Cheshire Cheese at 9 p[r] [lb]

Tobacco pipes - 3 - being half Broken to be Sold at 6 p[r] [gr]

Fishing and Hus[s]bock 50 p[r] C[t]

Medicens & Drugs Ditto

Fire Armes D[o]

Few Cals Deale Tim[ber] & Chalk

Barr and Rod Iron at 3 p[r] [lb]

Beer

Navall & Garrison Stores

Iron pots at 6 p[r] [lb] is 100

Resolved:

That monday next being the first day of Novemb[r] the Goods

before mentioned be Sold out, At the Prices afores[d].

And that Notice be given in Writing which is to be posted Up at

y[e] Store Room Door That Every Monday In the Year will be Sere=

=ing day at y[e] Said Store house Whereofs all person may take

notice & be Served Accordingly.

And Considering the many Debts the Honoura[ble] Company &

Lords Propriet[ts]. has Upon this Ifsland due to them and those that are

Deepest Indebted takes the Least Care of makeing any Payment, and

Indeavours to gett what they can together To buy Goods out of Shiping

whereby there is no hopes of Ever getting their debts paid Neither Can

woe See any Way of haveing Said Debts paid without Rendering them

and their Familles miserable their Credits heretofore at the Store

being Stopt to prevent these Incumberances.

Resolved:

That it be Inserted in the paper to be Sett up at the Store house Door

That all people that be Indebted to the Said Lords Propriet[s]. Shall

have for every Ten poeund paid in Cred[i]t[s] for five poeund and So

proportionable

Men's pumps at 4s 6d per pair

Women's Spanish leather at 4s 6d per pair

Women's lace at 5 s per pair

Women's silver lace at 6s 4d per pair

Boys' and girls' shoes at 2s 6d per pair

Boys' larger shoes at 3s 6d per pair

Children's pumps at 1s 6d per pair

Swords, belts and cartouche boxes at 50 per cent advance

Pewter measures at 75 per cent advance

Cheshire cheese at 9 d per pound

Tobacco pipes, three gross, half of them broken, to be sold at 6 d per gross

Fishing tackle and [...] at 50 per cent advance

Medicines and drugs at 50 per cent advance

Firearms at 50 per cent advance

[...] deal timber and chalk

Bar and rod iron at 3 d per pound

Beer

Naval and garrison stores

Iron pots at 6 d per pound, being 100 per cent advance

The council resolved that on Monday next, being 1 November 1708, the goods listed above were to be put on sale at the prices set down. A written notice was to be posted at the storeroom door, declaring that every Monday throughout the year was to be the serving day at the storehouse, so that all persons could take notice and be served accordingly.

The council then turned to the standing problem of debts owed to the Honourable Company and the Lords Proprietors on the island. Those most heavily in debt took the least care to make any payment. They strove instead to assemble whatever they could to buy goods from visiting shipping, leaving no prospect of the existing debts being recovered. The council could see no way of obtaining payment without reducing such debtors and their families to misery, and their credit at the store had already been stopped to prevent further accumulation.

The council resolved that the notice to be posted at the storehouse door was also to state that every person indebted to the Lords Proprietors was to receive five pounds of store credit for every ten pounds paid against their debt, and so in proportion for other sums.

**Interpretations**

The establishment of every Monday as a fixed serving day at the storehouse, announced in writing and posted at the door, marks the shift of Company retail on the island from an event tied to fleet arrivals into a continuous administrative rhythm. Goods landed on irregular shipping were absorbed into a calendar of weekly sales that the inhabitants could plan around. The written notice itself functioned as a small instrument of governance, giving the store's pricing and timing the standing of a public regulation rather than an internal store practice. This created a predictable relationship between the planters and the Company's commercial arm and reduced the leverage of those who had previously waited for ad hoc terms.

The debt-recovery scheme, offering five pounds of fresh credit for every ten pounds paid against existing debt, shows the council recognising that punitive credit suspension had reached its limit as a recovery tool. Debtors with credit stopped had simply turned to visiting shipping, draining cash off the island and frustrating any prospect of repayment. By tying further store access to a partial repayment ratio, the council reopened the store as an incentive while doubling the effective rate at which old debts were extinguished. The mechanism converted the indebted planter's appetite for store goods into a slow but reliable instrument of recovery, and kept his trade within the Company rather than losing it to passing ships.

The decision to sell three gross of tobacco pipes, half of them already broken, at 6 d per gross shows pricing being used at item level for stock clearance rather than profit. Setting an entire line of damaged goods at a fraction of its sound price moved the inventory off the books without requiring write-off, and recognised that a half-broken pipe still served a working market on the island. This indicates a granular approach to store management in which damaged or surplus consignments were tariffed individually within the wider schedule rather than left to spoil unsold.

**Speculations**

The two-for-one credit ratio in the debt-recovery resolution suggests the council had concluded that nominal balances on the books overstated what could realistically be collected. By advancing only half the cash repayment as fresh credit, the council protected itself against the risk that the new credit would itself fall into arrears, while still offering enough inducement to draw cash out of debtors who had been refusing to pay anything. The ratio reads less as a discount on the debt and more as an internal write-down disguised as a customer-facing scheme, allowing the council to recognise losses on doubtful debts through trading practice rather than through any open declaration of bad debt.

The combination, in a single posted notice, of the weekly serving day and the debt-payment ratio points to a deliberate strategy of binding the store's public attractions to its private accounts. The same paper that announced fresh stock and predictable opening hours also confronted every reader with the terms on which their outstanding debt could be worked down. Anyone drawn to the door by the Monday market faced the debt calculation at the moment of greatest commercial interest. This coupling made the recovery scheme harder to ignore than any private demand for payment delivered to a debtor's house.

195

187

proportionable for a greater or Lefser Sum and Should it So happen That

Such psons has no Cash by them we Shall accept the Credit for their Blacks

that Worke at the fortifications from the 18 of Septemb[r] Last, As So much

Cash paid In Cred[r]: Consequently may Take Ufs half that work in Goods

as it from Time to Time become[s] due to them. And that we will

hearken to any other ways or means That they Shall propose for the

payment of their Debts & Buying Goods in the Store This is meant

where their Debts Exceed Tewenty poeund.

And it being debated in Council[l] whether the doll[ar] Should be redu=

ced from Six Shillings to Five Att[r]. According to an Article from the Hono[ble]

Lords propriet[r]s. in their Gen[ll]: Letter dated the 7 of Aprill Last The

reasons following Seems to us Sufficient To Keep 'em at the Currant price

of Six Shillings.

First That we are very barely Stord in all things.

Secondly That the maine Articles that Disposes best is most wanting

v[i]z[t].

Batavia Arrack Wanting . 150 Tons.

Sugar 100 D[o].

Bale Goods of Sundry Sorts from India 60 Bales, Besides.

Two or three of Wrought Silks

Spies of Sundry Sorts 1000 weight

Tea of Sundry Sorts one Ton

Sugar Candy 5 Ton

Bengala or Surrat Coffee 20 Ton

Wine from Madera 30 Ton

Brandy 30 Ton

Of great & Small Timber & Deale Boards for Building

Tooles one Hundred Ton 10000

Plain Tiles 20 Cafes

Window Glass 5 Cafes

Train Oyle 3 Ton

Rape ditto for Lamps or Cocnutt 6 Tubs

Pena Ware 100 Gall:

Painting Oyle 1000 [lb]

Paint Yellow 300

Ditto White Lead 100 = 1400 weight

D[o] Red [...]

Where any debtor had no cash, the council was to accept credit for their slaves working at the fortifications from 18 September last, treating that labour as cash paid in. Such persons could therefore take up to half of what was due to them from time to time in store goods. The council was also willing to consider any other arrangements such debtors might propose for clearing their debts and buying from the store. This applied only where debts exceeded twenty pounds.

The council then debated whether the dollar was to be reduced from six shillings to five shillings, in accordance with an article from the Honourable Lords Proprietors in their general letter dated 7 April last. The reasons set out below seemed sufficient to keep the dollar at the current rate of six shillings.

First, the island was very poorly supplied in all things.

Second, the main articles that sold most readily were the most wanting, namely:

Batavia arrack wanting 150 tons Sugar wanting 100 tons Bale goods of sundry sorts from India wanting 60 bales, besides Wrought silks, two or three bales Spices of sundry sorts wanting 1,000 weight Tea of sundry sorts wanting 1 ton Sugar candy wanting 5 tons Bengal or Surat coffee wanting 20 tons Wine from Madeira wanting 30 tons Brandy wanting 30 tons Great and small timber and deal boards for building Tools wanting 100 tons, equal to 10,000 Plain tiles wanting 20 cases Window glass wanting 5 cases Train oil wanting 3 tons Rape oil for lamps, or coconut oil, wanting 6 tubs Pena ware wanting 100 gallons Painting oil wanting 1,000 pounds Yellow paint wanting 300 White lead wanting 100, totalling 1,400 weight Red [...]

Interpretations

The acceptance of slave labour at the fortifications as a substitute for cash payment against store debt formalised a three-way exchange between the planter, his slaves and the Company. The planter discharged his debt without parting with money, the Company secured fortification labour without disbursing wages and the slave's work was converted into an accounting entry that flowed back to the master's account at the storehouse. This shows the fortification programme operating not only as a defensive project but as a settlement mechanism within the island's chronic shortage of currency. The dating of the credit from 18 September last indicates that the council was retrofitting an existing labour record into the new debt-recovery scheme, drawing on work already done rather than projecting forward.

The limitation of these debt-clearance arrangements to debts exceeding twenty pounds reveals a tiered approach to credit policy on the island. Small debtors were left under the ordinary regime of the five-for-ten store credit ratio, while substantial debtors became eligible for bespoke negotiation, including the labour-for-debt substitution and any further proposals the council might entertain. The threshold acknowledged that the most damaging debts to the Company's books sat with planters whose accounts had grown beyond what any straightforward recovery could reach, and that recovering anything from them required a flexibility not extended to smaller balances.

The refusal to reduce the dollar from six shillings to five, in the face of a direct instruction from the Lords Proprietors, shows the council asserting practical authority over a remitted question of currency valuation. The reasoning rested on the bare condition of the stores. With main articles such as arrack, sugar, spices, tea, coffee, wine, brandy and building materials all wanting in quantity, a downward revaluation of the dollar would have raised the real cost of imports to the inhabitants at precisely the moment when supply was thin. Holding the dollar at six shillings preserved the planters' purchasing power and protected what trade the depleted store could still conduct. The schedule of shortages effectively functioned as the council's defence file against the proprietors' instruction.

Speculations

The decision to backdate the labour credit to 18 September last points to the council aligning the debt scheme with an identifiable phase of fortification work, probably the period since Governor Roberts's reorganisation of the council and the new fort construction order. By fixing the starting point at that earlier date, the council ensured that planters whose slaves had been on the works for some weeks already would see immediate relief, giving the scheme visible traction the moment it was posted at the storehouse door. A scheme starting only from the date of the resolution itself would have offered nothing to existing debtors for weeks.

The detailed inventory of shortages, set out in precise tonnages and quantities, reads less as a working purchase order and more as a formal record built for transmission back to the Lords Proprietors. By cataloguing exactly what was missing alongside the refusal to revalue the dollar, the council produced a single document that both justified its disobedience to the 7 April instruction and demanded a remedy from London. The reasoning and the supply requisition were fused, so that any proprietor reviewing the council's defence would simultaneously be reading the list of goods needed to make the proprietors' own currency policy workable.

196

188

So that whatever Ships that brings any of the aforesaid Goods the Inhabitants of this place are fo[r]ced to use all means [possible] to gett Money to buy 'em which utterly D[e]prives this [Island] of Cash

Thirdly should we reduce the Dollars to [...] the Little Cash we have and that taken Lately from Cap[t] Newton the [s]ame as privately as possible those people that has Cred[i]t due to them in the Store would never Leave Duning us till it is all Gone By which means our Cash will be Red[uc]ed for altho' we allow Twelve pence in [...] more than Com[m]anders of Ships do Yet By the Ballance of Cash in March L[ast] we had only fifty Shillings, and should they be at five Shillings we must [N]ever expect to keep one farthing By us

Wherefore Resolved

That Dollars do Continue to pass Currant at Six Shillings Untill our Honourable Master[s] shall think fitt to store us with all things plentifully

Notwithstanding what is said abo[u]t the Dollars It is ordered [and that] this Councill do Spread abroad that the Dollars [are] Red[uc]ed to [...] in a Little Time, In hopes of Getting Cash into the Store to use [...] any [E]mergent Occation

St Hellena By the Govern[o]r & Coun[cill] A Declaration

These are to give Notice that the Goods of the L[a]st Two [Shi]ps from England will be Served out Upon Monday being the first of [N]ovember Next, and to [c]ontinue to be [...] [...] [...] the year And that all the Inhabita[n]ts of the Said [I]sland that ar[e] Indebted to the L[or]d [P]roprie[to]r[s] Shall for the [p]aying in of Ten pounds have Cred[i]t for fix pounds and [i]n p[ro]portion all [...] greater [...] [...] sum[s] And shall it so happen that Such persons or a[n]y of Them have no Cash By them, They will Al[s]o [have] the Cred[i]t for their Blacks that Work[s] at [...] fortifications from the [1]st of Septemb[er] L[a]st as so much Cash paid in And consequently may take Up half that Work in Goods, and so from time to time as it Becomes due to them, And that they will H[ear]ken to any other ways or means that they Shall p[ro]pose Towards the payment[s] and Satisfa[c]tion of their debts and Buying of Goods out of the Store This is meant where their debts Exceed Twenty Pound[s]

When ships arrived carrying any of the goods listed above, the inhabitants of the island were driven to find every possible means of raising money to buy them, which entirely drained the island of cash.

Third, were the dollar to be reduced to [...], the little cash on the island, including the sum recently taken from Captain Newton as quietly as could be managed, would soon disappear. Those holding credit at the store would never leave off pressing the council for payment until the whole was gone. Even though the council allowed twelve pence in [...] more than the commanders of ships did, the balance of cash in March last stood at only fifty shillings. Were the dollar set at five shillings, no farthing could be expected to remain in the council's hands.

The council therefore resolved that dollars were to continue to pass current at six shillings until the Honourable Masters thought fit to supply the island with all things plentifully.

Notwithstanding what was said about the dollar, the council ordered that word be spread abroad that the dollar was to be reduced to [...] in a little time, in the hope of drawing cash into the store for use on any emergent occasion.

St Helena, by the Governor and Council. A Declaration.

Notice was given that the goods of the last two ships from England were to be served out on Monday next, being 1 November 1708, and were to continue to be sold [...] throughout the year. All inhabitants of the island indebted to the Lords Proprietors were to receive credit for six pounds on every ten pounds paid in, and in proportion for [...] greater or smaller sums. Where any such persons had no cash, they were also to receive credit for their slaves working at the [...] fortifications from 1 September last, treated as so much cash paid in. They could accordingly take up half of that work in goods, and so from time to time as it became due to them. The council was also willing to consider any other ways or means such debtors might propose for the payment and satisfaction of their debts and the buying of goods from the store. This applied only where their debts exceeded twenty pounds.

Interpretations

The third reason offered against revaluing the dollar exposed the operational fragility of the island's cash reserve. A balance of fifty shillings in March last was the entire stock of money in the council's hands. A reduction in the dollar's rating would have prompted every credit-holder to press for immediate settlement before the rate fell further, draining what remained. The council's reasoning makes clear that the six-shilling rating was sustained not by economic principle but by the practical impossibility of conducting government on so thin a margin once the inhabitants understood that the currency was about to depreciate.

The reference to the sum taken from Captain Newton as privately as possible reveals an opportunistic mode of revenue raising operating alongside the formal tariff. When ships arrived with cash on board, the council moved quickly and discreetly to capture what it could before commanders or inhabitants reorganised their accounts. The use of the word privately indicates that openness about such transactions would have provoked resistance, and that the council relied on speed and confidentiality to convert visiting funds into government cash.

The Declaration as a single posted document fused three measures into one public instrument: the announcement of the Monday serving day, the debt-repayment ratio of six pounds of credit for ten pounds paid, and the labour-credit substitution for fortification work since 1 September last. By embodying retail rhythm, debt recovery and labour management in a single text affixed to the storehouse door, the council collapsed several distinct administrative functions into a unified statement of the terms on which inhabitants could now engage with the Company. This shows the storehouse door operating as the principal point of contact between government and population on the island.

The shift in the credit ratio from the previous five for ten to six for ten in the final declaration shows the council adjusting the published terms upward between resolution and proclamation. The earlier consultation had spoken of five pounds of credit for ten pounds paid, while the declaration as actually issued offered six pounds for ten. The more generous ratio in the public version indicates that the council, on reflection, judged the original terms insufficient to draw cash from debtors, and revised the inducement before committing it to writing on the storehouse door.

Speculations

The decision to spread word that the dollar would be reduced to a lower rating in a little time, while privately resolving the opposite, points to a calculated piece of currency management designed to drive cash into the storehouse. Inhabitants holding dollars, fearing imminent loss of value, could be expected to convert them into store credit or goods while the higher rating still applied. The council thereby hoped to harvest the island's circulating cash without ever having to make the revaluation that would frighten it loose. The dual position, resolved in council and proclaimed in public, was not contradictory but instrumental, with the rumour serving the policy that the resolution protected.

The change in the labour-credit starting date from 18 September in the earlier consultation to 1 September in the Declaration extended the recoverable labour window by more than a fortnight. Bringing forward the date by which slave work at the fortifications could be set against store debt enlarged the credit pool available to indebted planters at the moment the scheme was published. The change suggests that the council recognised the original starting date was too restrictive to generate the visible relief needed to make the Declaration land effectively with its intended audience.

197

189

for that they are Willing to give Credit to all that have plantations as farr as [S]eventy pound[s]

Dated at Fort James on said [I]sland this 28[th] day of October 1708

Signed [...] of [G]over[no]r & Councill

[Wm] [J]n[o] Alexander

There has been Severall Adv[ert]izements [G]iven out That th[e]re should be no Hoggs kept in Fort James Valley without being penned Up, But people having no [R]egard to it, And the Executive power of those [Laws] Being in the Govern[or] He has with an [A]ditionall order [...] [y]e former Given Liberty to the [S]oldiers to Kill and Eate them whereby Severall have been Destroyed, and the Valley Cr[i]tly [C]lear

Resolved

That the order Continue, and That no more Adv[ertizemen]t[s] be given out in this [N]ature [N]or any Sa[t]isfaction be made for What [have been] or hereafter may be Destroyed, to any Person whatso[ever]

Whereas in the late [S]hiping Severall officers as Mates [P]ursers and Doctors of Ships hath Taken the [p]rivilege to place and [S]eat themselves on the R[t] and Uppe[r] hand of the Councill And thereupon the Councill now present desired the Govern[or] to Inform them of the proper Methods in that case Wherey[u]pon the Govern[or] hath Directed That Cap[t]ains of men of Warr and all Comm[i]ssion officers Captains of Merchant Men [Sup]ra Cargoes, or any Em[i]nent Merch[t] That have Serv[e]d our Masters In Indi[a] Desires That the Councill out of Civillity will give them [place] But to no other Infer[ior] Officer Whatsoever and that in [S]hiping time, the Govern[or] will take care That it be so Regulated for the future

And in the absence of [S]hiping The Deputy Govern[or] [Cap]t [G]oodwin To take place on the Right [hand] of the Govern[or] Cap[t] Mashborne on the L[eft] hand, [Mr] Marsden on the [R]ight hand of Cap[t] Goodwin and M[r] Griffith on the Left hand next to Cap[t] Mashborne The M[i]nister Next to M[r] Marsden The Clerk of the Councill Next to M[r] Griffith The Enginer Next to the Minister Enigne Caden Next to [...] Enginer His Doct[r] Next to the Clerk of the [Counc]ill and next to y[e] Doct[r] M[r] B[ar]rett

[Jno?] Roberts [H?] Goodwin [E]d[w]: [M]ashborn[e] W[m] M[ar]sd[e]n Dan[ie]ll Griffith

The council was willing to give credit to all holders of plantations up to seventy pounds.

Dated at Fort James on this island, 28 October 1708. Signed [...] for the Governor and Council. William [...]. John Alexander.

Several advertisements had been issued forbidding the keeping of hogs in Fort James Valley unless they were penned up, but the inhabitants had paid no attention to them. Since the executive power of these laws lay with the Governor, he had issued an additional order to the former one, granting the soldiers leave to kill and eat any hogs found loose. As a result, several had been destroyed and the valley had been substantially cleared.

The council resolved that the order was to continue. No further advertisements were to be issued on this matter, and no compensation was to be made to any person whatsoever for hogs already destroyed or to be destroyed in future.

During the late shipping season, several officers, including mates, pursers and ships' doctors, had taken upon themselves the privilege of seating themselves on the right and upper hand of the council. The councillors present now asked the Governor to inform them of the proper procedure in such cases. The Governor directed that captains of men of war, all commissioned officers, captains of merchant men, supercargoes, or any eminent merchant who had served the Honourable Masters in India should be allowed precedence by the council out of civility, but no inferior officer of any kind. The Governor undertook to ensure that this rule was observed in future shipping seasons.

In the absence of shipping, the order of seating was fixed as follows. Deputy Governor Captain Goodwin was to take place on the right hand of the Governor. Captain Mashborne was to sit on the left hand. Mr Marsden was to sit on the right hand of Captain Goodwin. Mr Griffith was to sit on the left hand, next to Captain Mashborne. The minister was to sit next to Mr Marsden. The clerk of the council was to sit next to Mr Griffith. The engineer was to sit next to the minister. Ensign Caden was to sit next to [...] the engineer. His doctor was to sit next to the clerk of the council. Next to the doctor was to sit Mr Barrett.

Signed: John Roberts, Thomas Goodwin, Edward Mashborne, William Marsden, Daniell Griffith.

Interpretations

The raising of the credit limit for plantation holders to seventy pounds, set immediately after the six-for-ten repayment ratio and the labour-credit clauses, completed the architecture of the council's debt policy. Smaller balances under twenty pounds remained outside the bespoke arrangements, debts between twenty and seventy pounds could be worked down through the ratio and labour substitution, and the seventy-pound ceiling defined the outer limit of credit that any single plantation holder could carry forward. By tying the ceiling to the holding of a plantation rather than to the person of the debtor, the council secured the debt against productive land, making the planter's future cultivation effectively the collateral for present store credit.

The Governor's response to the hogs in Fort James Valley shows the executive authority resolving an enforcement failure by replacing legal sanction with summary destruction. Repeated advertisements requiring inhabitants to pen their hogs had produced no compliance, and rather than escalate prosecution the Governor authorised the soldiers to kill and consume the offending animals. This shifted enforcement from the inhabitants, who had ignored the law, to the garrison, which had an immediate incentive to act, and converted the penalty from a fine extracted by court process into the direct loss of property by the offender. The decision to issue no further advertisements and to refuse compensation made it clear that the policy was settled and that the council would not entertain claims arising from it.

The detailed protocol of council seating, both in shipping season and in its absence, reveals how status on the island was managed through spatial arrangement at the council board. The intrusion of mates, pursers and ships' doctors into the upper seats had disturbed the visible hierarchy of government, and the Governor's ruling restored order by limiting precedence to captains, commissioned officers, supercargoes and eminent Company merchants. The fixed seating in non-shipping periods, descending from Governor through the council members to the minister, clerk, engineer, ensign, doctor and Mr Barrett, mapped the entire administrative hierarchy of the island onto the bench itself. Sitting position thereby functioned as a continuous public record of standing, visible to anyone present at consultation.

Speculations

The willingness to extend credit up to seventy pounds against plantations, taken with the labour-for-debt substitution and the six-for-ten ratio, points to the council preparing for a sustained period without significant shipping. Each provision presumed that store goods would have to be moved, debts collected and the works on the fortifications continued without fresh cash injection from England. The seventy-pound ceiling, generous by comparison with the twenty-pound threshold below it, suggests the council expected substantial plantation holders to become the main intermediary between the storehouse and the wider population, accepting goods on credit and redistributing them down the chain.

The Governor's careful ruling on precedence, set out in such detail at this particular meeting, suggests that the disturbances during the late shipping season had created friction the council wished to avoid in the season ahead. By recording the rule in writing and signing the order alongside the other resolutions, the council converted what had been an informal courtesy into a binding administrative instruction, available for citation when the next fleet arrived. The unusually full specification of seating in the absence of shipping points to an intention to drill the order into routine practice so that no future visiting officer could plead custom to claim a higher place than the rule permitted.

198

190

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tu[e]sday the 2 day of Novemb[er] 1708 At Fort James

John Roberts Gov[r] Thom[s] Goodwin D[e]p[u]ty Gov[r] P[re]s[en]t Edw[d] Mashborne 3 in [Coun]d[ill] W[illia]m Marsden 4 in Coun[d] Dan[l] Griffith 5 in Coun[d]

That [s]ince this Last Declaration Touching planters Indebted in [p]ayi[ng] half and Taking half out of the [S]tores Severall [p]ersons whose Debts we[re] Suppose to be Desperate Have made offers According to the said Declaration of [Y]ams and Cattle, and their [S]laves Woke at [y]e fortifications, and Some of th[ei]r own L[a]bour Also

M[r] Sp[ro]gers has lately made offer of a Co[n]siderable Quantity of [Y]ams also [a] Thousand and hath sent a Large [S]ample of the [s]ame, [...] [...] there [is?] still a Thousand [...] [Suckers]

That we are now at [P]lantation House making of a New [P]lantation And [s]hall want [Suckers], and being a dry [S]eason We Dare [N]ot dig[g] our [Y]ams for fear of L[o]osing the Suckers

And his Debt being [G]reat and Desperate, which Occasion[ed] formerly his Cred[i]tt to be Stoped in the Store And app[ea]ring to us to be for our Honor[d?] Masters Intrest

Resolved

That it be an Agreement According to the[i]r [P]rices And that Cap[t] Mashborne do [S]ee to the Receiving of them According to the [S]ample And to Take Yams and Suckers as many as he [...] [...]

M[r] Alexander the Clerk of [C]ouncill hath offered us Eight head of Cattle which he [s]aith are in good Cas[e]

Also Thomas Swallow Sen[r] In[o] Nicholls [R]obert Add[i]s [...] [...] Leonard Hunt Francis Wrangham and [Lieu]t Goodwin for Wrangham[s] Orphans and [s]everall others a[l]so offer According to the Declaration as afore[said] To apply one half for the [p]ayment of their old Debts, The other Towards Necessarys out of the [S]tores

We may reasonably Expect [shipping] Daily, and there [p]eo[p]le having no moneys in any other way to [p]ay their Debts But by this [P]roposall, And we think it for our Hono[rd] Masters Intrest to [b]uy to the Number of fifty head and no more Resolved

That

Island of St Helena.

At a consultation held on Tuesday 2 November 1708 at Fort James.

Present: John Roberts, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

Since the late Declaration setting out the terms on which indebted planters could pay in half and take half out of the stores, several persons whose debts had been thought desperate had come forward with offers in line with it. The offers consisted of yams, cattle, slave labour at the fortifications and, in some cases, the debtors' own work.

Mr Sprogers had lately offered a considerable quantity of yams, said to amount to a thousand, and had sent a large sample of them. It appeared that there were still a thousand [...] suckers in his possession.

The council was at that time laying out a new plantation at Plantation House and was in need of suckers. The season being dry, the council was unwilling to lift its own yams for fear of losing the suckers attached to them.

Sprogers's debt was large, and had previously been written off as desperate, which was why his credit at the store had been stopped. Accepting his offer appeared to serve the Honourable Masters' interest.

The council resolved that an agreement was to be made at Sprogers's prices. Captain Mashborne was directed to oversee the receipt of the yams against the sample, and to take both yams and as many suckers as he [...] [...].

Mr Alexander, clerk of the council, had offered eight head of cattle, which he stated were in good condition.

Thomas Swallow senior, John Nicholls, Robert Addis, [...] [...], Leonard Hunt, Francis Wrangham and Lieutenant Goodwin on behalf of Wrangham's orphans, together with several others, had also offered, in accordance with the Declaration, to apply one half of their goods to the payment of their old debts and to take the other half in necessaries out of the stores.

Shipping was expected daily, and these people had no other means of paying their debts except through this proposal. The council judged it to be in the Honourable Masters' interest to buy to the number of fifty head of cattle and no more.

The council resolved that [...]

Interpretations

The early take-up of the Declaration showed that the council had correctly identified the cash drought as the main barrier to debt recovery, rather than any unwillingness to pay. Within days of the notice being posted, planters whose accounts had been classified as desperate came forward with yams, cattle and labour. The pattern indicates that the original credit suspension had not eliminated the debtors' capacity to settle in kind, only the channel through which they could do so. By reopening the storehouse to non-cash settlement, the council converted dormant agricultural and labour surpluses into recoverable assets without disbursing any money.

The arrangement with Sprogers exposed how the new debt scheme could be tailored item by item to the council's immediate needs. Plantation House was short of suckers for a new planting, the dry season made the council reluctant to disturb its own yam beds, and Sprogers held a stock of both crop and propagating material. Accepting his offer at his own prices, with Captain Mashborne overseeing receipt against the sample, allowed the council to discharge a previously desperate debt and supply an active horticultural project in a single transaction. The episode shows the Declaration functioning not only as a recovery instrument but as a procurement channel calibrated to the council's seasonal requirements.

The fifty-head cap on cattle purchases reveals how the council balanced debt recovery against herd management. Each head taken in settlement reduced a debt on the books, but every additional animal had to be maintained, slaughtered or distributed by the establishment. The decision to fix the upper limit at fifty acknowledged that an open-ended acceptance of livestock would have shifted the burden of feed, pasture and care onto the Company's own resources at a moment when shipping was imminent and fresh stores might soon follow. The ceiling allowed the recovery scheme to operate without converting a credit problem into a husbandry problem.

The inclusion of Lieutenant Goodwin acting on behalf of Wrangham's orphans shows the Declaration extending beyond the immediate debtors to encompass dependants whose accounts were administered by third parties. Orphans' estates carried debts inherited from their fathers but were managed by guardians or officers acting for them. Allowing such guardians to enter the scheme on the same terms as principal debtors kept the orphans' holdings productive within the island's economy and prevented their accounts from drifting permanently into desperate status. This indicates that the council's recovery mechanism was structured to operate at the level of the account rather than the person.

Speculations

The willingness to accept Sprogers's offer at his own prices, rather than at rates fixed by the council, points to a calculated trade in which the council was prepared to overpay for yams and suckers in order to clear a debt previously regarded as unrecoverable. Sprogers had nothing to lose by holding out, since his credit was already stopped and his debt written off in practice. By meeting his terms, the council secured an immediate horticultural supply and converted a dead entry on its books into a live transaction. The willingness to overpay on price reflected the value of moving the account from desperate to settled, rather than any judgement on the open-market worth of the goods.

The decision to cap cattle acquisitions at fifty head, taken in the same breath as the expectation that shipping was due daily, suggests the council was deliberately reserving capacity for whatever fresh livestock or provisions the next fleet might bring. Buying in too many cattle through the debt scheme would have committed pasture and supervision that the council expected to need for incoming stores. The fifty-head ceiling therefore reads as a hedge against the timing of the fleet, taking enough debt off the books to demonstrate the Declaration's success while leaving room to absorb new arrivals.

199

191

That an Agreement be made Accordingly for a [C]ertain Number of Cattle

not Exceeding fifty head as aforesaid B[u]t hone to be bought of any But

what Stand A[ll]oted to the Honour[ble] Comp[y] And because of the Dry [S]eason That

whom[s]oever the Cattle [S]hall be bought of [S]hall be obliged to [N]ourish & K[ee]pe

them on their own pasture Untill the Govern[or] [S]hall th[i]nk fitt to order

them otherwise

J[no] Roberts

Tho[s] Goodwin

Edw[d] Mashborne

W[m] Mar[s]den

Daniel Griffith

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Thursday the 4[th] day

of Novemb[er] 1708 At Fort James

Jn[o] Roberts Govern[r]

Thom[s] Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Gov[r]

Pres[en]t Edw[d] Mashborn 3 in Coun[d]

Will[i] Marsden 4 in Coun[d]

Dan[l] Griffith 5 in Coun[d]

[Y]esterday arrived the Hono[ble] United Co[m]pany Ship the Blenheim Captain

John Barnes Co[m]mander; After the C[a]p[tain] Came on Shore we Examined what his

[C]argoe was, who Answered 'twas Arrack, [C]offee Tea [&] And having Great

Ocasion for Some of these [N]ecessarys, Ordered the Said Cap[tain] to bring on

[s]hore his Bill of L[a]den, and That it be Inserted in the Same order That he

give us an Acc[t] of what State and Condition the said Ship is in

The Bill of Laden being Brought to us we[e] find the Said Ships Cargoe

Consisting of

Coffee 643 [...]

Tea 56[1?] Tubbs [s]ingle from [N]o 1 to 561 [...]

Bohea Tea 104 [Cannist]r [...] from [N]o 1 to 104 [...]

Camphire 98 Tubbs mark[t] as above from [N]o 1 to 98

Salt [P]eter 43[1?] 97 [...]

Gallingae 82[?] [...]

Cububs 86 [...] 50

Coffee 8[?] 62

Arrack 40 Leagues

Single Tea 20 Tubbs [...]

Bohea 9 Cannest[r]s [Do]

Y

This

The council resolved that an agreement was to be made accordingly for a certain number of cattle, not exceeding fifty head as set out above, but that none were to be bought except from those allotted to the Honourable Company. Because of the dry season, any person from whom the cattle were bought was to be obliged to feed and keep them on their own pasture until the Governor thought fit to order otherwise.

Signed: John Roberts, Thomas Goodwin, Edward Mashborne, William Marsden, Daniell Griffith.

Island of St Helena.

At a consultation held on Thursday 4 November 1708 at Fort James.

Present: John Roberts, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

The previous day, the Honourable United Company's ship the Blenheim, Captain John Barnes commander, had arrived. After the captain came ashore, the council questioned him about his cargo. He answered that it consisted of arrack, coffee and tea. The council, having great need of some of these necessaries, ordered the captain to bring his bill of lading ashore, and directed in the same order that he provide an account of the state and condition of the ship.

The bill of lading was brought in and the cargo was found to consist of:

Pepper, 643 peculs Tea, 561 single tubs, numbered 1 to 561 Bohea tea, 104 canisters, numbered 1 to 104 Camphire, 98 tubs marked as above, numbered 1 to 98 Saltpetre, 43 peculs 97¼ catties Galingar, 82 peculs 1 catty Cubebs, 96 peculs 50 catties Pepper, 8 peculs 62 catties Arrack, 40 leaguers Single tea, 20 tubs more Bohea, 9 canisters more

This [...]

Interpretations

The restriction that no cattle were to be bought except from holders allotted to the Honourable Company shows the council policing the boundary between Company-tied stock and private herds within the settlement of debts. Cattle on the island had distinct legal origins, some descending from Company allotments and others from purchases or breeding outside that allotment. By confining the debt-recovery purchases to the first category, the council ensured that the animals coming into Company hands carried a clean institutional title, and avoided drawing into the scheme livestock whose ownership might later be contested. The clause also prevented the Declaration from being used as a route to convert privately accumulated stock into Company credit.

The obligation on sellers to keep and feed the cattle on their own pasture until the Governor directed otherwise solved the husbandry problem flagged by the fifty-head cap. Title passed to the Company at the moment of agreement, but the burden of grazing remained with the seller through the dry season. The arrangement preserved the recovery scheme without committing the establishment to immediate pasture and supervision, and gave the Governor a free hand to call in the cattle by stages when shipping arrived, fresh forage came on or slaughter became necessary. This was a separation of ownership from possession used to manage seasonal constraint.

The council's first response to the arrival of the Blenheim was investigative rather than acquisitive. Captain Barnes was required to surface his bill of lading and to report on the state and condition of his ship before any negotiation began. By demanding the documentary record alongside an assessment of the vessel, the council secured the information it needed both to plan its purchases and to judge whether the ship itself might require further attention while in road. This shows arrival procedure on the island operating as a small system of information control, designed to prevent commanders from offering selected portions of their cargo while concealing the wider stock.

The discrepancy between Captain Barnes's verbal description of his cargo as arrack, coffee and tea and the bill of lading, which carried pepper, tea, bohea tea, camphire, saltpetre, galingar, cubebs, pepper again, arrack, more single tea and more bohea, shows why the council insisted on the documentary record before any negotiation. The verbal account omitted the largest single line in the cargo, pepper at 643 peculs, together with the spice consignments of galingar and cubebs, the camphire and the saltpetre. The bill of lading made visible a cargo dominated by Asian spices and dye-stuffs, very different from the foodstuffs and drink the captain had named. The council's procedure caught the gap between what a commander chose to mention and what his ship actually carried.

The cargo was measured in mixed East India units, with peculs and catties for the spices and saltpetre, leaguers for the arrack, and tubs and canisters with running serial numbers for the tea and camphire. The use of peculs and catties shows that the consignment had been weighed and recorded in the eastern factories before despatch and reached St Helena still expressed in those units. This indicates that the council was receiving cargo in its original commercial form, without conversion to English weights, and had to administer its purchases through a system designed for the China and Indies trade rather than for an island establishment.

Speculations

The instruction that Captain Barnes report on the state and condition of his ship, included in the same order as the demand for the bill of lading, suggests the council was already considering whether the Blenheim might be detained for refit or other service at the island. A ship arriving with a substantial Asian cargo was a potential supply opportunity, but only if her condition allowed her to be held in road for further unloading or onward use. By coupling the cargo enquiry with a condition report, the council placed itself in a position to negotiate both for goods and for the vessel's time before any commitment was made.

The captain's verbal description of his cargo as arrack, coffee and tea, when the bill of lading showed pepper as the dominant item and no coffee at all, points to a deliberate framing on Barnes's part. Naming arrack, coffee and tea presented the cargo as a parcel of consumables suited to a small island purchase, while the actual lading was a high-value spice and dye consignment bound for the London market. By understating the cargo, Barnes left himself room to offer only what he was willing to part with, and to preserve the more valuable pepper, camphire and saltpetre for sale in London at full price. The council's demand for the bill of lading converted what had been the captain's negotiating advantage into a complete record of what was on board.

The detailed serial numbering of tea tubs from 1 to 561 and bohea canisters from 1 to 104 points to the council intending to track each container against any subsequent transaction. The numbering created a documentary base against which goods drawn from the Blenheim into the store could be reconciled item by item. The level of recording suggests that the council expected to take a partial rather than total consignment, and wished to retain the means of identifying exactly what had been taken, what had been priced and what remained in the captain's hands for sale elsewhere.

200

192

This [I]sland Being in great [N]ec[e]ssity of Arrack [s]ugar, Sugar Candy, Cloth [&c]

and 'tis our opinion That the Taking the Arrack a[s]hore [h]ere will be more

for our Honourable Masters Intrest Then they Can make of it at Home

Considering the Vast Charges and Customs there, & Leakage and Risque

for that here it goes of at Nine Shillings a Gallon Arrack But for Tea

we are of another opinion that it will [...] to a better Acco[unt] in England

for the I[n]trest of our Hono[ble] Masters Then it will be here, Altho' we could

Dispose of a Ton Had we had it

The Cap[t] has Informed us That he has Disposed of four Leagues of Arrack

at the [C]ape, for the Sup[p]ly his Ship[s] with Necessarys, and do think it Requi-

site to Lett Two Leagues Remain on Board, for these [C]onsiderations,

Resolved

That an order be given the Said Cap[tain] John Barnes to deliver us for y[e]

use of the Hono[ble] United Comp[y] Thirty four Leagues of Batavia Arrack

Two Canesters of Bohea Tea and Two Tubbs of [Single], wh[i]ch was done

Accordingly

And the Govern[r] having [P]rivate orders to deliver the [C]ap[t]ains of

this years Homeward Bound Ships, thinks it very [P]roper That a Clause

of Charter [P]arty for [Co]manders to Obey orders, be Coppyed out By the

Clerk of the Councill and Delivered the Said Cap[tain] and Attested as

a true Coppy That he may [s]ee the obligation [Co]m[m]anders Lies Under

in the Conduct of their Respective Ships

J[no] Roberts

Tho[s] Goodwin

Ed[w]d Mashborne

W[m] M[a]rsden

Daniel Griffith

Island St Helena

By the Govern[r] & Coun[cill]

A Declaration

Whereas the Govern[r] & Councill Finding That [s]everall Iron Tooles, [Spar]rs

Deal Boards &c hath been Lately Stolen from their Fortif[i]c[a]tions

These are therefore to give Notice to all persons, That whomsoever can

or may hereafter Di[s]cover what person or persons whites or Blacks That

hath so Stolen & Embezled y[e] [P]erticulars afores[ai]d or any of Them, [S]hall

Upon Information and proof thereof made to the Gover[r] have as a

Reward the Sum of Twenty Shillings

Dated at Fort James this 12 day of Novemb[er] 1708

Signed p[er] order of Gover[r] and Councill

[p?]me Jn[o] Alexander

The island stood in great need of arrack, sugar, sugar candy, cloth and other goods. The council took the view that landing the arrack at St Helena would serve the Honourable Masters' interest better than carrying it home. The heavy charges, customs duties, leakage and risk attaching to its passage to England were such that, at a sale price of nine shillings per gallon on the island, the return outweighed what London could yield. On tea, the council took the opposite view. Tea would turn a better account in England for the Honourable Masters than it could on the island, even though a ton could readily be disposed of locally if it were available.

The captain reported that he had disposed of four leaguers of arrack at the Cape to supply his ship with necessaries, and the council thought it proper to leave two leaguers on board for these purposes.

The council resolved that an order was to be given to Captain John Barnes to deliver, for the use of the Honourable United Company, thirty-four leaguers of Batavia arrack, two canisters of bohea tea and two tubs of single tea. This was done accordingly.

The Governor held private orders for delivery to the captains of this year's homeward-bound ships. He thought it proper that a clause of the charter party requiring commanders to obey orders be copied out by the clerk of the council, delivered to Captain Barnes and attested as a true copy, so that he might see the obligation under which commanders stood in the conduct of their ships.

Signed: John Roberts, Thomas Goodwin, Edward Mashborne, William Marsden, Daniell Griffith.

Island of St Helena. By the Governor and Council. A Declaration.

The Governor and Council, finding that several iron tools, spars, deal boards and other items had lately been stolen from the fortifications, gave notice to all persons that anyone, whether white or black, who could discover and prove the theft and embezzlement of these items, or any of them, was to receive a reward of twenty shillings on information and proof made to the Governor.

Dated at Fort James, 12 November 1708.

Signed by order of the Governor and Council, [...] John Alexander.

Interpretations

The council's split decision on arrack and tea shows the establishment functioning as a calibrated point in the Company's wider trading network rather than as a simple consumer of imports. Arrack was retained because the cost structure of moving it to London, with customs, leakage and risk, eroded the value that landing it at St Helena preserved. Tea was sent forward because its London margin overcame the same costs and exceeded what the island could yield. The same vessel was therefore part-unloaded according to a calculation that treated each commodity separately against its destination market. This shows the council operating as an active commercial agent within the Company's accounts, deciding shipment by shipment what served the proprietors' interest in monetary terms.

The decision to leave two leaguers of arrack on board for the ship's necessaries, after the captain had already disposed of four at the Cape, reveals how the Company managed the dual identity of its vessels as both cargo carriers and self-supplying establishments. The captain's arrack served not only as merchandise but as the operational currency by which he could provision his ship at intermediate ports. By recognising the two-leaguer reserve as legitimate working stock, the council distinguished between cargo subject to Company instruction and the running supplies necessary for the voyage home, and avoided stripping the Blenheim of the means to complete her passage.

The decision to copy out and attest a clause of the charter party requiring commanders to obey orders, and to deliver it to Captain Barnes, shows the Governor reinforcing his authority through formal documentary practice. The private orders he held were of no effect unless commanders accepted the legal basis on which they were issued. Producing the relevant clause under the clerk of the council's attestation converted the Governor's verbal instructions into a recognisable extension of the obligations the captain had already accepted in London. This shows how authority on the island was constituted at the intersection of the Governor's commission, the council's record-keeping and the captain's pre-existing contract with the Company.

The Declaration of 12 November offering twenty shillings to anyone who could prove the theft of iron tools, spars and deal boards from the fortifications, with the offer extending explicitly to both white and black informants, shows the council expanding the population from whom enforcement could be drawn. Iron tools, building timber and finished spars were among the goods listed as wanting in the 27 October requisition, and their loss directly threatened the fortification programme. By opening the reward to slaves as well as free persons, the council placed the cost of the loss on the inhabitants who might know of it rather than relying on the soldiers or its own oversight, and used cash incentive to break the silence that would otherwise have protected the thieves.

Speculations

The arrack price of nine shillings a gallon on the island, set against the costs and risks of carrying the same goods to London, points to the council having worked out the calculation in advance, probably in preparation for exactly this kind of negotiation with arriving captains. The figure is given as the operative threshold rather than as the result of a fresh assessment, suggesting the council carried a running view of which goods crossed the line of relative profitability between St Helena and London at any given moment. Captains arriving with mixed cargoes were therefore meeting a settled commercial schedule, not an ad hoc decision, and the speed with which the council moved from cargo inspection on 4 November to the order for thirty-four leaguers indicates that the framework was already in place when the Blenheim came to road.

The decision to deliver the charter-party clause to Captain Barnes at this particular moment, when arrack and tea had just been negotiated and the private orders were about to be served, suggests that the council anticipated resistance from the captain to those orders. A commander confident of his authority over his own cargo and movements might have contested instructions issued at the island. By presenting an attested extract of the contract under which he sailed, the council pre-empted that resistance by reminding him in writing of the obligation he had already signed in London. The sequence of negotiation followed by documentary reminder reads as a deliberate procedural manoeuvre designed to bind the captain before the harder demands of the private orders were laid before him.

The Declaration on stolen fortification material, issued only eight days after the Blenheim's arrival and the cargo negotiation, may have been prompted by the very influx of shipping that brought her in. Visiting ships created opportunities for fortification goods to be carried off the island and sold elsewhere, since iron tools, spars and deal boards were precisely the kind of stores any vessel could quietly absorb into its own holds. Posting the reward at this point captured the period when the goods were most likely to be moving, and the inclusion of slaves among potential informants targeted the population most likely to have witnessed nocturnal removals around the works.

201

193

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tu[e]sday the

16 day of November 1708 At Fort James

Jn[o] Roberts Govern[r]

Thom[s] Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Gov[r]

Pres[en]t Edward Mashborne 3 in Con[d]

Will[m] Marsden 4 in Con[d]

Dan[l] Griffith 5 in Con[d]

Being informed that the [S]tringer Galley who Arrived here

the 14 [in]st: hath a Large Quantity of Sugar Candy on Board and we in

the Store having [N]either Sugar nor [S]ugar Candy Sufficient to Last us

one week And it Sells here Currant at Eighteen pence a pound

Wherefore Resolved

That M[r] Charles Douglas and the Rest of The [Sup]ra Cargoes of The

Stringer Galley be acquainted with this our [N]ecesity and that Applica-

tion be made to them in the [f]ollowing Mann[er] for five or Six Tuns

of Sugar Candy

M[r] Charles Douglas and

the Rest of the Su[p]ra Cargoes

of the Stringer Galley

Gentlem[en]

Wee thought it the [P]roperest Method to Apply our

Selves to you being our Hono[red] Masters [I]mmediate Servants and have

bought and Laded a [C]argoe in the Stringer Galley for their Acco[unt] To

tell You our wants Is That is Sugar or [S]ugar Candy We Desire You'l give

Cap[t]: Cyke an order to Sup[p]ly us w[i]th[o]ut Five or Six Tons of [S]uga[r] Candy

if you can come at it, for the [P]roper Use and Service of the Honou[r]ble

United [Com]p[an]y [I]sland here

We have ordered M[r] Alexander Clark to the Councell to give a Coppy of

our Reasons for making this demand Debated in [C]on[sul]tation [...]

day Wee are

Gentlem[en]

Your affectionate Friends

Jn[o] Roberts

Tho[s] Goodwin

Ed[w] Mashborne

Will Marsden

Dan[l] Griffith

Island of St Helena.

At a consultation held on Tuesday 16 November 1708 at Fort James.

Present: John Roberts, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

The council was informed that the Stringer Galley, which had arrived on 14 November, carried a large quantity of sugar candy on board. The store held neither sugar nor sugar candy sufficient for more than a week, and sugar candy was passing currently on the island at eighteen pence per pound.

The council resolved that Mr Charles Douglas and the other supercargoes of the Stringer Galley were to be made aware of the council's necessity, and that an application was to be made to them in the following terms for five or six tons of sugar candy.

To Mr Charles Douglas and the other supercargoes of the Stringer Galley.

Gentlemen,

It seemed the proper course to apply to you as the Honoured Masters' immediate servants, having bought and laded a cargo in the Stringer Galley on their account. The want at the island was sugar or sugar candy. The council requested that the supercargoes give Captain Cyke an order to supply five or six tons of sugar candy, if it could be reached, for the proper use and service of the Honourable United Company's island.

Mr Alexander, clerk of the council, had been directed to provide a copy of the reasons for making this demand, as debated in consultation [...] day.

The council remained the supercargoes' affectionate friends.

Signed: John Roberts, Thomas Goodwin, Edward Mashborne, William Marsden, Daniell Griffith.

Interpretations

The council's approach to the Stringer Galley took a different shape from its handling of the Blenheim twelve days earlier. Where Captain Barnes had been summoned and required to surface his bill of lading, the supercargoes of the Stringer Galley were addressed by letter and asked to authorise the captain to deliver the goods. The distinction mattered. A captain commanded the ship, but supercargoes held responsibility for the cargo on the proprietors' behalf, and instructions to release commodities ran through them rather than through him. The letter therefore aligned the council's request with the actual chain of authority over the Stringer Galley's lading, treating Douglas and his colleagues as the Honoured Masters' immediate servants rather than as visiting traders.

The use of the polite epistolary form, opening "Gentlemen" and closing "Your affectionate Friends", shows the council adopting a different register for supercargoes than for ships' captains. The Stringer Galley's cargo had been bought and laded on the Company's account, which placed Douglas within the same institutional family as the council itself. A peremptory order suited to a master receiving private instructions would have been out of place; a request between fellow servants of the proprietors was the correct form. The choice of register thereby reflected the legal and commercial position of the addressees, not merely social courtesy.

The price of eighteen pence per pound for sugar candy passing currently on the island, set against the council's request for five or six tons, indicates how exposed the storehouse was to a single visiting consignment. A sustained price of eighteen pence per pound, against a recent store rate of eighteen pence per pound recorded in the 27 October schedule, shows that the council's tariff had been calibrated to the market rather than the market following the tariff. With the store's own stock down to less than a week's supply, the council was negotiating not from a position of pricing strength but from one of operational necessity. The size of the request, five or six tons, was framed to secure several months of cover at one stroke and forestall the need for a second approach.

The instruction that Mr Alexander, clerk of the council, supply a copy of the reasons for the demand as debated in consultation, shows how the council backed its requests with documentary evidence. A letter alone might have been read as a personal appeal; an accompanying minute or attested extract converted the request into a formal record. The supercargoes were thereby placed in the position of replying to a properly recorded request from the island government, with their own response becoming part of the documentary trail. This shows the clerk's office functioning as the council's instrument for projecting its authority outward to visiting Company servants.

Speculations

The decision to apply to the supercargoes by letter rather than to summon them to the consultation, as the council had done with Captain Barnes, suggests a calculation that a written approach would yield a fuller delivery than a face-to-face demand. Supercargoes were experienced commercial agents accustomed to weighing the proprietors' interest, and a written request gave them a document to which they could respond on the same terms. A summons might have provoked the kind of partial disclosure Captain Barnes had attempted with his arrack, coffee and tea. A letter framed as one Company servant addressing another invited a cooperative reply on the record, and made any refusal harder to defend if it became known in London.

The council's request for five or six tons of sugar candy, set against a store stock that would last less than a week and a current price of eighteen pence per pound, points to an intention to capture enough of the Stringer Galley's consignment to make further negotiation with any subsequent ship unnecessary. The figure represented several months of supply at the existing rate of consumption, and was set high enough to convert the temporary scarcity into a sustained reserve. By asking at the upper end of what the supercargoes might be willing to release, the council positioned itself for a compromise outcome that would still leave the store amply provided, and avoided the need to return as supplicant when the next vessel came to road.

202

194

Ordered

That a Coppy of this Consultation and Resolution do attend this

Letter to the Gentlemen aforesaid and that M[r] Alexander Clark of

the Councill do attest the Same

Island St Helena

By the Gov[er]n[r] & Councill

A Declaration

Whereas it hath been to[o] frequently, and often [P]ractic[e]d By Severall

[S]oldiers &c [in] the Honou[rd] United Com[p]a[ny] Service To Run into [s]ovrall

[Ye]ar[s] Debts &[c?] dies as they often say, when part of it is only for Strong

Liquor[s], So By that means they have Run themselves So farr into

the said Comp[y] Debts Books of Acco[un]t[s] being [n]ot able to Maintain[e]

themselves with Necessarys, besides those being [N]ot able to pay

their old Arrears To prevent which for the [F]uture

It is ordered

That no [P]erson or [P]ersons whatsoever Inhabiting on the [I]sland

do Cred[i]tt and Trust any Soldier &c as afor[e]said [N]o further then it

shall be [s]pec[i]fied in a Note from Under the Hand of [Cap]t Goodwin

Deputy Gov[er]nour, And those that shall p[r]esume to do Contrary to

this order Runs Upon their own [P]erque[r] & Damage

Dated at Fort James this 18[th]

Day of November 1708

Signed [p]er order of [Gover]n[r] & Coun[cill]

Jn[o] Alexander [C]l[er]k

J[no] Roberts

Tho[s] Goodwin

Edw[d] Mashborn[e]

W[m] Mar[s]den

Daniel Griffith

The council ordered that a copy of this consultation and resolution be sent with the letter to the gentlemen named above, and that Mr Alexander, clerk of the council, attest the copy.

Island of St Helena. By the Governor and Council. A Declaration.

Several soldiers and others in the Honoured United Company's service had too frequently run themselves into debt over the course of several years, often pleading need when in fact much of what they bought was strong liquor. By these means they had carried their accounts on the Company's books to the point where they could no longer maintain themselves in necessaries and stood unable to pay their existing arrears.

To prevent further occurrences of this kind, the council ordered that no person whatsoever living on the island was to give credit to any soldier or other Company servant beyond what was specified in a note signed by Deputy Governor Captain Goodwin. Any person acting contrary to this order did so at their own risk and loss.

Dated at Fort James, 18 November 1708.

Signed by order of the Governor and Council, John Alexander, clerk.

John Roberts, Thomas Goodwin, Edward Mashborne, William Marsden, Daniell Griffith.

Interpretations

The Declaration shifted the burden of soldier credit control from the storehouse to the wider population of the island. Previous measures had operated through the Company's own books, with credit suspended internally when an account grew too large. The new order extended the discipline outward by forbidding any inhabitant to give private credit to a soldier or Company servant without written authorisation from the Deputy Governor. The mechanism converted every planter, shopkeeper and householder into an enforcement point for the council's wage and supply policy, and made the documentary note signed by Captain Goodwin the only valid basis for extending trust to a man in uniform.

The placing of the licensing authority in the Deputy Governor's hands rather than the Governor's reflected the working division of administrative responsibility within the council. The Governor held the higher executive offices and the formal negotiation with visiting commanders, while routine signing of credit notes for individual soldiers fell to the Deputy Governor as part of the day-to-day management of the garrison. By naming Captain Goodwin specifically, the order located the licensing function in the office best placed to know the soldiers' circumstances, and avoided routing every small credit decision through the Governor himself.

The clause that anyone acting contrary to the order ran upon their own risk and damage shifted the legal position of inhabitants extending unauthorised credit. Before the Declaration, a planter who sold goods on trust to a soldier could expect, in principle, to recover the debt through the ordinary courts. After it, the same planter had no claim against the soldier or the Company if the credit had been given without the Deputy Governor's note. The order therefore did not need to penalise the lender directly; it simply withdrew the protection of the law from any credit given outside its terms, and left the inhabitants to police their own behaviour through self-interest.

The reference to soldiers running into debt over several years, with much of the spending going on strong liquor while the men pleaded need for necessaries, shows the council identifying a pattern of consumption that had outpaced the soldiers' pay. The same Declaration earlier in November had announced sugar candy at eighteen pence per pound and arrack at the store. Soldiers on a fixed wage with access to inhabitant traders selling liquor on credit could accumulate debts that neither the storehouse nor private creditors could recover. The order addressed this not by raising pay or restricting sale, but by closing the credit channel through which the consumption was financed.

Speculations

The decision to require a note from the Deputy Governor rather than to fix a maximum credit ceiling, as the council had done for plantation holders at seventy pounds, points to a calculation that soldiers' circumstances varied too widely for any single figure. A man with no dependants and steady habits could safely be trusted further than another in straitened circumstances, and a written note allowed Captain Goodwin to assess each case as it arose. The choice of a discretionary licensing scheme rather than a flat cap suggests that the council was prepared to accept the administrative cost of case-by-case approval in exchange for the precision it gave over individual soldiers' exposure.

The choice to issue the order as a Declaration to be made public, rather than as a private instruction to known creditors, suggests that the council did not know in advance who on the island was extending credit to soldiers. The same anonymity that protected small traders from oversight also concealed the network of debt feeding the soldiers' consumption. By posting the order publicly and putting all inhabitants on notice that unauthorised credit was unrecoverable, the council reached creditors it could not identify and shut off the channel without having to discover who had been operating it.

203

195

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday the

23 day of Novemb[er] 1708 At Fort James

Pres[en]t Jn[o] Roberts Govern[r]

Thom[s] Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Gov[r]

Ed[w] Mashborne 3 in Coun[d]

Will[m] Marsden 4[th] in Coun[d]

Dan[l] Griffith 5[th] in Coun[d]

This day the Govern[r] and Councell Mett to review and Consider the

[S]everall [P]aragraphs in the Hono[ble] United Comp[y] Gen[er]all Letter to th[i]s [P]lace

[D]ated the 2[d?] of Aprill Last, and to answer thereto [P]arragraph by [P]arragraph

which was Accordingly done and Read in Councell

It is ordered

That the said Gener[al] Letter to be Sent the Hono[ble] United Comp[y] [...] [Ships]

now in the [R]oad be I[m]proved and all other busin[e]ss got ready against

they [s]aile

Having read the [P]etition of Richard Swallow [Sn]r [P]lanter wherein

he desires Five Acres of the Hono[ble] United Comp[ny]s W[a]ste Land Lying in

Deep Valley, But this peice of Land being already [P]romised & Granted to

Thomas Ellis [Jun]r at his Earnest request, [Repr]e[s]enting that I[f] L[e]tt to any

to any other [P]erson would be very D[e]trimentall to him Having Land

Adjoyning thereto, Wherefore

Ordered

That the said Richard Swallows [P]etition be rejected, And the said

Ellis have the Five Acres of Land aforesaid Acc[o]rding to his request

The said Rich[d] Swallow further desired That we would be pleased to

grant him a peice of ground in Fort James Valley to build a house

[U]pon Next adjoyning to Cap[t] Mashbornes in Leiue of Thirty Foot Next

to W[m] Coulsons ground on y[e] [b]ackside her house Ordered

Island of St Helena.

At a consultation held on Tuesday 23 November 1708 at Fort James.

Present: John Roberts, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

That day the Governor and Council met to review and consider the several paragraphs of the Honourable United Company's general letter to the island, dated 2 April last, and to answer it paragraph by paragraph. The work was carried out and the answers read in council.

The council ordered that the general letter to be sent to the Honourable United Company by the ships [...] now in the road was to be completed, and that all other business was to be made ready against their sailing.

Richard Swallow senior, planter, had petitioned for five acres of the Honourable United Company's waste land lying in Deep Valley. That parcel had already been promised and granted to Thomas Ellis junior at his earnest request. Ellis had represented that letting the same ground to any other person would be very harmful to him, since he held land adjoining it.

The council ordered that Swallow's petition be rejected and that Ellis have the five acres according to his request.

Swallow further requested a piece of ground in Fort James Valley on which to build a house, next to Captain Mashborne's, in exchange for thirty feet next to William Coulson's ground on the back side of her house. Ordered [...]

Interpretations

The paragraph-by-paragraph response to the general letter of 2 April shows how the council managed its correspondence with the proprietors as a structured documentary exercise rather than a free composition. Each clause of the letter from London generated its own answer, with the council working through the proprietors' instructions in their original order. This method gave the proprietors a single reference document in which every point they had raised could be tracked to a corresponding reply. It also limited the council's freedom to evade unwelcome instructions, since silence on any paragraph would now be visible as omission rather than oversight. The procedure formalised the reply as a piece of administrative accounting in which the island reported back item by item against the orders it had received.

The decision to reject Swallow's petition on the ground that the land had been promised to Ellis, who held adjoining land, reveals how the council weighed competing claims to waste land by reference to the existing layout of holdings. Adjoining tenure conferred a practical preference, since fragmenting a parcel between unrelated holders would have created boundary problems and reduced the working value of both portions. The council's reasoning placed the integrity of the land system above the order in which petitions were received, and treated the existing pattern of holdings as a settled framework that new grants should consolidate rather than disrupt.

The construction of the timing, with the council taking up Swallow's petition in the same sitting at which it reviewed the proprietors' general letter, shows how routine business and high-level correspondence were transacted side by side. The same consultation that prepared a paragraph-by-paragraph answer to London also disposed of a domestic land dispute between two planters. The two items moved through the same procedural channel, with the same five councillors, the same clerk's record and the same evidentiary standard. This shows the council operating as a single instrument of government across registers, from imperial correspondence to the allotment of a few acres in Deep Valley.

The exchange proposed in Swallow's second request, asking for a building plot in Fort James Valley next to Captain Mashborne's in return for thirty feet next to William Coulson's ground on the back side of her house, points to how individual planters negotiated improvements to their holdings through swaps with the Company rather than purchases. Land in Fort James Valley near a councillor's premises carried greater convenience and probably greater value than scattered footage elsewhere, and Swallow was offering a smaller and less prominent parcel to obtain it. The mechanism resembled an exchange in kind, with the council acting as arbiter of whether the trade served the proprietors' interest. The reference to "her house" indicates that the land adjoining Coulson's belonged to a female owner whose name the manuscript does not give at this point.

Speculations

The decision to take up Swallow's land petitions in the same consultation at which the answer to the proprietors was finalised suggests that the council was clearing routine business in advance of the homeward-bound ships' departure. With vessels in the road and the general letter being completed, all outstanding domestic matters that might otherwise carry forward to a later sitting were being disposed of before attention shifted to the despatches. Petitions that might have waited for another consultation in less busy periods were brought to decision at this one, indicating that the proximity of departing shipping shaped the council's working agenda as much as the substance of any individual case.

The refusal of Swallow's first petition on the strength of Ellis's earlier and adjoining claim, immediately followed by Swallow's second request for an entirely different parcel in Fort James Valley, points to a pattern in which a rejected applicant moved at once to a fallback proposal. Swallow appears to have come to the consultation prepared with more than one option, and to have read the first refusal as a signal to advance the second request rather than to retire from the council. This indicates that experienced planters approached the council with layered petitions designed to maximise the chance that at least one would be granted, treating each consultation as a single opportunity in which several possible outcomes could be pursued in sequence.

204

196

Ordered

That Cap[t] Edward Mashborne and the Said Swallow agree

together about the Ground as they Shall think fitt, and that

he have leave to Run back as farr as the Water Cou[rs]e But not

to hinder Cap[t] Mashborne from the Benefitt of the Light, Nor

to Stop up any [p]assages that may be [P]rejudiciall to the [P]ublick, or

Next neighbour[s] And as for the Charge he has been at about the

first ground, That it be at his owne Cost and no Allowance at all

[to be] made him

J[no] Roberts

Tho Goodwin

[Edw]: Mash[born]e

W[m] Mar[s]den

Dan[l] Griffith

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tu[e]sday the 7[th]

day of Decemb[er] 1708 At Fort James

Jn[o] Roberts Govern[r]

Thom[s] Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Gov[r]

Pres[en]t Ed[w]: Mashborne 3 in Coun[d]

Will Marsden 4 in Coun[d]

Dan[l] Griffith 5 in Coun[d]

The Governour Considering that the House in the Fort is

[R]uinous, Decay[e]d and ready to Drop Downe and now he is Building

the New Fort he thinks it [P]roper to build a new House thereof,

and the Charge will be the less because the I[n]ner [P]art of the [R]am-

pa[r]t will [S]erve for the back [P]art of the House

It is ordered

That the old house be out of hand [pu]l[le]d Downe and a new house

Built According to the Govern[ors] [s]cheme and Directions And in

the mean time the Govern[r] and his [S]ervants to take a House

and Lodgings where he Shall think Most Convenient

Robert Marsh free planter having made Application to Captaine

Mashborne for H[av]ing one Acre of Land of the Hono[ble] Companys

with

The council ordered that Captain Edward Mashborne and Swallow were to agree between themselves on the ground, as they thought fit. Swallow was given leave to extend back as far as the water course, but not so as to hinder Captain Mashborne from the benefit of his light, nor to block any passages that would be harmful to the public or to neighbouring properties. As for the expense Swallow had already incurred on the first parcel, it was to be borne by him alone, and no allowance was to be made for it.

Signed: John Roberts, Thomas Goodwin, Edward Mashborne, William Marsden, Daniell Griffith.

Island of St Helena.

At a consultation held on Tuesday 7 December 1708 at Fort James.

Present: John Roberts, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

The Governor observed that the house within the fort was ruinous, decayed and on the point of collapse. With the new fort now under construction, he thought it proper to build a new house in its place. The cost would be reduced because the inner part of the rampart was to serve as the back wall of the house.

The council ordered that the old house was to be pulled down at once and a new one built according to the Governor's plan and directions. While the work was in hand, the Governor and his servants were to take a house and lodgings wherever he thought most convenient.

Robert Marsh, free planter, had applied to Captain Mashborne for one acre of the Honourable Company's land with [...]

Interpretations

The settlement of Swallow's building plot worked through three distinct constraints layered onto a single grant. He could extend his ground to the water course, which set the physical limit of the parcel. He could not block Captain Mashborne's light, which protected the existing tenure of an adjoining councillor. He could not obstruct passages serving the public or his neighbours, which preserved the wider street pattern in Fort James Valley. The council was therefore granting use rights in a developed quarter under conditions that subordinated the new plot to existing easements, treating the building of any house in a populated area as a matter of regulating relations between neighbours rather than disposing of empty land.

The refusal to allow Swallow any compensation for the expense he had incurred on the first parcel shows the council holding planters strictly responsible for the costs of their own speculative preparation. Swallow had presumably begun some preliminary work or laid out money on the Deep Valley grant before learning that it had already been promised to Ellis. By refusing any allowance, the council declined to insure planters against the risk that a petitioned grant might be withheld, and placed the cost of premature investment squarely on the applicant. This indicates that the council treated petitions as requests that conferred no expectation until formally granted, and that any work undertaken in anticipation of approval ran at the petitioner's own hazard.

The Governor's decision to demolish and rebuild the house within the fort, with the inner rampart serving as the back wall, shows the new construction programme being used to consolidate previously separate elements of the establishment. The old house was failing on its own account, but the timing was set by the wider fortification work already in train. By integrating the new dwelling into the rampart, the Governor turned what would have been an isolated repair into a structural part of the defensive scheme, and reduced the cost by using a wall that the Company was building in any case. The decision also placed the Governor's residence physically within the new fort, anchoring the executive office to the strongest point of the works.

The instruction that the Governor and his servants were to take a house and lodgings wherever he thought most convenient during construction shows the Governor exercising open-ended authority over the requisition of private accommodation. No specific dwelling was named, no rent fixed, and no consultation with any householder mentioned. The Governor's choice was to be made by his own judgement of convenience, with the inhabitants whose houses were taken expected to accept the arrangement. This indicates the latitude that the office held over the island's housing stock in the absence of fixed garrison accommodation outside the fort itself.

Speculations

The decision to leave the boundary of Swallow's plot to private agreement with Captain Mashborne, subject only to the council's three constraints, suggests that the council preferred neighbour-to-neighbour negotiation over its own measurement of footage. Mashborne, sitting as third in council, was both an interested party and a member of the body issuing the instruction. Allowing him to settle the line with Swallow directly placed the practical decision in the hands of the man whose interest was most at stake, while preserving the council's authority through the published conditions. The mechanism saved the council from having to inspect the ground itself and gave Mashborne the means to protect his own holding through the negotiation rather than through any further appeal.

The Governor's reasoning that the new house would cost less because the rampart would serve as its back wall points to a deliberate integration of personal and public works for financial advantage. The rampart was being built in any case as part of the fortification programme, and a house using it as a wall transferred part of the construction cost from the Governor's household account to the fortification budget. The decision was presented as a saving but functioned as a quiet allocation of expense from one head to another. By framing the rebuild as a use of existing structure, the Governor secured a residence partly underwritten by the fortification works without any explicit application for additional funds.

205

197

with the [Y]ams and [P]rovisions therein, being [P]art of the Land

formerly Let to Caul Geaton and Specified in his Leese of the[e]

Lemon Garden and Lying near the Cur[s]ley beds, for the [F]erme

of three years, and which Cap[tain] Mashborne Reported to the Gov[ernor]

he had Agreed to Upon the [F]erms following viz[t]: That the Said

Robert Marsh do take the Same for the [F]erme of three years,

[P]aying Yearly And Every year Unto the Hono[ble]: Company three [P]ounds

Currant money of the [I]sland and also leave the Same at y[e] Expira-

tion of the Said [F]erme well Fenced, and well [p]lanted with [Y]ams

of one years growth, and Standing

Ordered

That the said Bargaine [s]tand, and be Confirmed and [P]o[s]ession

Delivered unto the Said Robert Marsh of the [p]rem[i]ses And for his

further Encou[r]agem[t] he have Liberty to take in one Acre More Next

thereunto Adjoyning if he think fitt, there being no more of [s]o much

Caspable of [I]m[p]rovement it being a [R]ockey and barren place for the[e]

terme aforesaid and Leaving the Same well Fenced & planted as afor[esaid]

J[no] Roberts

Tho Goodwin

Edw[d] Mashborne

W[m] Mar[s]den

Daniel Griffith

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tu[e]sday the 14[th]

day of Decemb[er] 1708 At Fort James

Jn[o] Roberts Govern[r]

Thom[s] Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Gov[r]

Pres[en]t Ed[w]: Mashborne 3 in [Coun]d

Will[m]: Marsden 4 in Con[d]

Dan[l]: Griffith 5[th] in Con[d]

Having taken two Canisters of Tea out of the Hono[ble] Companys

Ship Blenheim, and Considering the [s]carsity of it here, and beleiving

two Dollars per pound will be a good Medium Price

It is ordered

That the Bohea and Green Tea go Equall and be sold at two dollars

a pound

Robert Marsh's application was for one acre of the Honourable Company's land, together with the yams and provisions standing on it. The parcel formed part of the land formerly let to Paul Graton and specified in his lease of the Lemon Garden, lying near the Curlsey beds. Marsh sought it for a term of three years. Captain Mashborne reported to the Governor that he had agreed with Marsh on the following terms. Marsh was to take the parcel for the term of three years, paying yearly to the Honourable Company three pounds in current money of the island, and at the end of the term was to leave the parcel well fenced and well planted with yams of one year's growth and still standing.

The council ordered that the bargain was to stand and be confirmed, and that Robert Marsh was to be given possession of the premises. As further encouragement, Marsh was given liberty to take in one further acre adjoining, if he thought fit, since no more land of equivalent capacity for improvement was available, the surrounding ground being rocky and barren. The additional acre was to be held on the same terms and surrendered well fenced and planted as set out above.

Signed: John Roberts, Thomas Goodwin, Edward Mashborne, William Marsden, Daniell Griffith.

Island of St Helena.

At a consultation held on Tuesday 14 December 1708 at Fort James.

Present: John Roberts, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

The council had taken two canisters of tea out of the Honourable Company's ship the Blenheim. Considering the scarcity of tea on the island, the council believed that two dollars per pound was a fair median price.

The council ordered that the bohea and green tea were to be sold at the same rate, two dollars per pound.

Interpretations

The terms of Marsh's lease show how the council combined immediate rental income with longer-term agricultural conservation in a single instrument. The three pounds of current island money payable each year produced a small annual return for the Company. The condition requiring Marsh to leave the parcel well fenced and planted with yams of one year's growth at the end of the term protected the productive value of the ground beyond the tenancy, and ensured that the land returned to the Company in better condition than it had been received. The lease therefore operated as both a revenue contract and a soil-improvement scheme, with the planter's labour over the three years effectively building the parcel up for the Company's next use of it.

The reference to the parcel as part of the land formerly let to Paul Graton on his Lemon Garden lease links Marsh's tenancy to the termination of Graton's holding recorded earlier in the autumn. Land that had been forfeited or surrendered by one planter was being re-let to another within months, with the council overseeing a continuous turnover of holdings rather than letting forfeited ground revert permanently. This shows the council managing the island's leased land as an active estate, in which expiry, termination and re-letting were routine elements of administration.

The offer of an additional adjoining acre on the same terms, justified by the rocky and barren character of the surrounding ground, reveals how the council adjusted lease incentives to the quality of the available land. Where useful ground was scarce, the council bundled improvable parcels together to make a single tenancy commercially viable. A planter taking only one acre on poor soil might find the rent and fencing obligations burdensome relative to the return; the option of a second acre allowed Marsh to spread fixed costs over a larger working area. The clause functioned as an incentive structure tailored to the marginal quality of the surrounding land rather than a uniform allotment policy.

The decision to price bohea and green tea at the same rate of two dollars per pound, rather than distinguishing between them as the trade ordinarily did, shows the council prioritising administrative simplicity over commercial accuracy. Bohea was the cheaper black tea and green tea the more expensive variety; merging them under a single price meant the council overpriced bohea relative to its London cost and underpriced green tea relative to its scarcity value. The motive lay in the small quantity available, only two canisters from the Blenheim, and the need to set a working tariff at the storehouse door without elaborate sub-tariffs for a consignment that might be exhausted within weeks. The two-dollar median was an averaging device rather than a market price.

Speculations

The condition that Marsh leave the parcel well planted with yams of one year's growth and standing at the end of the term suggests the council was using the lease to maintain the seed-stock and propagation base for the island's main staple. Yams of one year's growth would be ready for harvest by the next tenant or for transplanting elsewhere, and the requirement effectively conscripted Marsh into the council's wider yam-supply system. Read alongside the 2 November transaction in which Mr Sprogers's yams and suckers were taken for the new plantation at Plantation House, the clause shows the council using lease conditions across multiple holdings to keep yam material flowing into its own horticultural projects.

The decision to price tea in dollars rather than in sterling, at a moment when the council had just defended the dollar against revaluation, points to a deliberate alignment of the new tariff with the currency it was determined to preserve. Quoting the price as two dollars per pound rather than twelve shillings worked the dollar into routine retail transactions at the storehouse, embedding its six-shilling rating in daily commerce. Each pound of tea sold reinforced the dollar's working role in the island's accounts, and made the council's position on the currency a matter of habitual practice rather than declared policy alone.

206

198

Whereas Robert Bell free [P]lanter [P]resented his Petition humbly

[P]raying that he might have Leave to Hier Some of y[e] Hono[ble] Comp[a]nys

[w]aested Land Lying [A]djacent to him, and to renew a [L]eafe formerly

Granted to [G]eo[r]ge B[r]idges in y[e] Said Bells owne Name Upon

which it was ordered

That [s]ome of the Councill should go and View the said Land

to See How it Lyes, and Report y[e] Same to the [Govern]r Which hav-

ing been done Accordingly by Cap[t] Goodwin and Cap[t]: Mashborne

It is ordered

That the Said Land be Surveyed and that the Said Bell have a

Leafe renewed for y[e] Same, for the Terme of [s]ixty one years in his

own Name [P]aying as afore[said] the Sume of

Dorothy Hayes wid[ow] [P]resented her [P]etition to [Govern]r & Councell

Setting forth That her Son John Haye L[a]te Montros[s] in the Bay and

[s]ervice of the Honourable United Comp[y] hav[i]ng Some [S]allary due

to him in the Store Books, desires it may be paid to her being in

Great wants of Necesarys out of the Stores, and [s]o poor that She is [N]ot

in a Cidity to get any

The [P]etitioner is answered That since her Son John Hayes did in a

Clande[s]tine way Run off the [I]sland when he was denyed at his request,

[F]ear[e]d that there may be no ill p[r]ecedent used for the future which may

[P]erhaps Encourage Some to Connive and Use Such Ar[t]s and Means to gett[?]

[S]ome p[er]sons off the [I]sland in that Clande[s]tine Manner

Ordered

That what Credit[t] the said John Hayes had due to him at y[e] [T]ime

of his Runing away, be Carried to the Companys Acco[unt] Curent

Henry Francis free planter [p]rays h[e] may have Liberty to Hier a

[s]mall [P]arcell of the Hono[ble] Comp[ys] Waste Land Lying very Convenient

for him and Next adjoyning to his own Land which desires may be

[m]easured to him having not his full Co[m]plement of Acres

Ordered

That the Surveyor have a Warrant given him for [s]urveying the said

Land and if any Lyft the [R]emainder to be granted the said Francis

it being of Little or no use to y[e] Hono[ble]: Company

Complaint having been Made formaly against John Mudge for

Stoping up a drift way Leading to y[e] Common for William Seale

and

Robert Bell, free planter, presented his petition praying for leave to hire some of the Honourable Company's waste land lying adjacent to him, and to renew a lease formerly granted to George Bridges in his own name. The council ordered that some of its members were to view the land and report on its condition to the Governor. Captain Goodwin and Captain Mashborne carried out the survey.

The council ordered that the land be surveyed and that Bell have the lease renewed in his own name, for a term of sixty-one years, paying as before the sum of [...].

Dorothy Hayes, widow, presented her petition to the Governor and Council. Her son, John Hayes, late montross in the bay and service of the Honourable United Company, had a sum of salary standing to his credit on the store books. She prayed that it might be paid to her, as she stood in great need of necessaries from the stores and was too poor to obtain any.

The petitioner was answered that, since her son John Hayes had clandestinely run off the island when his request to leave had been refused, the council feared the precedent that paying the balance might set. Such a payment could encourage others to connive at, or to use similar arts and means to procure, the clandestine removal of persons from the island.

The council ordered that whatever credit John Hayes held at the time of his running away be carried to the Company's account current.

Henry Francis, free planter, prayed for liberty to hire a small parcel of the Honourable Company's waste land lying very conveniently for him, next adjoining his own ground. He desired that it be measured to him, as he had not received his full complement of acres.

The council ordered that the surveyor be given a warrant to survey the land. If any portion remained after Francis's complement was satisfied, that remainder was to be granted to him as well, the ground being of little or no use to the Honourable Company.

Complaint had previously been made against John Mudge for stopping up a drift way leading to the common, used by William Seale and [...]

Interpretations

The arrangement for Bell's lease, with a sixty-one-year term and an antecedent grant to George Bridges being renewed in Bell's name, shows how long-form tenancies on the island operated as transferable instruments rather than fresh allocations. The original lease to Bridges had vested rights in the land that the council was prepared to recognise and continue under a new name, on inspection and survey. The very long term, more than three times the typical planter's working life, anchored the holding firmly to the land rather than to the person, and made the lease a vehicle by which improvement could be sustained across generations or successions of holders.

The dispatch of Captain Goodwin and Captain Mashborne to view the land before any lease was renewed shows how the council used the personal inspection of senior members as a routine evidentiary step in land business. The two councillors did not survey the parcel in any technical sense, since the surveyor was instructed separately to do that work; their task was to report on how the land lay. This indicates a two-stage verification process, with informed observation by councillors preceding formal measurement, and with neither stage by itself sufficient to confirm the grant.

The refusal of Dorothy Hayes's petition shows the council using forfeiture of accumulated wages as the financial sanction against clandestine departure from the island. John Hayes had run off after being refused permission to leave. Paying his arrears to his mother would have made his flight financially neutral, since the value of his service would still have reached his family. By transferring the balance to the Company's account current, the council ensured that the wage left behind operated as a real penalty, recovered to the Company rather than the household. The reasoning that any other course might encourage others to connive at clandestine removals shows the council treating individual cases as precedents that shaped the wider control of population movement off the island.

The grant to Henry Francis with a residual clause shows the council clearing surplus waste land of poor quality through cumulative grants. Francis was already short of his full complement of acres, so the grant addressed an existing entitlement. The further provision that any remainder after his complement was satisfied should also be granted to him reveals how the council disposed of ground that the Company could not use. Where land was of little or no value to the proprietors, the council preferred to settle it on a planter willing to bring it under cultivation rather than retain it as unproductive reserve. The mechanism converted dead waste into rentable holding at no direct cost to the Company beyond surveying.

The mention of the proceedings against John Mudge for blocking a drift way to the common, recalled as a matter of formal complaint, shows the council treating customary rights of way as enforceable against private landowners. A drift way leading to the common was the route by which a planter moved livestock to shared pasture, and blocking it would have cut off the use of common rights for the planters it served. By revisiting Mudge's earlier offence, the council was returning to a settled body of customary practice in which physical interference with established passages was a recognisable wrong, separate from any question of underlying title.

Speculations

The careful framing of the refusal of Dorothy Hayes's petition, with its explicit reasoning about precedent and connivance, suggests that the council saw the clandestine removal of Company servants as a developing problem requiring formal articulation of the deterrent. A simple refusal to pay would have sufficed for the immediate case, but the council chose to record reasoning that addressed wider patterns of behaviour. The decision reads less as the disposal of one widow's claim and more as the establishment of a stated principle for future cases, with Dorothy Hayes serving as the occasion rather than the subject of the substantive ruling.

The decision to grant Francis any residual ground beyond his complement, without requiring a further petition or separate consideration, suggests that the council was prepared to clear small awkward parcels in a single transaction rather than retain them as administrative encumbrances. Ground of little or no use to the Company carried the costs of survey, recording and oversight without yielding any return. By bundling the residue into Francis's grant, the council closed the file on the entire parcel at one stroke, and avoided the prospect that the leftover ground would generate future petitions or boundary disputes among neighbouring holders.

207

199

and the Widdow Curling, It being Apperent that the Said Mudge

was in the wrong by [s]toping up of the Drift way

It is ordered

That the widdow Mudge remove her Wall Ten foot backwards to-

wards her owne Ground To make the way more Co[m]m[od]ious and pasable

Jn[o] Roberts

Tho Goodwin

Edw[d] Mashborne

W[m] Marsden

Dan[l] Griffith

Island St Helena

At a consultation Held on Tu[e]sday the 11[th]:

day of January 170[8/9?] At Fort James

Jn[o] Roberts Gov[r]

Thom[s] Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Gov[r]

Pres[en]t Edw[d] Mashborne 3 in Coun[d]

Will[m]: Marsden 4 in Coun[d]

Dan[l]: Griffith 5 in Coun[d]

Richard Alexander free planter came to the [Gover]n[r] and Desired

a Le[a]se for some hired Land he ha[s] had a grant for [s]ome time [s]ince

and to have the Same measured, And to have one Acre More Lying

now Common Ordered

That a warrant be I[s]sued out Accordingly for Measuring the Same

to him

The Govern[r] and Councell Considering that the Laws, orders and

o[r]dinances of this [I]sland Lye So Intrieak and Irregular and the[e]

Old Books By time and age, much Injured & Damaged, That it is

Difficult to find any thing out, or make any [t]hing of them

It is ordered

That

It was apparent that Mudge had been in the wrong in stopping up the drift way used by William Seale and the widow Curling. The council ordered that the widow Mudge was to move her wall ten feet back towards her own ground, to make the way more commodious and passable.

Signed: John Roberts, Thomas Goodwin, Edward Mashborne, William Marsden, Daniell Griffith.

Island of St Helena.

At a consultation held on Tuesday 11 January 1709 at Fort James.

Present: John Roberts, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

Richard Alexander, free planter, came to the Governor and requested a lease for some hired land he had received under a grant some time before, and asked that the land be measured. He also asked for one further acre now lying common.

The council ordered that a warrant was to be issued accordingly for measuring the land to him.

The Governor and Council considered that the laws, orders and ordinances of the island lay so intricate and irregular, and that the old books were so much injured and damaged by time and age, that it was difficult to find anything in them or to make any sense of them.

The council ordered that [...]

Interpretations

The Mudge ruling shows how the council enforced rights of way by ordering specific physical works rather than awarding damages. The remedy required the widow Mudge to set her wall back by ten feet, restoring the passage to a commodious and passable state and removing the obstruction at source. No compensation was ordered for Seale or Curling, the parties whose use of the drift way had been blocked, since the council's interest lay in restoring the route rather than settling private loss between neighbours. This indicates that the council treated obstructed passages primarily as a defect in the public layout of the island, to be corrected on the ground, with civil consequences for the parties left to follow if at all.

The substitution of the widow Mudge for John Mudge in the operative order, after the complaint had been brought against John, indicates that the obligation to remove the wall ran with the property rather than the original wrongdoer. The wall stood on ground now held by the widow, and the council required her to act regardless of who had built or caused the obstruction. This shows the enforcement of public rights of way as attaching to the land itself, so that the current occupier carried the duty to comply even when the original act lay with a predecessor.

Alexander's request, made directly to the Governor rather than by formal petition to the council, shows how planters could initiate land business through informal personal approach as well as through the petition process. The matter was disposed of by the issue of a warrant for measurement, the same instrument used when petitions were granted in due form. The Governor's role as the direct point of contact for individual planters thereby complemented the council's collective handling of land business, and indicates that smaller routine requests could be settled without the full procedural weight of a formal hearing.

The decision to take in hand the state of the laws, orders and ordinances of the island marks a significant administrative undertaking by the new council under Governor Roberts. The old books had become physically damaged and the regulatory record was hard to consult. Without a working corpus of past orders, the council's own decisions risked contradiction, repetition or accidental abandonment, and the precedents on which it relied could not be reliably retrieved. The recognition that the regulatory archive itself had become an obstacle to government shows how dependent council practice had become on the accumulated written record, and how vulnerable that practice was to the decay of the books in which the record was kept.

Speculations

The decision to address the state of the laws and ordinances at this particular consultation, in the early weeks of the new year and after the homeward-bound shipping had departed, suggests that the council was using the quieter season to take on administrative work that could not be done while fleets were in road. The autumn months had been dominated by cargo negotiations, debt recovery schemes and the dispatch of the general letter to the proprietors. With those tasks completed, the council turned to the long-deferred maintenance of its own regulatory base. The timing reads as a deliberate use of the slack period in the shipping calendar to undertake work that required sustained attention rather than rapid decision.

The ordering of the widow Mudge to set her wall back ten feet rather than a different distance suggests that the council had a working sense of the minimum width required for a drift way to be considered passable. Drift ways had to accommodate cattle being moved to the common, and ten feet would have been close to the practical minimum for a single beast to pass without difficulty. By specifying the figure in the order, the council fixed a measurable standard against which compliance could be tested, and avoided the dispute that would have followed from a general direction to make the way more passable without further definition.

208

200

That Captaine Mashborne and M[r] Dan[l] Griffith do Collect them all,

in a book for that [P]urpose, and put the Same in forme and Method which

is to be [T]itled the Book of Laws and Constitutions of the [I]sland St

Helena, and kept for that purpose

The Govern[r] and Coun[cill] Considering that y[e] Different, and [s]undry

Markes of the Cattle by the [P]lanters, has been y[e] Cause of frauds,

and Loses [s]everall of the good [P]eople of this hav[i]ng been thereby much

Indamaged, whereby the Cattle have been Clandestinely Imbezled,

To [p]revent the Like for the Future

It is ordered

That all the Inhabitants of this [I]sland do give in An Acco[unt] of their

Severall markes against Next Gen[er]all [S]essions, Upon the [P]enalty of fourty

Shillings to the Honour[ble]: Comp[y]: And that upon the Like [P]enalty no

[P]erson do buy or Sell any Cattle without having them Registered

in a Book for that [P]urpose

John Sinsnig Sold[r] Desires That he may have Liberty

to Hier Three Acres of Land Sicituate at the Lower End of Shirks

Valley

Ordered

That a warrant be I[s]sued out to the [s]urveyor for measuring

the Same

J[no] Roberts

Tho Goodwin

Edw[d]: Mashborne

W[m] Marsden

Dan[l] Griffith

The council ordered that Captain Mashborne and Mr Daniell Griffith were to collect all the laws, orders and ordinances of the island into a book kept for that purpose. The volume was to be put into form and method, titled the Book of Laws and Constitutions of the Island St Helena, and maintained accordingly.

The Governor and Council considered that the variety of marks used by the planters on their cattle had been the cause of frauds and losses. Several good people of the island had been much damaged by the practice, and cattle had been clandestinely embezzled under cover of it. To prevent further occurrences of this kind, the council ordered that all the inhabitants of the island were to deliver an account of their several marks at the next general sessions, on penalty of forty shillings to the Honourable Company. On the same penalty, no person was to buy or sell any cattle except those registered in a book kept for the purpose.

John Sinsnig, soldier, requested liberty to hire three acres of land at the lower end of Shirks Valley. The council ordered that a warrant be issued to the surveyor for measuring the parcel.

Signed: John Roberts, Thomas Goodwin, Edward Mashborne, William Marsden, Daniell Griffith.

Interpretations

The compilation of the Book of Laws and Constitutions placed two councillors in charge of a project that would define the legal record of the island for years to come. Captain Mashborne and Mr Griffith were given the dual task of collection and arrangement, with the second element as important as the first. Putting the orders into form and method involved decisions about classification, sequence and emphasis that would shape how future councils consulted and applied the material. The choice of these two members, the third and fifth in council, indicates that the work was treated as substantive administrative drafting rather than mere clerical assembly, and assigned accordingly to sitting members rather than to the clerk's office.

The title chosen for the volume, the Book of Laws and Constitutions of the Island St Helena, marks a particular conception of the island's regulatory record. Calling the orders laws and constitutions rather than ordinances or directions placed them in the same category as the formal legal instruments of an established polity. The title gave the corpus a standing that individual orders scattered across decayed books had lacked, and signalled that the council saw its accumulated decisions as constituting a settled body of island governance rather than a series of ad hoc responses. The naming was a small but deliberate act of institutional self-definition.

The cattle marks order shows the council using compulsory registration as the solution to a recognised pattern of fraud. Distinctive marks on cattle served as the working proof of ownership in the absence of formal title deeds for individual animals. When the marks were varied, undocumented and overlapping, the system that protected planters' herds also offered cover for embezzlement, since a clandestinely altered or duplicated mark could not be reliably challenged. By requiring all inhabitants to register their marks at the next general sessions and by tying purchase and sale to entries in the register, the council converted private custom into public record, and made the absence of registration itself the basis for penalty.

The forty-shilling penalty applied to both halves of the cattle marks order shows the council attaching the same financial weight to omission as to active wrongdoing. A planter who failed to register a mark and one who bought or sold an unregistered beast faced the identical sanction. This indicates that the council treated the integrity of the register as the primary protected interest, with any gap in compliance threatening the system as a whole. Equal penalties for distinct breaches kept the structure simple and removed any incentive to characterise an offence as registration-related rather than transaction-related.

Speculations

The decision to require the marks to be delivered at the next general sessions, rather than at the council board or by individual notice, suggests that the council intended to fold the registration exercise into an event the planters already had to attend. General sessions drew the inhabitants together for collective business, and using that occasion as the deadline gave the registration a natural deposit point that did not require fresh arrangements. The timing also gave the council a period of weeks in which the requirement could circulate informally among the planters before the sessions made compliance enforceable. The choice reads as a calibration of the registration exercise to the established rhythm of island administration rather than the imposition of a separate procedure.

The placing of Captain Mashborne in charge of both the Book of Laws and the receipt of cattle from Mr Sprogers in November, taken with his earlier role in viewing Bell's land and agreeing terms with Robert Marsh, suggests that the third councillor had emerged under the new administration as the working manager of substantive administrative tasks beyond his formal seat number. The pattern indicates a division of labour within the council in which the Governor handled visiting commanders and high-level negotiation, the Deputy Governor managed garrison credit and routine signing, and Mashborne carried the operational projects that required sustained attention across consultations. The compilation of the law book reinforced rather than initiated that role.

209

201

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday the

8[th] day of February 170[8/9?] At Fort James

Jn[o] Roberts Govern[r]

Thom[s]: Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Gov[r]

Pres[en]t Edward Mashborne 3 in Coun[d]

Will[m] Marsden 4 in Coun[d]

Dan[l] Griffith 5 in Coun[d]

Sutton Isaack Jun[r] requested of the Govern[r] to Hier two

or three Acres of the Hono[ble] Comp[ys] Waste Land That Lies between

M[r]s D[e]fountaines and James Drag[oo]ns

Enigne Thomas [C]ason desires a Leafe for Nine Acres of Land

that has been Lately measured to him

It is resolved

That both the said [Isaack] and Ensigne [C]asons requests be granted

Resolved

That no more land be Lett to any other persons whatsoever Untill

that is already granted be measured and [P]lans be brought thereof

and Entered in the Register Book for that purpose

And that all the Land Upon the [I]sland be measured and [P]lans

brought, That we may have this matter Effectually Settled for that it

Appe[a]r[s] to us that [s]everall have more Lands than they [b]uy that

Hono[ble] Company for, and that the [M]a[j]or part of y[e] Inhabitants

have no Leafes for their Lands, nor Ever had

Resolved

That a new Register Book be kept, and Roome left for [P]lans, and ale

[Pieces?] of Lands [r]egistered in the said Book Joyntly with the Leafe and

in case any free [P]lanters or others, who Shall buy, Sell, Exchange or any

way Transfer their Lands or any [P]art thereof may [r]epaire to thee

[R]egister Book and showing which [P]art it is, he to Transferr as from

A to B and C to D in the said [P]lan, where the Same in the Register

Book being [P]rickt of Containing So many Acres, That Register Sh[a]ll

be

Island of St Helena.

At a consultation held on Tuesday 8 February 1709 at Fort James.

Present: John Roberts, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

Sutton Isaack junior requested of the Governor that he be allowed to hire two or three acres of the Honourable Company's waste land lying between Mrs Defountaines's and James Dragoon's holdings.

Ensign Thomas Cason requested a lease for nine acres of land lately measured to him.

The council resolved that the requests of both Isaack and Ensign Cason be granted.

The council further resolved that no further land was to be let to any person until what had already been granted was measured, plans drawn and entries made in the register book kept for the purpose. All the land on the island was to be measured and plans brought in, so that the matter could be effectually settled. It appeared to the council that several planters held more land than they paid the Honourable Company for, and that the greater part of the inhabitants had no leases for their land and never had.

The council resolved that a new register book was to be kept, with space left in it for plans. All parcels of land were to be registered in the book together with their leases. Where any free planter or other person bought, sold, exchanged or otherwise transferred land, or any part of it, the parties could resort to the register book. Showing which part was to be transferred, marked from A to B and C to D in the plan, with the corresponding portion in the register book pricked off and the acreage stated, the register was to be [...]

Interpretations

The decision to halt further land grants until existing holdings had been measured, planned and registered shows the council suspending current business in order to repair the foundations of the island's land system. New petitions, which would ordinarily have been disposed of promptly, were now to be deferred until the antecedent question of who held what had been settled. This indicates that the council judged the cost of pausing the grant process to be smaller than the cost of compounding existing irregularities by adding further unrecorded tenancies on top of them. The order made systematic record-keeping a precondition of further allocation, not a parallel activity.

The council's express finding that several planters held more land than they paid the Honourable Company for, and that the major part of the inhabitants had no leases for their land and never had, reveals the scale of the tenure problem the council was confronting. The two failings worked together. Holdings that exceeded paid acreage represented a revenue loss to the Company. The absence of leases meant that the legal basis of the entire system rested on occupation rather than contract. The general survey was the only mechanism that could address both at once, since it would expose surplus acreage and provide the documentary occasion for issuing leases to the holders the council found in possession.

The design of the new register book, with provision for plans alongside leases and the mechanism for marking transfers between identified points within a plan, shows the council combining cartographic and contractual record in a single instrument. Transferring land would no longer require fresh measurement or independent description; the parties would simply point to the part of the existing plan to be moved, the register would mark off the corresponding acreage, and the documentary record would update by reference to the original survey. This indicates an intention to make the register self-maintaining, so that subsequent transactions reinforced rather than degraded the integrity of the record.

The letter-coded transfer mechanism, with parcels described as running from A to B and C to D within a registered plan, shows the council adopting a precise notation system suited to the small scale of the island's parcels. Many planters held compact holdings of a few acres in valleys where neighbouring plots ran into one another, and conventional metes-and-bounds descriptions would have produced unwieldy entries. A letter notation tied to a drawn plan allowed the register to handle partial transfers without rewriting the underlying description, and gave the planters themselves a working vocabulary for identifying the parts of their holdings they wished to deal with.

Speculations

The decision to grant Isaack's and Cason's requests at the very consultation that imposed a moratorium on further grants suggests that the two applications were treated as already in train when the new rule was made. Both planters had come forward with established expectations: Isaack identifying a specific parcel between named neighbours and Cason holding ground already measured to him. The council appears to have drawn the line of the moratorium at applications coming after this sitting, rather than refusing those already on the table. The choice protected the council from the appearance of arbitrary refusal in matters where the work of measurement was substantially complete or readily definable.

The very generous design of the new register, with the documentary base intended to absorb future transfers by reference rather than fresh entry, points to the council expecting the survey now ordered to be a once-in-a-generation effort. The energy required to measure all the island's land and to bring the plans into a single register justified a register designed to outlast many cycles of buying and selling without further fundamental work. The mechanism reads as a deliberate front-loading of administrative effort, with the heavy cost concentrated in the initial survey on the calculation that subsequent maintenance would be light.

210

202

be a Sufficeint Transferr without any farther conveyance, It being done before the Governour and Councill

Resolved That it is the opinion of this Councill

That it will [p]rove for the Interest and Advantage of the Hono[ble]: Lo[rd] [P]roprietors of this [I]sland That no Leafes be granted to Exceed twenty one years

Resolved

That all [P]ersons upon the Measureing of the Lands and [P]lans being brought, To produce there Titles thereto, and that the Said Titles be Registr[ed]

The Govern[r] reports to the Coun[cill] That he observes the Enginer to be useless, [R]uning here Long about busin[e]ss without his Directions, which being fully Co[n]sidered in Councell gave their opinions of him

That Christian Frederick Vogell is rather a B[u]yoneer than an Engineer and no Gentleman by his Actions and behaviour, and is Altogether U[s]less to Serve the Hono[ble] Comp[y]: in any Capacity as being Idle Ignorant and Lazey, Not [k]nowing how to obey orders, or give Directions, By which means our Honourable Masters have Suffered

Resolved

That the said Christ[n] Frederick Vogel be Dismissed the Hono[ble] Comp[ys] [se]r[v]is Serv[ic]e from this day, And if by [...] [...] he has [C]ontracted any debts due to the good [p]eople of the [I]sland

Ordered

That he give in an Acc[ount] of his debts in to the [Govern]r & Councill on Tuesday Next, and that Notice be given the [I]sland Not to Cred[i]tt him any more which if they do, Ye Shall be to th[ei]r Loss & Damage of them That Trust him, And that he may have [L]iberty to Eate at y[e] Lower Table and be Accountable to our Hono[d] Masters for his p[ro]visions, That he be Sent home in y[e] Next Returning Ship

Upon which the said Christ[n] Frederick Vogell prepared a [P]etition to the Governo[r] and Councill as followeth

That being informed he is to be Sent off by the next opportunity of [s]hiping Craves Leave to D[e]fer the Determination whether for England

The register itself was to be a sufficient transfer, without any further conveyance, the transaction having been done before the Governor and Council.

The council resolved that it was the opinion of the council that the interest and advantage of the Honourable Lords Proprietors of the island required that no leases be granted to exceed twenty-one years.

The council resolved that, on the measurement of the lands and the bringing in of the plans, all persons were to produce their titles to their holdings, and the titles were to be registered.

The Governor reported to the council that he had observed the engineer to be of no use, running about on business without direction, which on consideration in council drew comment from each member. The council's opinion was that Christian Frederick Vogell was rather a buccaneer than an engineer and no gentleman in his actions and behaviour. He was wholly unfit to serve the Honourable Company in any capacity, being idle, ignorant and lazy, neither knowing how to obey orders nor able to give directions, and the Honourable Masters had suffered in consequence.

The council resolved that Christian Frederick Vogell was to be dismissed from the Honourable Company's service from that day. If by [...] [...] he had contracted any debts to the inhabitants of the island, the council ordered that he was to bring in an account of those debts to the Governor and Council on Tuesday next. Notice was to be given to the island that no further credit was to be given to him, and that any person doing so was to bear the loss. Vogell was to have liberty to eat at the lower table, with the cost of his provisions to be accounted for to the Honourable Masters, and he was to be sent home in the next returning ship.

On this Christian Frederick Vogell prepared a petition to the Governor and Council in the following terms. Being informed that he was to be sent off by the next opportunity of shipping, he prayed leave to defer the determination whether for England [...]

Interpretations

The decision that the register entry was to operate as a sufficient transfer without further conveyance shows the council collapsing a normally distinct step of conveyancing into the act of registration. In English practice, a sale or exchange of land required a deed of conveyance as the legal instrument of transfer, with registration a separate record of what the deed had effected. On the island, the council made the register itself the operative document, with the presence of the Governor and Council giving the entry the formal standing that a deed would otherwise have provided. This indicates a simplification of legal practice adapted to the small population and the council's direct oversight, removing the cost and delay of separate conveyance for parties who in any case had to deal with the council to make the transfer effective.

The twenty-one-year ceiling on new leases marked a fundamental shift from the earlier practice of granting much longer terms. Bell's lease, renewed at the previous consultation, had run for sixty-one years. The new policy reduced the maximum term by two thirds, and tied the proprietors' future flexibility to a much shorter horizon. A twenty-one-year limit aligned the leases with the working life of a single tenancy and ensured that the council of any given decade retained the power to renegotiate, raise rents or redirect holdings without waiting through multiple generations. The change reflected a deliberate tightening of the proprietors' position relative to the planters, recovering the ability to revisit tenure that the long leases had effectively surrendered.

The requirement that all titles be produced and registered on the bringing in of the plans completed the architecture of the survey project. The council was not only mapping the physical extent of holdings but also demanding the documentary basis on which each holding rested. By registering the titles alongside the plans, the council created a comprehensive record in which every plot was anchored to a specific instrument of right. The two earlier findings, that some planters held more than they paid for and that most held no leases at all, made the title-production step essential. Without it, the survey would have recorded possession but not legal entitlement, leaving the central problem unresolved.

The dismissal of the engineer Vogell shows how the council combined professional judgement with character assessment in disposing of senior Company servants. The substantive complaint was that Vogell acted without direction and lacked the competence to obey orders or give them. The council added to this the characterisation of him as a buccaneer rather than an engineer and as no gentleman in his actions and behaviour. By moving from technical failure to social classification, the council reinforced the dismissal with a judgement that placed Vogell outside the category of person fit to hold his office at all. The combined finding made reinstatement under any future administration significantly harder, since it cast doubt not only on his performance but on his standing.

The arrangement that Vogell be allowed to eat at the lower table, with his provisions accounted for to the Honourable Masters, while awaiting the next returning ship, shows the council managing the practical disposal of a dismissed officer through controlled containment. Stripping him of his appointment did not solve the problem of where he was to live and what he was to eat in the interval before shipping arrived. By placing him at the lower table, the council separated him from the official mess while preserving him on a recoverable expense, and the credit prohibition ensured that he did not accumulate fresh debts on the island during the wait. The whole arrangement reads as a measured handling of a man whom the council had judged to be unreliable in all respects.

Speculations

The reduction of the maximum lease term from the long durations previously granted to twenty-one years, combined with the obligation to produce and register titles, suggests that the council was using the survey project to reset the entire framework of land tenure rather than merely to record it. A general survey carried out under the old long-lease regime would have entrenched the existing arrangements for generations. By imposing the twenty-one-year ceiling on new leases at the same consultation, the council ensured that any leases issued out of the survey process would operate under the new rules, and that the survey itself would mark the transition from one regime to another. The change reads as a deliberate use of the administrative exercise to introduce a substantive policy shift.

The decision to move from a technical complaint about Vogell's working habits to a judgement that he was no gentleman points to the council using social characterisation to secure the firmness of the dismissal. A purely technical dismissal could be reversed by a future council on the production of better work, or contested by Vogell on the ground that the complaints were exaggerated. By placing Vogell outside the social category appropriate to his office, the council made the dismissal harder to undo and harder to challenge through the production of competent work alone. The choice of language reads less as a description of Vogell's conduct than as a means of ensuring that the decision would hold against subsequent revision.

211

203

England or India Untill the Arrivall of the Next Store [s]hip from the

Company Expecting an order to be Employed in their Hono[urs] Servic[e] in [I]ndi[a]

[N]ec[ess]ary a[s]ke[s] Hum That his Sallary and Diet may be Continued

without Deminution and that y[e] Govern[r] and Coun[cill] Cleared To

[s]end him in the Countrey to Quarter there and to Allow him four

[P]ound [p]er Quarter besides his Sallary for that no body would

Entertaine him under Sixteen pound a year

[P]raying to consider the [P]rem[is]es So farr as to Enable him

to pay his debts and to carry him off Like a Gentleman

To which he was answered That it was the opinion of y[e] [Coun]cill That if he

carryd Nothing off with him, He would in that Point of off as much Like a

Gentleman as he Came on And as to his Sallary & p[ro]visions To y[e] f[ir]st we

are Obliged in Oath Not to give our Masters money away, and as to y[e] 2[d] y[e] [Coun]cill

was [R]ead by him

Richard Alexander free planter [P]etitioned the Governour

and Councell To Hier Two or Three Acres of Land Contiguous

to him

Thomas [P]e[r]kins [Sen]r requested to have y[e] Same Alledging it

will be very [P]rejudic[i]all to him If the said Alexander S[h]ies he gran[t]

thereof, where[as] the Acre M[r] Alexander had granted to him at [a?]

Consultation Held on the 11 of January 170[8/9] is a p[ar]t

Resolved

That unless they do agree among themselves which [P]art Each

of them will take, and Report the Same to the Governo[r] & [P]res[en]t

how they have agreed, The Said Land Shall Not be Lett at all, But

remaine Comon for the Honourable Company

J[no] Roberts

Tho Goodwin

Edw[d]: Mashborne

W[m] Mar[s]den

Dan[l] Griffith

Vogell asked that the question of whether he was to be sent to England or to India be deferred until the arrival of the next store ship from the Company, since he expected an order to be employed in their Honours' service in India. He further asked that his salary and diet be continued without reduction, and that the Governor and Council clear him to lodge in the country, allowing him four pounds per quarter beyond his salary, since no person would take him in for less than sixteen pounds a year. He prayed that the council would consider the matter so as to enable him to pay his debts and to leave the island like a gentleman.

The council answered that if he carried nothing off with him, he would go off as much like a gentleman as he had come on. As to his salary, the council was bound by oath not to give the Masters' money away. As to his provisions, the council's resolution had already been read to him.

Richard Alexander, free planter, petitioned the Governor and Council to hire two or three acres of land adjoining his own.

Thomas Perkins senior requested the same parcel, alleging that it would be very harmful to him if Alexander were to receive the grant, since the acre granted to Alexander at the consultation of 11 January 1709 formed part of it.

The council resolved that, unless the two parties agreed between themselves which part each was to take, and reported their agreement to the Governor in person, the land was not to be let at all but was to remain common for the Honourable Company.

Signed: John Roberts, Thomas Goodwin, Edward Mashborne, William Marsden, Daniell Griffith.

Interpretations

The council's reply to Vogell's petition shows how a dismissal could be reinforced through the careful wording of refusal. Vogell had asked for deferment, continued salary, country lodging at four pounds per quarter and enough to leave the island as a gentleman. The council answered the gentlemanly point with the observation that if he carried nothing off he would leave as much a gentleman as he had come on, denying him the social transition he had sought to purchase through the petition. The salary refusal was grounded in the councillors' oath not to give the Masters' money away, framing the denial as a matter of fiduciary duty rather than discretionary judgement. The reply thereby converted Vogell's plea into the occasion for a public rejection of the social and financial standing he had claimed.

The reference to the councillors' oath as the binding ground for refusing Vogell's salary continuation shows the formal structure within which the council operated as fiduciary for the Honourable Masters. The councillors held their positions on the basis of an oath to safeguard the proprietors' interests, and any disposal of Company money outside that duty was therefore unavailable to them as a matter of office. Citing the oath placed the refusal beyond negotiation, since accommodating Vogell would have required the council not merely to make a judgement against him but to act outside its sworn authority. This indicates how oath-based fiduciary language operated to seal financial decisions against further appeal.

The resolution on the land dispute between Alexander and Perkins shows the council using the threat of withdrawal as a means of forcing private settlement. Both planters had a colourable claim, with Alexander's earlier grant of one acre on 11 January 1709 forming part of the larger parcel that both now wanted. Rather than impose a division by survey or arbitration, the council put the matter back to the parties on the condition that failure to agree would result in the land remaining common, denied to both. This reversed the ordinary incentive structure of the dispute. Each man stood to lose everything if neither would compromise, which converted the council's procedural step into a strong pressure on both sides to reach an accommodation.

The requirement that the parties report their agreement to the Governor in person, rather than through written submission or by petition, shows the council preserving direct executive oversight even where the substance of the settlement was left to the parties. Personal report ensured that the Governor could test the terms, satisfy himself that no concealed arrangement lay beneath them and confirm the boundary in the presence of both planters. The procedure committed the council to enforcing only those settlements made openly before the Governor, and kept the executive at the centre of land allocation even when the council itself had stepped back from drawing the line.

Speculations

Vogell's request to defer his departure until the next store ship arrived, on the expectation of an order to serve in India, points to him calculating that a posting elsewhere in the Company's service might rescue his career from the dismissal at St Helena. By tying his fate to a future communication from London rather than the immediate decision of the council, Vogell hoped to convert his unemployment into a transit pause. The council's refusal to defer cut off that line, ensuring that he left the island under the cloud of dismissal rather than under the colour of reassignment. The structure of his petition reads less as a plea for continued employment than as an attempt to manage the narrative under which his departure would be received.

The four-pounds-per-quarter figure offered for country lodging, against the sixteen pounds a year that Vogell said no one would take him in for less than, suggests that he was using the council's own commercial information against it. The figures correspond exactly to four quarters at four pounds each, indicating that Vogell had identified the market rate for housing a dismissed officer with no household of his own. By presenting the figure with this precision, he forced the council either to engage with the calculation or to refuse on principle. The council chose the second course, declining the request without disputing the underlying numbers, which preserved the refusal as a matter of authority rather than valuation.

The decision to make withdrawal of the grant the consequence of failure to agree between Alexander and Perkins reads as a calibrated piece of pressure designed to favour neither party while resolving the dispute. Alexander had a prior grant covering part of the disputed ground and could have expected a ruling in his favour. Perkins had asserted a strong harmful effect on his existing holding. Either resolution by the council would have created a grievance. By holding the land back from both unless they agreed, the council produced an outcome in which only their mutual accommodation could deliver any grant at all, leaving the cost of obstinacy with the planters and the council's neutrality intact.

212

204

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday

the 22 day of Febru[ary] 170[8/9] At Fort James

Jn[o]: Roberts Gove[rn]r

Thom[s]: Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Gov[r]

Pres[en]t Ed[w]: Mashborne 3 in [Coun]d

Will[m] Marsden 4[th] in Coun[d]

Dan[l]: Griffith 5[th] in Coun[d]

Whereas Edward Heath Late free [P]lant[er] Dec[d] did in his

Last Will and Testament bearing Date the 9[th] of June 1706, bequea-

thed Unto his own Daughter Mary Heath Twelve Acres of Land and

Ten Acres to his Daughter in Law Sarah Foster, Now the said

Mary Heath being Dead, and the said Sarah Foster Married

to one William Hartwell who with his wife Hath given all their

Rite and Title to said Ten Acres of Land To one Thomas Foster

[Sold]? who Married the said Heath wid[ow] and being Resolved to

Sell the whole Twenty two Acres And to Samuele Jeffrey [Sold]r

It was debated at y[e] request of all [p]oons concerned in Coun[cill]

whether the said Mary Foster, A[lia]s Sara[h] Hartwell was the true

and [P]roper Heirs to the said Land and [P]rem[is]es

Resolved

That the said Mary Foster is the [p]roper Heirs to all & Singuler

the Land aforesaid, and may with her present Husband Tho[s] Foster

Barguine Sell and a[l]inate the Same To the Said Sam[ll] Jeffrey his

heirs &c[a] And that writeings be made between them accordingly

The Report of Captaine Thomas Goodwin Store Keeper, That the

[Lac]e of the Honourable Comp[a]ny [...]n Lyes in their Stores being [s]o very dear

[we] cant Sell it, and may Ly and Rott if the [P]rice be not Lo[wered?]

Ordered

That the said Lace be Sold out at the Invoice [P]rice, and that [N]otice

be given thereof in the Stores by writing [P]asted up for that p[u]rp[o]se

The Govern[r] reports That the Soldiers are daily at him for Cred[i]tt in

the Store, [N]otwithstanding they being Much Indebted, That is to say

for

Island of St Helena.

At a consultation held on Tuesday 22 February 1709 at Fort James.

Present: John Roberts, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

Edward Heath, late free planter, deceased, had by his last will and testament dated 9 June 1706 bequeathed twelve acres of land to his own daughter Mary Heath, and ten acres to his daughter-in-law Sarah Foster. Mary Heath had since died, and Sarah Foster had married William Hartwell. Hartwell and his wife had given over all their right and title to the ten acres to one Thomas Foster, soldier, who had married Heath's widow. Thomas Foster was now resolved to sell the whole twenty-two acres to Samuel Jeffrey, soldier.

At the request of all parties concerned, the council debated whether Mary Foster, otherwise Sarah Hartwell, was the true and proper heir to the land and premises.

The council resolved that Mary Foster was the proper heir to all the land in question, and that she and her present husband Thomas Foster could lawfully bargain, sell and alienate the parcel to Samuel Jeffrey and his heirs. Writings were to be drawn between the parties accordingly.

Captain Thomas Goodwin, storekeeper, reported that the Honourable Company's lace lay in the stores at so high a price that it could not be sold, and would lie and rot if the price were not reduced.

The council ordered that the lace be sold at the invoice price, and that notice of this be given in the stores by a writing pasted up for that purpose.

The Governor reported that the soldiers came to him daily for credit at the store, notwithstanding that they were already deeply in debt. The credit was sought for [...]

Interpretations

The Heath inheritance case shows the council acting as a probate and conveyancing authority for the island in the absence of any separate ecclesiastical or civil court. The will of 1706 had created two separate bequests, the bloodline succession had been disturbed by Mary Heath's death, the surviving legatee had remarried, and her interest had been conveyed to a third party who had himself married the testator's widow. The resulting tangle could only be resolved by a single body capable of identifying the proper heir and authorising the sale to Jeffrey. The council's resolution that Mary Foster was the proper heir to all of the land collapsed several distinct legal questions, including the descent of Mary Heath's twelve acres, the validity of the Hartwell conveyance and the standing of Thomas Foster's interest, into a single declaratory finding that cleared the title for the intended sale.

The procedural note that the matter was debated at the request of all persons concerned shows the council acting as an arbitral as well as a judicial body. The parties had brought the question forward themselves rather than been summoned to answer charges. By treating the request as an occasion for collective debate and a declaratory resolution, the council provided a service that made onward dealings possible. This indicates how the council's authority operated as a single point of legal validation, with private parties using it to secure the certainty their transactions required.

The decision to sell the Company's lace at the invoice price, rather than at the schedule advance applicable to other goods, shows the council using individual line management to clear unsellable stock. The lace had been priced under the general percentage tariff but had not moved. Reducing it to invoice price removed the Company's margin on that particular item but preserved the underlying cost recovery, and prevented the goods from being lost entirely to spoilage. The mechanism resembles the earlier handling of the broken tobacco pipes at 6 d per gross, in which an individual line was tariffed below the standard schedule to move stock that the routine tariff could not shift. Together the two decisions show a practice of selective discount applied to identified problem stock without disturbing the wider price structure.

The instruction that notice of the lace price be given by writing pasted up in the stores shows how the council combined formal documentary practice with point-of-sale communication. The same instrument used to publish the Declaration on debt and the Monday serving day was deployed at smaller scale within the store building itself. By posting the notice where buyers would see it at the moment of purchase, the council ensured that the reduced price reached the customers who could act on it, without requiring any separate proclamation. This indicates the storehouse functioning as a continuous site of administrative communication, with notices forming part of the working environment rather than special events.

Speculations

The careful articulation of the Heath succession suggests that the council was concerned to produce a finding that would survive challenge after the sale to Jeffrey had been completed. A more cursory disposal might have left questions about the Hartwell conveyance or the standing of Thomas Foster's claim that could resurface to disturb Jeffrey's title in the future. By recording the resolution that Mary Foster was the proper heir to all and singular the land aforesaid, and by directing that writings be made between the parties accordingly, the council produced a documentary record that would serve as the answer to any later doubt. The thoroughness of the resolution reads as forward protection for the new purchaser rather than as judicial completeness for its own sake.

The reduction of the lace price to invoice cost, rather than to some intermediate figure, points to the council taking a deliberately conservative position on the recoverable value of the stock. An intermediate price would have preserved some margin and tested whether the market would clear at a smaller discount. By going directly to invoice price, the council prioritised certainty of sale over partial profit, accepting that the lace would yield no return to the Company beyond cost recovery. The choice reads as a judgement that the goods were genuinely unsellable at any margin, and that further delay would risk spoilage and the loss of cost itself.

213

205

for nec[ess]arys, as Cloaths, Shoes, Hatts, Stockins &c Wherefore for their

future Encouragement

Ordered

That whatsoever Soldier is Indebted, That if he works at the Fortifications

or hath any Cred[i]tt due to him [that is] in any other way whatsoever, Shall have

half what they Earn Paid them weekly if they desire it, And that

the other half be Employ[e]d for the p[a]y[ing] their old Debts

Cap[tn] Edward Mashborne reported That the Grapes at y[e] [P]lanta-

tion House being now Upon Ripeneing, To [P]revent the Robing and

[P]lundering th[e] Vineyard as hath been [p]ractic[e]d too often heretofore

Ordered

That the following Declaration be made publick

By y[e] Govern[r] and Councell

A Declaration

That whatsoever Person or [P]ersons Whites or Blacks Shall after

the day of the date hereof Rob, Steale or [F]elloniously Carry away, Out

of the Hono[ble] Comp[ys] Vineyard and [P]lantations any Grapes Fruit,

or [P]lants of any Kind Sort, Quality or Quantity whatsoever and be

thereof Convicted, if a white [P]erson Shall [p]ay five [P]ounds for the use of

the Hono[ble] Lord [P]roprietors and work at y[e] forti[fi]cations for the[e]

Space of Six months Gratis, And if a Black to receive on his [n]aked body

y[e] Full nine Lashes and to work at y[e] Fortifications dureing the G[ene]ralls

Pleasure And whatsoever Person Shall be Instrumentall in y[e] Discovery

and Apprehending of Such offenders, and give Intelligence to y[e] Govern[r]

thereof In order [...] be Punished, Shall have as a Reward for his Trouble

five pounds

Dated at Fort James this 22 Day

of February 170[8/9]

Signed [p]er order of Governo[r] and Councill

[p]me Jn[o]: Alexander

According

The credit was being sought for necessaries, that is, clothes, shoes, hats, stockings and other items of that kind. To meet their condition going forward, the council ordered that any soldier in debt who worked at the fortifications, or had credit due to him by any other means, was to receive half of what he earned weekly if he wished, with the other half applied against his outstanding debts.

Captain Edward Mashborne reported that the grapes at Plantation House were now ripening, and proposed measures to prevent the robbing and plundering of the vineyard that had occurred too often before. The council ordered that the following Declaration be made public.

By the Governor and Council. A Declaration.

Any person, white or black, who after the date of this Declaration robbed, stole or feloniously carried away any grapes, fruit or plants of any kind, sort, quality or quantity out of the Honourable Company's vineyard and plantations, and was convicted of the offence, was to be punished as follows. A white person was to pay five pounds for the use of the Honourable Lords Proprietors and to work at the fortifications without pay for six months. A black person was to receive nine lashes on the bare body and to work at the fortifications during the General's pleasure. Any person who was instrumental in discovering and apprehending such offenders, and gave intelligence to the Governor with a view to their being punished, was to receive a reward of five pounds for the trouble.

Dated at Fort James, 22 February 1709.

Signed by order of the Governor and Council, John Alexander.

Interpretations

The half-pay scheme for indebted soldiers shows the council redesigning the debt-recovery mechanism after the November Declaration had failed to halt the daily demand for store credit. The earlier order had required Captain Goodwin's signed note before any inhabitant could give a soldier credit, but the soldiers themselves had continued to press the Governor at the store. The new arrangement worked through the soldiers' own earnings rather than through inhabitant creditors. By guaranteeing half of any fortification or other wage in cash, the scheme gave each soldier a small predictable income for current necessaries, while the other half was applied automatically to old debts. This converted the soldier's labour into a self-acting recovery instrument and removed the choice over allocation that had previously allowed the men to spend their earnings without paying down what they owed.

The differentiation in the vineyard penalty between white and black offenders reveals the formal structure of the island's penal regime. A white offender paid a money fine of five pounds to the proprietors and undertook six months of unpaid fortification labour. A black offender received nine lashes on the bare body and worked at the fortifications during the General's pleasure. The two penalties operated in different economic and social registers. The white penalty extracted financial and labour value, with a defined endpoint after six months. The black penalty combined immediate physical punishment with labour of indefinite duration, leaving the term to executive discretion rather than fixed sentence. This shows the council using a single offence to maintain two parallel disciplinary systems, with the form of punishment tied to the racial classification of the offender.

The reward of five pounds for information leading to apprehension, equal to the monetary fine on a white offender, shows the council using the same sum at both ends of the enforcement scheme. The fine extracted from the convicted offender funded the reward to the informant, with the proprietors taking no net loss on the transaction. The structure converted enforcement from a cost borne by the establishment into a self-financing operation, in which one citizen's conviction paid another citizen's discovery work. This indicates a deliberate alignment of the financial flows of penalty and reward, designed to make the enforcement mechanism sustainable without recourse to general funds.

The inclusion of plants alongside grapes and fruit in the list of protected items shows that the council was concerned to safeguard the propagating material of the vineyard, not only the current crop. A grape thief who took plants rather than fruit could establish a competing vineyard on his own ground, transferring the productive base of Plantation House to a private holding. By naming plants explicitly within the Declaration, the council closed off this longer-term threat and protected the Company's monopoly on viticulture on the island. This indicates that the vineyard at Plantation House was treated as a strategic horticultural asset, with its propagation potential as significant as its current yield.

Speculations

The decision to fix the half-pay scheme as the soldier's option, applied weekly only if he desired it, suggests that the council expected resistance to compulsory deduction and preferred to present the scheme as a privilege rather than a sanction. A mandatory deduction would have produced the same recovery outcome but framed the new arrangement as a further restriction on already strained men. By offering it as an election the soldier could exercise, the council preserved the appearance of voluntary participation while ensuring that any soldier who needed cash for necessaries would inevitably opt in. The mechanism reads as a calibrated piece of behavioural design in which the only practical choice was the one the council wanted made.

The Declaration's framing in terms of grapes and fruit ripening, taken with the assignment of the fortification labour penalty, points to the council aligning the vineyard protection scheme with the broader labour needs of the new fort construction. Convicted offenders, whether white or black, would feed into the fortification works on terms that produced labour at no wage cost. The white offender's six months of unpaid work and the black offender's open-ended term under the General's pleasure both supplemented the regular labour force at a moment when the council was extending the fortification programme. By converting vineyard theft into fortification labour, the council produced a penalty that simultaneously protected the grape harvest and supplied workers for the works.

214

206

According to a resolution in the Consultation Held the 8[th] [I]nstant

Christian Frederick Vogell the qu[on]d[am] [E]nginer[r] was ordered to bring

in an Acco[unt] of all his debts to the Govern[r] of what he Stood Indebted

to the [I]sland betwixt that day and the Next Council day But not At-

tending the Coun[cill] nor giveing in y[e] [S]ame

It is ordered

That the Marshall cause the Said Fred[k] Vogell to make his Appearance

before the Councill I[m]mediately which was Accordingly done

And making a very fr[i]velous Excup[?]

It is further ordered

That the said Christ[n] Fred[k] Vogell for Neglect of Bringing in an Acco[unt]

of his Debts as he was ordered as afore[s]aid That the following Declara-

tion be published by beat of Drum

By the Govern[r] and Councill

A Declaration

These are to give Notice to all y[e] Good [P]eople on this [I]sland That

Christian Fred[k] Vogell the Q[uon]d[a]m Engineer is dismissed the Hono[ble]

Comp[ys] Servi[c]e Wherefore if any [P]erson Trusts him for the future

It shall be to their own Lo[ss] and Damage, and do hereby Require

all p[er]sons that the said Vogell stands Indebted to, do bring in there

[S]ame [u]pon as p[oss]ible, and that upon their oath[s]

Dated this 22 day of Februa[r]y 1709 At[t] Fort[s]

James

Sign[e]d [p]er ord[er] of Gov[er]n[or] & Councell

[p]me Jn[o]: Alexander

In accordance with the resolution at the consultation of 8 February, Christian Frederick Vogell, the former engineer, had been ordered to bring in an account of all the debts he owed on the island, covering the period between that day and the next council day. Vogell had neither attended the council nor produced the account.

The council ordered that the marshal cause Vogell to appear before the council at once, which was done accordingly. Vogell offered a very frivolous excuse.

The council ordered that, for his neglect in failing to bring in the account of his debts as required, the following Declaration be published by beat of drum.

By the Governor and Council. A Declaration.

Notice was given to all the good people on the island that Christian Frederick Vogell, the former engineer, was dismissed from the Honourable Company's service. Any person giving him credit in future was to do so at their own loss and damage. All persons to whom Vogell stood indebted were required to bring in their claims as soon as possible, and to do so on oath.

Dated at Fort James, 22 February 1709.

Signed by order of the Governor and Council, John Alexander.

Interpretations

The decision to publish the Declaration by beat of drum, rather than by written notice posted at the storehouse, shows the council escalating its publicity methods for matters requiring immediate island-wide reach. A written notice depended on inhabitants passing the storehouse and being literate enough to read it. The beat of drum carried the announcement physically through the settled parts of the island, drawing people out of their houses and into earshot as the drummer passed. By choosing this method for the Vogell announcement, the council ensured that every potential creditor of the former engineer received the warning within hours rather than days, closing off any window in which Vogell might continue to draw fresh credit before the dismissal was widely known.

The use of the marshal to compel Vogell's appearance before the council shows how the executive office secured compliance from a dismissed officer who had ignored a direct order. A man no longer in the Company's service was outside the routine disciplinary channels that bound serving officers, but he remained within the council's jurisdiction as an inhabitant of the island. The marshal's office bridged this gap by applying the same coercive authority used to bring in any other person required before the council. This indicates how the council maintained its operational reach over former Company servants in the interval between their dismissal and their departure on returning ships.

The requirement that Vogell's creditors bring in their claims on oath shows the council using sworn statement as the procedural safeguard against fraudulent or inflated debt claims. Vogell himself had been required to produce an account of his debts and had failed to do so. With the debtor unwilling or unable to provide the documentary base, the creditors became the source of the record, and the oath operated to give their statements the standing the missing account would have provided. This converted a procedural failure on Vogell's part into an evidentiary opportunity, with the burden of accurate disclosure shifted to those seeking payment rather than the man owing it.

The two-part structure of the Declaration, with the prospective warning against future credit followed by the retrospective call for existing claims, shows the council closing the account on Vogell from both directions at a single stroke. Future creditors were warned off, existing creditors were brought in. Between these two operations, the total exposure of the island to Vogell's debts could be both capped and quantified by the time the next returning ship arrived to take him off. This indicates an administrative practice of dismissing an officer in a manner that left the island financially settled rather than carrying forward open questions after his departure.

Speculations

The choice to characterise Vogell's excuse as very frivolous, and to record that characterisation in the minute, suggests that the council wished the written record to support the severity of the response. A bare statement that Vogell had failed to bring in the account would have made the publication by beat of drum appear disproportionate, since procedural delay alone might invite a further private order rather than public proclamation. By recording the council's view that the excuse offered was frivolous, the minute established the contempt element that justified moving directly to public publication. The wording reads as a deliberate hardening of the record against any later suggestion that Vogell had been treated harshly for a procedural lapse.

The instruction that creditors bring in their claims as soon as possible, combined with the oath requirement, points to the council intending to settle Vogell's island accounts before the next returning ship was available to take him off. A delayed settlement would have left debts running against an absent debtor, with no realistic prospect of recovery. By accelerating the creditor process and requiring sworn statement, the council sought to close the books on Vogell's island liabilities within a short window. The mechanism reads as preparation for his removal rather than as a permanent regime, with the urgency tied to the expected sailing of the next ship.

215

207

Island St Helena

By the Govern[r] and Councill

A Declaration

That Cap[tn] Edward Mashborn in digging of Lime Stone in [B]reak

Neck Valley, amongst 'em [s]ent [s]ome that was Mixt with other Stones

and Dirt, which being Tryed in the fir[e] there was found Mixt with

it Severall Specks of Gold

And M[r] Daniel Griffith Since hi[s] sent to the [Govern]r Two Sorts

of Mineralls found there Last week by Charles Bottnall a Sold[r] Lodging

at his house. The one is Gold, the other we take to be Coppe[r], samples

whereof may be Seen at the Governours

Wherefore for Encou[r]agem[t] of any [P]erson that Shall be Industri-

ous towards finding any more, there[?] Shall have as a reward for his

trouble Two hundred and fifty [P]ounds for the Gold, And One hundred

and fifty pounds for the Coppe[r] mine And this Being [S]eason

being the [P]roper time for Looking into all the wide falls & Streames

We desire they may apply themselves [D]iligently thereabouts, being

afraid there are Such mines upon the [I]sland

Dated at Fort James this 23 Day of February

170[8/9]

Island St Helena By the Govern[r] and Councill

An Advertizement

Whereas the time draws nigh That the Hono[ble]: Company Should

receive their Annuall Revenues, Rent &c And for that we are reso[l]ved

forthewith to Accompt with all the Inhabitants of the Said [I]sland in

order for they [...] [s]ettling the [s]ame to be Sent home the Next Return-

ing [s]hipping

These are therefore to will order and Require all the Inhabitants

of the Said [I]sland, [P]ossesing any Lands Tenements or Cattle To bring

or cause to be brought Under their own [P]erticular hands a full Acc[ompt]

of what they Hold [P]ossess or are in [P]ossesion of This Last year, As also

an Acc[t] of their Respective Familles, both Whites and Blacks Unto

the Sessions house [N]ear Fort James delivering the [s]ame to the

Clerk of the Councill, between Monday the 7[th] and the [14]th day of

March 1709

Island of St Helena. By the Governor and Council. A Declaration.

Captain Edward Mashborne, in digging for limestone in Breakneck Valley, had sent up some samples mixed with other stones and dirt. When these were tried in the fire, several specks of gold were found among them.

Mr Daniell Griffith had since sent to the Governor two sorts of minerals found there the previous week by Charles Bottnall, a soldier lodging at his house. One was gold; the other the council took to be copper. Samples of both could be seen at the Governor's.

For the encouragement of any person who would be industrious in finding more, the council offered a reward of two hundred and fifty pounds for the gold mine and one hundred and fifty pounds for the copper mine. Since the present season was the proper time for examining all the gullies and streams, the council desired that diligent search be made in those places, the council suspecting that such mines existed on the island.

Dated at Fort James, 23 February 1709.

Island of St Helena. By the Governor and Council. An Advertisement.

The time was drawing near at which the Honourable Company was to receive its annual revenues and rents. The council was resolved to settle accounts forthwith with all the inhabitants of the island, so that the settlement could be sent home in the next returning shipping.

All inhabitants of the island holding any lands, tenements or cattle were required to bring, or cause to be brought under their own hand, a full account of what they held or possessed during the last year, together with an account of their respective families, both whites and blacks. The accounts were to be delivered to the clerk of the council at the sessions house near Fort James, between Monday 7 March and Monday 14 March 1709.

Interpretations

The gold and copper announcement shows how mineral discoveries were absorbed into the council's standard administrative repertoire, even when the underlying find was speculative. Mashborne's limestone digging had produced specks of gold in the dross, and Griffith had received two further samples through a soldier lodging in his house. The council treated these fragments as a sufficient evidentiary base for a public reward scheme, with figures of two hundred and fifty pounds for gold and one hundred and fifty pounds for copper set against samples that lay on the Governor's table. This indicates that the council was prepared to commit substantial reward money on slender material evidence, treating the possibility of mineral wealth as warranting publicity even before the finds themselves had been verified at scale.

The differential reward of two hundred and fifty pounds for gold against one hundred and fifty for copper reveals a calibrated valuation of the two metals as they would feature in the proprietors' interest. The hundred-pound gap reflected the relative market value of the metals and the strategic significance of a gold find for a Company island far from London. Setting the rewards on a fixed numerical scale also gave the council a defensible position when the time came to pay; the discoverer of either metal received a sum proportionate to the metal found, rather than a discretionary allocation that could be questioned. The structure shows the council using monetary differentiation to direct private search effort towards the more valuable target without prohibiting the lesser.

The timing of the search, tied to the season as the proper period for examining gullies and streams, shows the council aligning the reward scheme with the practical conditions for surface prospecting on the island. After heavy rain, watercourses exposed mineral material that would otherwise lie buried, and the council judged the present moment to be when private effort would yield the best return. By embedding the seasonal observation in the Declaration itself, the council signalled that the offer was time-sensitive and encouraged immediate action rather than future enquiry. This indicates how administrative announcements on the island combined formal authority with local environmental knowledge.

The annual revenue settlement scheme required every inhabitant to bring in not only an account of lands, tenements and cattle but also an account of their respective families, both whites and blacks. The combination produced a comprehensive return covering property, livestock and population in a single submission. The inclusion of blacks alongside whites in the family return placed the slave population within the same documentary apparatus as the free inhabitants, with slaves counted as members of the household for the purposes of the proprietors' annual record. This indicates how the council's accounting practices treated the slave population as a categorised but enumerated component of the household, integrated into the same returns that established rent and tax liabilities.

The requirement that the accounts be delivered under each inhabitant's own hand, rather than through the clerk's transcription, placed the documentary weight on the householder rather than the administrative office. A signed return committed each inhabitant personally to the figures it contained, and made any subsequent challenge a matter of comparing claim against signature. This converted the annual settlement into an exercise in self-declaration backed by personal subscription, with the clerk of the council operating as the collection point rather than the originator of the record. The structure reduced the administrative burden on the clerk's office while shifting evidentiary responsibility to the inhabitants themselves.

Speculations

The size of the rewards, set at two hundred and fifty pounds and one hundred and fifty pounds, points to the council pitching the offer high enough to attract sustained effort from inhabitants whose ordinary earnings would not produce such sums in years of work. A planter holding ten acres at three pounds a year of rent would need decades of cultivation to accumulate the gold reward by ordinary means. By presenting the reward in such terms, the council converted prospecting into a credible alternative to agriculture for the period of the search, and signalled that the proprietors regarded the possibility of mineral wealth as worth a substantial outlay. The figures read as designed to attract not casual reporting but sustained excavation.

The decision to require the annual returns within a single week between 7 and 14 March, rather than as they came in, suggests that the council intended to process the entire set together rather than receive accounts piecemeal. A concentrated submission window allowed the clerk's office to prepare for the influx, compare returns side by side, and check for inconsistencies between neighbouring holdings before any settlement was finalised. The compressed timing also created peer pressure among inhabitants, since accounts coming in on the same days could be cross-referenced against one another. The mechanism reads as a deliberate use of concentration to improve the accuracy of the record without enlarging the council's investigative effort.

The inclusion of the family return alongside the property return, in a single delivery under each inhabitant's hand, points to the council using the annual settlement as the occasion for an island-wide census. The proprietors' immediate financial interest lay in lands, tenements and cattle, but the population return served separate administrative purposes, including labour planning for the fortifications, slave control and military preparedness. By bundling the two requirements into one obligation, the council secured the population data without the cost of a separate census exercise, and ensured that inhabitants who wished to retain their holdings produced the demographic information as part of the price of doing so.

216

208

And whereas it hath been found by Long Experience That

the Honourable Lo[rds] [P]roprietors hath been Much wronged

by false Accounts Given in of Cattle feeding Upon their Waste,

And it is beleived Much fraud hath been done otherways [N]ot only

to the Hono[ble] Comp[y]: But other Good [P]eople upon the [I]sland, For

that there is not now Extant a Book of Marks formerly used, To

Distinguish one Mans Cattle from another

These are therefore also to require and order all [P]ersons on the

said [I]sland, [P]ossesing any Cattle Goats, [S]heep or Swine That they do

within Same time and place Give in under their Respective Hands

Acc[t] of their [P]erticular Marks That they Shall So Mark their Said

Cattle or any belonging to them That the Same may be Reentered

into a Book for that Purpose to be kept for use as a [s]tanding Mark

for the [P]erson[s] there in Concerned, And whomsoever Shall faile in

this order Shall Forfeit and pay the Lords [P]roprietors of the Said [I]sland

The [S]ume of five [P]ounds

Likewise it is hereby required and ordered That when any

[P]erson or [P]ersons do and Shall Turn any [N]eat Cattle Upon y[e] [Compa]nys

Wast, That they do forth with bring or Cause to be brought & Delivered

to Cap[t]: Edward Mashborne or in his Absen[ce] to the Chief Ov[er]seer

at the Hono[ble] Comp[ys] Great [P]lantation An Acc[t] of Said Cattle Their

[k]inds and Markes, where ranging, and when they Shall Take Home

H[id]e or that any Casualty Fall upon any of them The Acc[t] be given in

Accordingly, That[s] thereby the Hono[ble] Comp[y]: May Have their Just due

and the owners of Such Cattle Not over charged

And whomsoever Shall be Found Rem[i]sh and Faile in this order

to performe the Same within one week Next after the driveing of

[S]u[c]h Cattle Upon the wast, Shall Forfeit the Said Cattle to the

Honourable Company, they Seizing Upon the Same as their own

Stock, And this to be taken as a [S]tanding Rule and Law till

otherwise [P]rovided Altered or Abrogated

Dated at Fort James this 26 day of February

170[8/9]

Signed [p]er order of Governo[r] and Councill

[p]me Jn[o]: Alexander [Cl]r[k] of Coun[d]

The Honourable Lords Proprietors had been much wronged through long experience by false accounts of cattle feeding on their waste land, and the council believed that much fraud had also been committed in other ways, both against the Honourable Company and against other good people on the island. No book of marks was now in existence to distinguish one man's cattle from another.

The council therefore required and ordered all persons on the island holding cattle, goats, sheep or swine to deliver, within the same time and place set out for the property returns, an account under their own hand of the marks by which they distinguished their animals. The marks were to be entered into a book kept for the purpose, to stand as the marks of each person concerned. Any person failing to comply was to forfeit and pay the Lords Proprietors of the island the sum of five pounds.

It was further required and ordered that, whenever any person turned neat cattle upon the Company's waste, an account of the animals was to be delivered forthwith to Captain Edward Mashborne, or in his absence to the chief overseer at the Honourable Company's Great Plantation. The account was to state the kinds and marks of the cattle and the place where they were ranging. Whenever the owner took home, hided or lost any of the animals through any casualty, a further account was to be delivered, so that the Honourable Company might receive its just due and the owners of the cattle would not be overcharged.

Any person who failed to comply with the order within one week of driving cattle on to the waste was to forfeit the animals to the Honourable Company, which was to seize them as its own stock. The order was to stand as a settled rule and law of the island until it was changed or repealed.

Dated at Fort James, 26 February 1709.

Signed by order of the Governor and Council, John Alexander, clerk of the council.

Interpretations

The February cattle marks order completed the registration scheme set in motion by the resolution of 11 January, where the council had identified the variety of marks as a source of fraud and ordered that all inhabitants deliver their marks at the next general sessions on penalty of forty shillings. The new order raised the penalty to five pounds and extended the requirement to cover goats, sheep and swine alongside cattle. This shows how the council moved an administrative scheme from its initial outline into a fully operational form across consultations, adjusting both the scope of the obligation and the financial weight of non-compliance as the project took shape. The earlier order had established the principle; this one converted it into binding law for every kind of livestock on the island.

The detailed reporting requirements for cattle turned out on the Company's waste reveal how the council managed the relationship between private herds and public pasture. Owners were to declare the kind, mark and location of each animal at the point of release, and to report again when the animal was taken home, slaughtered or lost. Captain Mashborne, or in his absence the chief overseer at the Great Plantation, was to receive the accounts. The system created a continuous documentary record of every privately owned beast on the proprietors' grazing land, with the chief overseer functioning as the administrative point of contact for routine matters and Mashborne carrying the higher authority when present. This indicates how the council projected its supervision into pasture management without itself sitting in continuous session.

The phrase that the Company was to receive its just due and the owners were not to be overcharged shows the council framing the new system as a protection for both parties to the grazing relationship. The Company had an interest in pasture fees and in preventing the concealment of animals taking forage at no charge. The owners had an interest in not being assessed for animals that had been slaughtered, taken home or lost. By recording all movements in both directions, the register made each party accountable to the other through the documentary record, with the chief overseer functioning as the working clerk of an evidentiary system that served both interests simultaneously.

The penalty of forfeiture, with the cattle becoming Company property after one week of unreported grazing, shows the council using property loss rather than monetary fine as the principal enforcement tool for the grazing scheme. A five-pound fine attached to non-registration of marks; forfeiture of the animals themselves attached to non-reporting of grazing. The escalation reflected the relative severity of the two offences: failure to register a mark left a documentary gap, while turning unregistered cattle out on the waste was an active appropriation of the proprietors' pasture. By making the animal itself the unit of penalty, the council ensured that the cost of evasion bore directly on the conduct it was designed to deter.

The declaration that the order was to stand as a settled rule and law until changed or repealed shows the council giving the cattle scheme an indefinite legislative form rather than a fixed term. Earlier orders had often run only until the matter at hand was resolved or until the next consultation reconsidered them. By framing this order as permanent legislation subject only to express alteration, the council placed it in the same category as the laws being collected into the Book of Laws and Constitutions of the Island St Helena. This indicates how the council was beginning to distinguish between routine resolutions and standing law within its own decision-making, with the cattle order treated as belonging to the latter class.

Speculations

The decision to require reporting of every cattle movement on and off the waste, in addition to the initial registration of marks, points to the council using the scheme to map the working economy of the island's livestock as a whole. The marks register alone would have established ownership; the movement reports would build, over time, a complete picture of how many animals each planter grazed, for how long and with what frequency of slaughter or loss. This information went beyond what was needed to prevent fraud and would have supported the council's wider work on annual revenue assessment, fortification labour planning and population accounting. The mechanism reads as a quiet extension of the council's information base under the cover of fraud prevention.

The five-pound penalty for failing to register marks, identical in amount to the white person's vineyard theft fine in the Declaration of 22 February, suggests that the council was developing a settled scale for moderate administrative offences. Several recent orders had produced penalties at this level, and the recurrence of the five-pound figure across distinct schemes points to a calibrated view of the appropriate financial weight for failures of compliance that fell short of serious wrongdoing. By holding to the same sum across different schemes, the council made the penalty structure predictable and reduced the scope for argument that one offence had been treated more harshly than another.

The naming of Captain Mashborne and, in his absence, the chief overseer at the Great Plantation as the receiving officers for grazing reports points to a deliberate division of executive labour within the cattle scheme. Mashborne carried the formal authority but could not be present at the Great Plantation continuously, while the chief overseer was on site daily and knew the working condition of the herds. By naming both, the council ensured that the system could operate without interruption regardless of Mashborne's other duties, and that the documentary record would be maintained by the officer best placed to observe the grazing in real time. This indicates how the council combined the formal hierarchy of its senior members with the practical knowledge of resident overseers in the design of operational systems.

217

209

Island St Helena

By the Govern[r] and Councill

An Advertizement

Since their declaration of the 27[th] October Last [p]ast, Wherein

they [s]ay that one half of any Cred[i]tt or Cash paid in Should be Sup[p]lyed

out of the Stores for their use, The other half to be detained for [p]aying

their old Debts to the Lo[rd] [P]roprietors

They are well Satisfied with the good and Honest Intentions of the

[P]eople That they have offered whatsoever they Had for [p]ayment of th[e]e

[S]ame, and beleiving That it may be too Hard Upon Some Familles

that want Severall Necesarys

They have ordered That after all Acc[ts] are made Up to the 25[th] [in]stant

that then they may have Liberty to take out of the Store Two

thirds, and only Leave one Third for the [P]ayment of their debts as

afor[esai]d, So that paying in fifteen pound[s], they recive in Stores

Ten pound[s], and So Greater or Le[s]ser Sum[s]

Dated at Fort James this 8 day of March 170[8/9]

Signed [p]er order of Govern[r] & Co[unc]ill

[p]me Jn[o]: Alexander

Jn[o] Roberts

Tho Goodwin

Edw[d] Mashborne

W[m] Marsden

Dan[l] Griffith

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tu[e]sday the 22 day

of March 170[8/9] At Fort James

Jn[o]: Roberts Govern[r]

Thom[s] Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Gov[r]

Pres[en]t Ed[w]: Mashborne 3 in Coun[d]

Will: Marsden 4 in Coun[d]

Dan[l]: Griffith 5 in Coun[d]

This Governour and Councill Considering Maturely what Little

Cash is paid into the Stores, and being [P]r[etty] well furnished with a

new Cargoe of goods, thought we could Not have a more fitter

time to Reduce the Dollars to five Shillings then now That

money

Island of St Helena. By the Governor and Council. An Advertisement.

Since the Declaration of 27 October last, in which the council had said that one half of any credit or cash paid in was to be supplied out of the stores for the inhabitants' use, the other half being retained for the payment of their old debts to the Lords Proprietors, the council had been well satisfied with the honest intentions of the people, who had offered whatever they had for the payment of their debts. The council believed that the existing arrangement might be too hard on some families that wanted several necessaries.

The council had ordered that, after all accounts had been made up to the 25th of the month, the inhabitants would have liberty to take two thirds out of the store, with only one third retained for the payment of their old debts. So on paying in fifteen pounds they would receive ten pounds in stores, and the same in proportion for greater or lesser sums.

Dated at Fort James, 8 March 1709. Signed by order of the Governor and Council, John Alexander.

Signed: John Roberts, Thomas Goodwin, Edward Mashborne, William Marsden, Daniell Griffith.

Island of St Helena.

At a consultation held on Tuesday 22 March 1709 at Fort James.

Present: John Roberts, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

The Governor and Council considered, after mature thought, what little cash was being paid into the stores. They had now been pretty well furnished with a new cargo of goods, and judged that no more suitable moment could be found to reduce the dollar to five shillings than the present, when money [...]

Interpretations

The shift from a one-half to a two-thirds drawdown ratio shows the council adjusting the debt scheme by stages in response to its observed effect on inhabitants. The October Declaration had begun at five pounds of credit for every ten pounds paid in, equivalent to a one-half ratio. The Declaration as issued on 28 October had been revised upward to six pounds for ten, equivalent to three fifths. The new ratio of two thirds carried that progression further, with inhabitants now receiving ten pounds in stores for every fifteen pounds paid in. This pattern indicates that the council treated the recovery ratio as an adjustable instrument rather than a fixed policy, and was prepared to ease the terms incrementally where it judged that the underlying scheme had built sufficient compliance to bear a more generous balance.

The reasoning behind the relaxation, that the existing arrangement might be too hard on some families that wanted several necessaries, shows the council attending to the consumption conditions of the indebted population. The earlier ratios had effectively diverted half or more of each payment away from immediate use, and families relying on the store for clothing, foodstuffs and other items had been left with insufficient drawdown. By raising the consumption share to two thirds, the council preserved the recovery mechanism while ensuring that the scheme delivered enough current supply to support the households participating in it. This indicates a working judgement that aggressive recovery would defeat itself if it left debtor families unable to sustain themselves.

The cutoff date of 25 March, the eve of the new year by the old calendar, set the accounting boundary for the change. All existing balances were to be brought up to that date under the prior ratio, and the new ratio applied from then forward. The choice of date aligned the financial transition with the conventional year-end on the island, allowing the council to close one set of accounts and open another at the same point. This shows administrative changes being calibrated to the calendar of the island's existing accounting practices rather than to the date of the Declaration itself.

The decision to reduce the dollar from six shillings to five at the 22 March consultation reversed the council's position of the previous October. The earlier debate had set out three reasons against revaluation: the bare condition of the stores, the absence of the main wanted articles and the impact on the council's cash reserves if credit-holders pressed for settlement. The new resolution rested explicitly on the changed condition that produced its opposite. The stores were now furnished with a new cargo, and the council judged that no fitter time could be found for the reduction. This shows currency policy being adjusted to the supply position rather than imposed against it, and indicates the council's earlier position had been a tactical defence of timing rather than a settled view on the dollar's appropriate rating.

The phrase that no fitter time could be found, set against the receipt of a new cargo, reveals how the council read the relationship between import arrivals and currency adjustment. A revaluation taken when stocks were thin would have raised the real cost of scarce goods at the moment when the population had no alternative source. A revaluation taken when stocks were ample distributed the cost of the lower rating across a broad inventory of available imports, and gave the inhabitants the means to convert their cash holdings into goods before the reduction took full effect. This indicates a calibrated approach in which the council waited for supply conditions to soften before imposing the proprietors' instruction on the currency.

Speculations

The progression of recovery ratios from one half to three fifths to two thirds, taken over the five months from October to March, suggests that the council was conducting a controlled experiment in debtor compliance. Each successive step relaxed the terms by a measurable amount, allowing the council to observe whether the scheme continued to attract payments at the more generous rate. The pattern reads less as a series of independent decisions than as a graduated easing in which the council tested the elasticity of the recovery mechanism at successive thresholds, with the readiness to move to the next ratio depending on the visible success of the previous one.

The decision to revalue the dollar in March, after the homeward-bound ships of the autumn had carried the October refusal back to London, points to the council coordinating its currency policy with the proprietorial correspondence cycle. The October refusal had been justified to the proprietors in writing by the schedule of shortages, and would have reached London during the winter. By implementing the reduction in March, before the next exchange of correspondence, the council could report compliance with the original April instruction in its next general letter, with the appearance of having delayed only as long as the supply situation made the change unworkable. The timing reads as designed to satisfy both the proprietors' policy and the council's view of the practical sequence, with the gap between the two presented as a matter of conditions rather than disagreement.

218

210

money may go as nigh its [I]ntrinsick Vallue as can be, As our Hono[ble]

Masters hath D[i]rected us in their G[e]n[er]all Letter dated the 7[th] of Aprill

1708

And considering further the disadvantage That y[e] good [P]eople

of this [I]sland Have for a Long time Laboured under in Relation to

the Coine, That Crowne peices and Dollars have [P]assed among us

at Six Shillings, and No Shiping that comes here will Take 'em For

any more than five Shillings which has been So D[e]trimentall

to us in Generall That to Sett our Selves Upon the Same footing with

them

It is this day Resolved in Councill

That from and after the 31 of this [in]stant March Crowne [P]eices is

to pass at five Shillings as in England And Dollars or [S]pannish [P]eices

of Eight Shall Not Exceed 'em, And all other Silver or Gold Coine [P]roper-

[t]ionately, But cease there should be wh[i]sky[?] [Sp][?] [...] [...]

That has Coine by them, The Store Keeper has orders to Receiv[e] them

for the [P]ayment of their old Debts, or for goods out of y[e] Stores 'till

that time at [s]ix Shillings

ordered

That a Declaration to the purport aforesaid be this day publish[e]d

By Beat of Drum and Sett up at the Publick and [u]suale [p]lace[s] to be

read by all [P]ersons

It is Further ordered

That the Store Keeper after haveing received the Money as aforesaid

Do take all opportunitys to pay the Same out a[ga]m[s]t [s]ix Shillings

the Dollars to whom money or [Cre]d[i]tt is due That our Hono[d] Masters

may [Lose?] nothing thereby

It is Resolved and ordered

That the [s]everall Goods received [p][er] the Despatch Galley from

Bengala be Sold at the Rates and prices following

viz[t] Copoes No 1 at 7[s] [p]er [...] Batavia Arrack at 16[s] [p]er gal[lon]

Ditto No 2 at 4[s] 9[d] Sugar at[?] 1[s] 8[d] [p]er [...]

[B]allasore Ginghams 10[s] [p]er Rice 1 at[?] [...]

Striped Ditto at 11[s] [p]er

Nicker[c]nies at 11[s] [...] Each

Chints at 10[s] [...]

Challo Shirts Course 2[s] Each ordered

So that money might come as near its intrinsic value as could be managed, in accordance with the Honourable Masters' direction in their general letter dated 7 April 1708.

The council further considered the disadvantage that the good people of the island had laboured under for a long time in relation to the coin. Crown pieces and dollars had passed locally at six shillings, but no shipping arriving at the island would take them at more than five shillings. This had been so harmful to the inhabitants in general that the council judged it necessary to set the island on the same footing as the visiting ships.

The council resolved that from and after 31 March instant, crown pieces were to pass at five shillings, as in England, and dollars or Spanish pieces of eight were not to exceed that figure. All other silver and gold coin was to follow proportionately. Lest there should be [...] [...] [...] who held coin, the storekeeper had orders to receive it for the payment of old debts, or for goods out of the stores, at six shillings until the date set above.

The council ordered that a Declaration to this effect be published the same day by beat of drum, and posted at the public and usual places to be read by all persons.

The council further ordered that, after the storekeeper had received the coin as above, he was to take every opportunity to pay it out at six shillings to the dollar to those to whom money or credit was due, so that the Honourable Masters might lose nothing by the transition.

The council resolved and ordered that the several goods received by the Despatch Galley from Bengal were to be sold at the rates and prices following:

Cossas No 1 at 17 s per piece

Cossas No 2 at 17 s per piece

Ballasore ginghams at 10 s per piece

Striped ginghams at 6s 6d per piece

Neckcloths at 1s 6d each

Chints at 10 s per piece

Coarse challo shirts at 2 s each

Batavia arrack at 6 s per gallon

Sugar at 1s 8d per pound

Rice at 4 s [...]

Ordered [...]Ordered [...]

Interpretations

The justification for the revaluation rested on two distinct grounds combined into a single resolution. The proprietors' direction in the general letter of 7 April 1708 supplied the formal authority. The mismatch between the island rate of six shillings and the shipping rate of five shillings supplied the practical reason. By presenting both elements together, the council aligned its compliance with the proprietors' instruction to a concrete inhabitant grievance, making the change appear as a relief from local disadvantage rather than as the implementation of an unwelcome order. This shows how the council framed a contested policy reversal as the resolution of a working problem, with the proprietors' authority operating as background rather than foreground.

The mechanism for the transition reveals how the council managed the financial interest of the proprietors through the storekeeper's office. Coin paid in at six shillings until 31 March was to be paid out by the storekeeper at the same rate to creditors holding outstanding claims. The transition therefore did not impose an immediate loss on existing balances but converted them through the same valuation that had created them. After the cutoff, the new rate of five shillings applied to all transactions. This indicates a careful preservation of the proprietors' accounting position across the change, with the storekeeper functioning as the conversion point between the old and new currency regimes.

The decision to publish the Declaration by beat of drum, as well as posting it at the usual places, shows the council using both immediate and durable channels for a measure that affected every monetary transaction on the island. The drum carried the news quickly to all who might hold coin and need to act before the cutoff. The posted notice provided the documentary reference for any subsequent dispute about the date or terms of the change. By combining both methods, the council ensured that no inhabitant could plead ignorance of the revaluation in the days that followed, and that the change had a fixed documentary record to which later proceedings could refer.

The opening of the Despatch Galley cargo at fixed retail prices, rather than at percentage advances, shows the same dual pricing approach observed in the October schedule. Bale goods and textiles from Bengal carried specific per-unit figures, while spirits, sugar and other consumables operated on similar fixed-price terms. The pricing of Batavia arrack at six shillings per gallon, against the five shillings recorded for the same item in the October schedule, marks a modest one-shilling increase that the Despatch Galley's contribution had not sufficed to suppress entirely.

The pricing of textiles by type, with Cossas graded by number, ginghams by origin and weave, and shirts by quality, shows the council managing imported cloth as a differentiated product line. The two grades of Cossas at the same seventeen-shilling price indicate that the distinction recorded in the bill of lading did not translate into a retail price differential at the storehouse. The structure preserved the variety of the original cargo as it passed through to local sale while applying a single price across closely related qualities, simplifying the storekeeper's task without disturbing the wider differentiation by cloth type.

Speculations

The careful structure of the transition, with the storekeeper continuing to accept coin at six shillings until 31 March and to pay it out at the same rate thereafter, points to the council protecting the proprietors against the immediate financial impact of the revaluation. Without the conversion mechanism, every dollar already in the proprietors' hands would have lost a sixth of its accounting value at the moment of the change. By preserving the old rate for the conversion of holdings into goods or onward payment, the council ensured that the proprietors' position was settled at six shillings before the new rate took effect for fresh transactions. The structure reads as a deliberate technical adjustment designed to limit the loss to the proprietors that the revaluation would otherwise have imposed.

The decision to set the two grades of Cossas at an identical seventeen-shilling price, despite the manuscript distinction between No 1 and No 2, suggests that the council was treating the grading as a record of origin or supplier rather than a meaningful retail quality difference. A buyer at the storehouse would have no incentive to prefer one grade over the other at the same price, and the storekeeper would be free to issue either as stock allowed. The pricing reads as a calculated simplification in which administrative convenience was given priority over the original supplier's classification.

219

211

Ordered

That all Accounts in the Hono[ble] Companys Store Books be forthwith

made offs and Ballanc[e]d And that a paper be Sett up at y[e] Store [R]oom door

to give Notice to all p[er]sons to repaire there In order to make up their

Respective Acco[un]ts Accodingly by the 25[th] [in]stant

And that the Store Keeper take care No [P]erson Ingros[s]es any

Goods for to make any [P]rofitt by any more then for their owne Nec[essary]

use for y[e] Cl[o]athing their Familles, and that y[e] Said goods Delivered out

be divided Accordingly and rough [P]roportion as can be

M[r] Daniel Griffith offered to Sell us Twenty Thousand of [Y]ams for the

use of the Honourable Company, which we take as a kindness, the Same

Lying Near and Convenient for the Fort, having been forc[e]d to fetch before

from places farr Distant

ordered

That the Said Yams be bought Accordingly at the usuall Rate of

that is thirty five Shillings a Thousand, Since Dollars are reduced to five

Shillings

J[no] Roberts

Tho Goodwin

Edw[d] Mashborne

W[m] Marsden

Daniel Griffith

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tu[e]sday the 29[th] day

of March 170[8/9] At Fort James

Jn[o] Roberts Govern[r]

Thom[s] Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Gov[r]

Pres[en]t Ed[w]d: Mashborne 3 in Coun[d]

Will[m] Marsden 4[th] in Coun[d]

Dan[l]: Griffith 5 in Coun[d]

Whereas the Lic[e]ne[s] for Retayling [s]trong drink, being Expired the 25[th] [in]stant

It is ordered

That a Declaration be this day Is[s]ued out To give Notice That the

Licences for retayling [s]trong Drink will be given out on Tuesday

next

The council ordered that all accounts in the Honourable Company's store books be settled and balanced at once. A paper was to be posted at the storeroom door giving notice to all persons to come there and make up their respective accounts by the 25th of the month.

The storekeeper was to take care that no person engrossed any goods for the purpose of making profit by them, beyond what was needed for the necessary use and clothing of their families. The goods delivered out were to be divided among the inhabitants in as rough a proportion as could be arranged.

Mr Daniell Griffith offered to sell twenty thousand yams to the council for the use of the Honourable Company. The council took the offer as a kindness, since the yams lay near and convenient to the fort, whereas supplies had previously had to be fetched from places far distant.

The council ordered that the yams be bought accordingly at the usual rate of thirty-five shillings a thousand, the dollar now being reduced to five shillings.

Signed: John Roberts, Thomas Goodwin, Edward Mashborne, William Marsden, Daniell Griffith.

Island of St Helena.

At a consultation held on Tuesday 29 March 1709 at Fort James.

Present: John Roberts, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

The licences for retailing strong drink had expired on 25 March instant. The council ordered that a Declaration be issued the same day, giving notice that the new licences for retailing strong drink would be granted on the following Tuesday [...]

Interpretations

The order against engrossing shows the council using its control of store stock to manage equitable distribution within the island's small population. A planter or trader with cash or credit to spend might otherwise have bought out an entire line of cloth or other necessaries from a single consignment, leaving none for others and creating the conditions for resale at a profit. By instructing the storekeeper to limit each purchase to the necessary use of the buyer's family and to divide the goods in rough proportion across the inhabitants, the council kept the store functioning as a public supply rather than a wholesale source for secondary dealers. This indicates how the council combined its retail tariff with quantity restraints to prevent the goods themselves from being captured by a few well-resourced buyers.

The phrase that the goods were to be divided in as rough a proportion as could be arranged shows the council acknowledging the practical limits of equitable distribution while still imposing the principle. No formula was specified, and the storekeeper was given discretion to apportion the supply by judgement rather than calculation. The wording recognised that careful rationing of every line across every household would be administratively impossible, but committed the storekeeper to the underlying intent of broad availability. This indicates a working compromise between principle and capacity, with the storekeeper carrying the day-to-day responsibility for translating the order into practice.

The acceptance of Griffith's offer of twenty thousand yams at thirty-five shillings a thousand shows the council combining commercial procurement with administrative convenience. Griffith was a sitting member of the council and held land near the fort. By buying his yams in preference to fetching them from distant plantations, the council saved transport costs and dealt with a known supplier on terms it could verify directly. The price was described as the usual rate, indicating that thirty-five shillings a thousand was an established figure rather than a negotiated one specific to this transaction. The decision shows the council's procurement practice operating through familiar suppliers at recognised rates, with the proximity of the source treated as an additional advantage.

The explicit reference to the reduction of the dollar to five shillings, made as part of the yam pricing order, shows the council adjusting its accounting language to the new currency regime even in routine purchases. The price of thirty-five shillings a thousand had previously been quoted in a context where dollars passed at six shillings; the same nominal figure now reflected the new dollar rating. By noting the change in the order itself, the council placed the transaction unambiguously within the new framework and ensured that the price would not later be challenged as ambiguous between the two rates. This indicates how the revaluation propagated through ordinary commercial entries, with each transaction now requiring explicit relation to the changed currency.

The licensing of strong drink retailers on a fixed annual cycle, with the expiry on 25 March and renewals issued the following Tuesday, shows the council operating a calendar-based regulatory system for an activity it sought to control through positive permission rather than prohibition. The 25 March expiry aligned with the year-end of the old calendar, the same date used as the cutoff for the store account changes. The licensing of liquor retail therefore operated within the same annual rhythm as other end-of-year administrative business, treating the regulation of drink sale as a recurring formal exercise rather than an open-ended permission. This indicates how the council's calendar of administrative events grouped routine renewals around fixed dates to simplify the management of the year's regulatory cycle.

Speculations

The prohibition on engrossing, set immediately after the dollar revaluation and alongside the requirement to balance all accounts by 25 March, points to the council anticipating a surge in store activity as inhabitants tried to convert holdings of coin into goods before the new rate took effect. A wealthy buyer with substantial dollar holdings might have rushed to the store in the last days of March to spend at the old rating, buying out lines for later resale or trading purposes. The anti-engrossing order pre-empted that outcome and ensured that the period of transition served general supply rather than concentrated speculation. The order reads as a deliberate companion to the revaluation, designed to prevent the change in currency from being captured by the few inhabitants with the resources to act on it.

The decision to buy Griffith's yams at the moment of the revaluation, rather than at any other point, suggests that the council was using the transition to settle local supply arrangements at the new rate. A purchase made at thirty-five shillings a thousand under the old dollar rating would have committed the Company to a price reflecting the previous currency regime. By placing the purchase on the record after the revaluation, the council established the post-change benchmark for yam pricing and gave Griffith the certainty of a transaction concluded under the new arrangements. The mechanism reads as a careful first transaction under the new currency, with a known supplier at an established rate, used to fix the working price for the period that followed.

220

212

next being the 5[th] of Aprill, Therefore all [P]ersons that is m[i]nded to

have any Licen[c]e[s] are to attend the Gov[er]n[r] and Councill Accord-

ingly

This day M[r] John Alexander Clerk of the Coun[cill] Brought the

[R]edevue Book before the Councill, wherein all the Inhabitants

Acc[oun]ts for dutys of Lands, Cattle &c are Contained and stated Accord-

ing to the Yearly Acc[t]s Given in for the year 1708

It is ordered

That Every Person be Charged in the Store Books of Acc[t]s for So

much as are in said [R]evenue Book and if any [P]erson is hereafter

found (after having Examined Said Acc[t]s) to have given in a false

Acc[t] of any Article Then the Delinquint to be fined Acco[r]ding

to the Order made for that [P]urpose

[P]ursuant to an order of Councell bearing date the 11 of January Last

[p]ast, Cap[tn] Edward Mashborne and M[r] Daniel Griffith brought this

day an Extract of all the Laws, orders and Constitutions made Insti-

tuted, and ordained for the Good Governm[t] of y[e] [I]sland, with an

Alphebett to the [s]ame very Methodically and Handsomely Done For

the [P]resent veiw or finding of any [P]erticular [U]pon Occasion

Whereupon Resolved

That the said Laws be made Publick among the free Planters

that they with our App[ro]bation, may Consider what Laws are

of good use to them here and which are Not, and That Coppy thereof

be sent to the Hono[ble]: United Company for their further [Co]nfirmation

J[no] Roberts

Tho Goodwin

Edw[d] Mashborne

W[m] Marsden

Dan[l] Griffith

The notice gave that all persons wishing to receive licences were to attend the Governor and Council on Tuesday next, 5 April. Those minded to take out licences were to apply accordingly.

Mr John Alexander, clerk of the council, brought the Revenue Book before the council. The book contained the accounts of all the inhabitants for the duties on lands, cattle and other items, stated according to the annual returns delivered in for the year 1708.

The council ordered that every person be charged in the store books of accounts for the same amount that appeared against them in the Revenue Book. If any person were afterwards found, on examination of the accounts, to have delivered a false return on any item, the offender was to be fined in accordance with the order made for that purpose.

Pursuant to the order of council of 11 January last, Captain Edward Mashborne and Mr Daniell Griffith brought before the council an extract of all the laws, orders and constitutions made and ordained for the good government of the island, together with an alphabetical index. The work had been done methodically and handsomely, allowing any particular law to be found and consulted as occasion required.

The council resolved that the laws be made public among the free planters, so that they might, with the council's approval, consider which laws were of good use on the island and which were not. A copy was also to be sent to the Honourable United Company for further confirmation.

Signed: John Roberts, Thomas Goodwin, Edward Mashborne, William Marsden, Daniell Griffith.

Interpretations

The integration of the Revenue Book with the store books shows the council linking its two main records of inhabitant liability into a single accounting system. The annual returns for 1708, delivered between 7 and 14 March under the Advertisement of 23 February, had been compiled into the Revenue Book by Alexander. By transferring the figures into the store books as charges against each inhabitant's account, the council ensured that the duties on lands and cattle would be settled through the same mechanism that handled debt repayment and retail purchases. The store account became the working ledger of every form of obligation owed to the proprietors, with the Revenue Book operating as the authoritative source for the annual charges. This indicates a deliberate consolidation of the proprietors' financial claims into one continuously running record per inhabitant.

The provision that anyone found to have delivered a false return was to be fined under the existing order shows how the council linked the new accounting practice to the deterrent already in place. The 23 February Advertisement had required returns under each inhabitant's own hand, committing the household to the figures it submitted. The 29 March order built on that commitment by attaching the false-return penalty to the cross-check made through the store books. This indicates a layered enforcement design in which the annual return, the signed submission and the subsequent store-book transfer each played a distinct role, with detection arising from the comparison between the figures rather than from any separate investigation.

The completion of the Book of Laws and Constitutions by Mashborne and Griffith, with an alphabetical index, marks the end of the project initiated on 11 January and the bringing into being of the regulatory archive that the council had identified as essential. The description as methodically and handsomely done indicates that the work met the council's standards both for content and for presentation. The alphabetical index transformed the volume from a static record into a working reference, allowing any particular law to be retrieved by subject rather than by chronological searching. This shows the council giving practical priority to ease of consultation, recognising that a law book without an index would have failed in the very purpose that had prompted its compilation.

The decision to publish the laws among the free planters for their consideration, before sending a copy to the Honourable United Company for confirmation, shows the council combining local consultation with metropolitan oversight in the legitimation of the new corpus. The planters were invited to identify which laws were useful on the island and which were not, giving them a participatory role in the review of the regulatory base. The simultaneous despatch to London committed the work to the proprietors' final confirmation. This indicates a two-stage validation process, in which local utility and central authority were both engaged, with the council operating as the mediating body between the two.

The phrase that the planters were to consider the laws with the council's approbation shows the council retaining authority over the consultation process itself. The free planters could express views, but those views were to be received and weighed by the council rather than treated as binding. This indicates that the consultation operated as an advisory exercise designed to inform the council's onward submission to London, not as a delegation of decision-making power to the inhabitants. The structure preserved the council's central role while drawing the planters into a process that gave the new corpus broader legitimacy than the council alone could confer.

Speculations

The decision to publish the laws to the free planters before sending the corpus to London points to the council seeking to test the practical workability of the laws on the island while there was still time to revise them in the metropolitan submission. A corpus despatched to London without local review might have included laws that experience showed to be redundant or counterproductive, and the proprietors' confirmation of those laws would have entrenched the difficulties. By inviting planter comment before the London submission, the council gave itself the opportunity to refine the corpus on the basis of local experience, and to present the proprietors with a body of laws that had been tested against the views of those who would have to live under them.

The timing of the licensing renewal, set for Tuesday 5 April, suggests that the council was clustering its annual administrative business in the first weeks of the new year. The 25 March licence expiry, the 25 March store account cutoff, the 7 to 14 March window for revenue returns, and the 29 March completion of the Book of Laws all fell within a few weeks of one another. The 5 April licensing reflected the same concentration. By grouping these recurring events, the council established a working calendar in which the major regulatory and accounting transitions of the year were transacted together, allowing the rest of the year to operate against a settled administrative baseline.

221

213

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Monday the 4[th] day

of Aprill 1709 At[t] Fort James

Jn[o]: Roberts Govern[r]

Thom[s] Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Gov[r]

Pres[en]t Ed[w]d: Mashborne 3 in Coun[d]

Will[m]: Marsden 4 in Coun[d]

Dan[l]: Griffith 5 in Coun[d]

Whereas Cap[t]: Edward Mashborne and M[r] Daniel Griffith were

appointed by an order of Councill bearing date the 11 of January Last

[p]ast to Collect all the Laws orders and Constitutions of the said

[I]sland which being Laid before the Councill the 28 of March Last and

approved of, In which we find [s]everall orders and Directions [P]roper for

the Govern[t] and Coun[cill] truly and some Laws not in force, being [S]ince

Repealed by the Hono[ble] Lo[rds] [P]rop[r]ietors, Wherefore

Resolved

That the Councill will Sett daily (or the Majority) To Collect out

of the Same all Such Laws orders and Statutes That tends to the well

being and orderly Governm[t] of the [P]eople and Inhabitants of this [I]sland

That has been from Time to Time Sent here by the Lo[rd]s [P]rop[r]ietors

and That no other [P]ublick Bisiness do Interfere

J[no] Roberts

Tho Goodwin

Edw[d] Mashborne

W[m] Marsden

Daniel Griffith

[I]sland

Island of St Helena.

At a consultation held on Monday 4 April 1709 at Fort James.

Present: John Roberts, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

Captain Edward Mashborne and Mr Daniell Griffith had been appointed by an order of council of 11 January last to collect all the laws, orders and constitutions of the island. Their work had been laid before the council on 28 March and approved. The council found that the collection contained several orders and directions still proper for the government of the island, along with some laws no longer in force, having been repealed in the meantime by the Honourable Lords Proprietors.

The council resolved that the council, or the majority of it, was to sit daily to extract from the collection all the laws, orders and statutes that served the wellbeing and orderly government of the people and inhabitants of the island and had been sent out from time to time by the Lords Proprietors. No other public business was to be allowed to interfere with this work.

Signed: John Roberts, Thomas Goodwin, Edward Mashborne, William Marsden, Daniell Griffith.

Interpretations

The decision to move from the initial collection of the laws to a second-stage filtering exercise shows the council distinguishing between the body of the regulatory archive and the operative corpus to be published and confirmed. Mashborne and Griffith had produced a comprehensive extract of all the laws, orders and constitutions, including material that the proprietors had since repealed. The new resolution required the council itself, or the majority of its members, to sit daily and identify the laws still in force and still useful. This indicates a two-stage editorial process in which the compilation was treated as the raw archive and the council's daily sittings as the working refinement of that archive into a current code.

The instruction that no other public business was to interfere with the filtering work shows the council giving editorial priority to a project that had now reached the point where collective deliberation was the operative bottleneck. The compilation phase had been delegated to two members; the filtering phase required the collective judgement of the council on which laws to retain. By suspending other public business, the council recognised that the project could not be completed in the gaps between routine consultations and required dedicated time. This indicates how the council managed the competing demands on its sitting hours by formally subordinating other business to the law-book work for the duration.

The reference to laws repealed in the meantime by the Honourable Lords Proprietors shows the regulatory archive of the island as a layered record in which metropolitan instructions had modified or cancelled earlier provisions over time. Mashborne and Griffith had collected the orders as they had originally been issued, without filtering for subsequent repeals. The council's filtering exercise had therefore to identify which laws remained operative and which had been superseded. This indicates how the practical regulatory position of the island depended on a continuous reading of the proprietors' instructions across decades, and how the law book project required the council to settle those questions definitively rather than leave them embedded in the original record.

The phrase that the council was to sit daily, or the majority of it, allowed the work to continue when individual members were unavailable. With five councillors in total, a majority required only three. The flexibility built into the resolution recognised that consistent attendance by all five members through a sustained editorial exercise would be unrealistic, and that progress depended on the work continuing despite occasional absences. This indicates how the council adapted its working practices to the practical constraints of a small executive body, treating majority sittings as sufficient for routine progress while reserving full attendance for substantive decisions.

Speculations

The decision to subordinate all other public business to the law-book filtering points to the council recognising that delay in completing the corpus would carry forward into the next correspondence cycle with London. The 28 March consultation had resolved that a copy of the laws was to be sent to the Honourable United Company for further confirmation. Sending an unfiltered compilation, including repealed laws, would have invited the proprietors to redo the work themselves, and would have presented the council's editorial output as incomplete. The daily sitting requirement reads as a recognition that the corpus had to be despatched to London in a finished state, and that the only way to achieve this within the season was to dedicate the council's working hours to the task.

222

214

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday

the 12[th] day of Aprill 1709 At Fort James

John Roberts Gov[r]

Thom[s]: Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Gov[r]

Pres[en]t Ed[w]d: Mashborne 3[r]d in [Coun]d

Will[m]: Marsden 4[th] in Co[un]d

Dan[l]: Griffith 5[th] in Cou[n]d

That the body of Laws Statutes and orders are now C[oll]ected and

[D]igested into a good forme and Method, and it's thought fitt that the

Inhabitants of this [P]lace be fully Acquainted therewith, which Tends

So much to their friendly and Sociable Living of which the Majority

have been Long [F]avourers of

And therefore

We do desire that the Govern[r] at his di[s]cretion will please to Issue out

a warrant for the Summoning Thirty Six of the [P]rincipall Inhabitants

To meet at the Church in Fort James Vally, or Country Church

or where Else he Shall think fitt before the said Laws may be Read

over to them, and a Coppy be given thereof to the Church Wardens

for this Ensueing year who from thence may give Coppys to those

That Shall Desire them, whereby they may know how to Governe

themselves and keep within bounds And the due Execution of the

Said Laws be for the future observed without [P]artiality

The [P]etition of Richard Swallow James Vesey and [...] [P]agley

Setting forth and representing to us, That they having a Flock of

Goats Ranging in Sandy Bay and [P]arts adjacent which often hath

Young Kidd[s], The Hoggs Eats and de[s]troys them to their Great

Loss and [P]rejudice Wherefore humbly Desires we would [P]lease to

take the Same Into our Consideration[s] That Some Means may

be us[e]d to prevent the Like for the future

Ordered

That

Island of St Helena.

At a consultation held on Tuesday 12 April 1709 at Fort James.

Present: John Roberts, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

The body of laws, statutes and orders had now been collected and digested into good form and method. The council thought it fit that the inhabitants of the island be fully acquainted with the corpus, since the laws tended so much to their friendly and sociable manner of living, of which the majority had long been favourers.

The council desired that the Governor, at his discretion, issue a warrant for the summoning of thirty-six of the principal inhabitants. They were to meet at the church in Fort James Valley, or at the country church, or at any other place the Governor thought fit, so that the laws could be read to them. A copy of the laws was also to be given to the churchwardens for the ensuing year, who were to provide copies from it to any persons desiring them. By this means the inhabitants would know how to govern themselves and keep within bounds, and the due execution of the laws would be observed without partiality.

Richard Swallow, James Vesey and [...] Pagley presented their petition. They held a flock of goats ranging in Sandy Bay and the parts adjacent. The flock often produced young kids, and the hogs ate and destroyed them, to the great loss and prejudice of the owners. The petitioners requested that the council take the matter into consideration and that some means be used to prevent further loss.

The council ordered that [...]

Interpretations

The decision to summon thirty-six principal inhabitants to hear the laws read shows the council using a representative gathering rather than a general assembly as the means of formal publication. The choice of thirty-six was substantial enough to draw in the leading figures of the planter community while remaining small enough for a single reading session. By selecting principal inhabitants rather than calling all the free planters, the council relied on the social standing of those present to carry the laws back to the wider population. This indicates a stratified conception of communication in which the leading planters served as channels through whom regulatory knowledge would diffuse to their neighbours, dependants and labourers.

The deposit of copies with the churchwardens for the ensuing year placed the law book in the hands of officers whose role bridged the religious and the civil administration of the island. The churchwardens were already responsible for matters of local order such as church repair, parish discipline and the collection of poor relief. Adding the distribution of legal copies to their duties extended their function as the point of contact between the council and the inhabitants, and gave the law book an institutional home outside the council itself. This indicates how the church served as a secondary administrative location on the island, complementing Fort James as a point through which official material reached the population.

The choice of either the church in Fort James Valley or the country church as the location for the reading shows the council adapting the publication exercise to the geographical spread of the population. The country church served the inhabitants of the rural parishes who would have found it difficult to attend a session held only at Fort James. By allowing the Governor discretion over the location, the resolution acknowledged that the principal inhabitants were not all concentrated in one part of the island and that effective publication required reaching them in their own districts. The flexibility built into the order indicates a recognition of the practical limits of island-wide attendance at any single venue.

The phrase that the laws tended to the friendly and sociable living of the inhabitants, of which the majority had long been favourers, shows the council framing the regulatory corpus as a benefit conferred on the population rather than as a constraint imposed on it. The presentation invited the inhabitants to receive the laws as the formal articulation of values they already held, and avoided the language of coercion or punishment in announcing the publication exercise. This indicates a deliberate rhetorical positioning by which the council sought to secure compliance through invited consent rather than imposed authority, with the formal reading serving as the moment at which the inhabitants were invited to recognise themselves in the corpus.

The reference to the due execution of the laws being observed in future without partiality indicates that previous enforcement had been irregular or selective. The council's intention in publishing the corpus was therefore not only to inform the inhabitants but to bind itself and its successors to consistent application. A law book widely known among the principal inhabitants made selective enforcement harder to sustain, since the inhabitants themselves would know what the law required and could point to the corpus when it was applied unequally. This indicates how the act of publication served as a discipline on the council as well as on the inhabitants.

The Swallow, Vesey and Pagley petition shows how the hogs problem first addressed by Governor Roberts in October 1708 continued to affect different parts of the island in different forms. The earlier order had authorised soldiers to kill loose hogs in Fort James Valley after repeated advertisements went unheeded by their owners. The new petition extended the same problem to Sandy Bay and the adjacent parts, where the hogs were now eating young kids born to the goat flocks of free planters. The recurrence of the issue in a new district indicates that the earlier solution, while effective in Fort James Valley, had not been generalised to other parts of the island where loose hogs imposed similar costs on neighbouring property.

Speculations

The decision to deposit the law book with the churchwardens for the ensuing year, with provision for copies to be given to those who desired them, points to the council expecting the corpus to circulate by request rather than by general distribution. A single deposit copy at each church, available for consultation by any inhabitant who came forward, would have been the obvious starting arrangement. The provision for copies to be made for those who desired them indicates that the council anticipated sufficient demand to justify a continuing reproduction effort. The mechanism reads as a deliberate openness to consultation, with the churchwardens functioning as the conduit through which planters could obtain personal reference copies for their own use.

The Swallow, Vesey and Pagley petition, presented at the same consultation that ordered the formal reading of the new corpus, points to the inhabitants identifying outstanding administrative problems that they wished to see addressed before the corpus reached its final form. With the laws being prepared for publication and onward transmission to London, this was the moment at which new orders could most easily be added to the body of regulation. The petitioners may have calculated that bringing the goats-and-hogs problem forward at this consultation increased the chance that a remedy would be incorporated into the published corpus, rather than left to a later order that would sit outside the volume now being prepared.

223

215

Ordered

That the Said [P]etition be Referred to the Thirty Six [P]ersons afor[esai]d

And That Two of the three before [N]amed [P]etitioners viz[t] Rich[d] Swallow

and James Vesey be two of y[e] Said Thirty Six and those Thirty Six

[P]roper [P]ersons are Named as followeth

[E]nigne Tho[s] Cason 1 Henry C[o]les

20 Tho Swallow 2 Sutton Isaack [Sen]r

21 Josh[a] Johnson 3 John Nichols [Sen]r

22 Gab[l] [Powell?] 4 Thom[s] Swallow

23 Rob[t] Addis 5 R[og]er Wells

24 Hugh Bodley 6 M[att]hew Bazett

25 James Drap[er] 7 Thom[s] G[r]egen

26 Rich[d] Gurling 8 Henry Francis

27 Cha[s] [Pe]nveal[?] 9 James Greentre[e]

28 Rich[d] Alexander 10 Jon[a]th[an] Bu[r]ton

29 Rich[d] Swallow 11 John Coles

30 Thom[s] Perkins 12 Orlando Bagley

31 Benj[a] [Robs?] 13 James Vesey

32 [Jn]o Twoats 14 Robert Leech

33 Joseph Lyskin[?] 15 Robert Bell

34 J[n]o Robinson 16 Tho[s] Burnham

35 Will[m] Seale 17 Tho Wrangham

36 Will[m] Marsh 18 Thom[s] Wa[r]son[?]

J[no] Roberts

Tho Goodwin

Edw[d] Mashborne

W[m] Marsden

Dan[l] Griffith

The council ordered that the petition be referred to the thirty-six persons listed above. Two of the three petitioners, Richard Swallow and James Vesey, were to be included among the thirty-six. The thirty-six proper persons named were as follows:

  1. Henry Coles
  2. Sutton Isaack senior
  3. John Nichols senior
  4. Thomas Swallow
  5. Roger Wells
  6. Matthew Bazett
  7. Thomas Gregen
  8. Henry Francis
  9. James Greentree
  10. Jonathan Burton
  11. John Coles
  12. Orlando Bagley
  13. James Vesey
  14. Robert Leech
  15. Robert Bell
  16. Thomas Burnham
  17. Thomas Wrangham
  18. Thomas Warson
  19. Ensign Thomas Cason
  20. Thomas Swallow
  21. Joshua Johnson
  22. Gabriel Powell
  23. Robert Addis
  24. Hugh Bodley
  25. James Draper
  26. Richard Gurling
  27. Charles Penveal
  28. Richard Alexander
  29. Richard Swallow
  30. Thomas Perkins
  31. Benjamin Robs
  32. John Twoats
  33. Joseph Lyskin
  34. John Robinson
  35. William Seale
  36. William Marsh

Signed: John Roberts, Thomas Goodwin, Edward Mashborne, William Marsden, Daniell Griffith.

Interpretations

The decision to refer the Sandy Bay petition to the thirty-six principal inhabitants, rather than to deal with it directly in council, shows the new body being given a working role at its first appearance. The council had summoned the thirty-six for the formal reading of the laws, but at the same consultation referred a substantive petition to them. The thirty-six were therefore not merely an audience but a deliberative body capable of considering and reporting on a particular grievance. This indicates that the council intended the gathering to function as a consultative mechanism within the regulatory process, not solely as a ceremonial reception of the corpus.

The inclusion of Richard Swallow and James Vesey, two of the three petitioners, among the thirty-six placed the parties directly into the body that would consider their own complaint. The arrangement gave the petitioners standing within the deliberation rather than positioning them as outsiders presenting a request to a separate body. This indicates how the council blurred the line between petitioner and decision-maker in the consultative model, allowing those with grievances to participate in the process that would consider them. The structure presumed that the petitioners' interests would be balanced by the wider membership of the thirty-six rather than separated from the deliberation by formal exclusion.

The composition of the thirty-six shows the council drawing on a broad cross-section of the planter community for the consultative body. The list includes Ensign Thomas Cason, who held a military rank, along with established planters such as Matthew Bazett the churchwarden, Thomas Burnham who had earlier petitioned about the fort slaves cutting wood on his grant, Robert Bell whose lease had been renewed in November, and Henry Francis whose grant of waste land had been approved at the December consultation. The list overlaps significantly with names that had appeared individually in council business across the preceding months, indicating that the thirty-six represented the same planter network from which the council's routine petitioners and tenants were drawn.

The numerical labelling of the list, running from 1 to 36 in two columns, shows the council producing the membership as a formal roll rather than a free-form list. The numbering allowed each member to be referenced by position as well as name and indicates an institutional intention to maintain the thirty-six as an identifiable body with continuing membership. This was not a single ad hoc gathering but a constituted set of persons whose names were to be carried forward in the council's records. The mechanism reads as the creation of a planter assembly, however limited in formal powers, with a defined membership recorded against a numbered register.

Speculations

The simultaneous summoning of the thirty-six and reference of the Sandy Bay petition to them points to the council using the consultative body as a working test of its viability. Inviting the principal inhabitants to receive the laws and immediately giving them a substantive matter to consider allowed the council to observe how the new mechanism functioned in practice. A purely ceremonial reception of the laws would have left the thirty-six without occupation between summoning and dispersal; the petition gave them a defined task and a reason to engage seriously with the laws being read. The arrangement reads as an early experiment in deliberative consultation, with the petition serving as the test case rather than the principal purpose of the gathering.

The presence of two of the three petitioners within the thirty-six, with the third left off the list, may indicate that the omitted petitioner did not meet the threshold of standing required for inclusion among the principal inhabitants. Swallow and Vesey were established planters whose names appear elsewhere in the council's land business, while Pagley, the third petitioner, did not appear among the thirty-six. The omission suggests that the council applied a consistent test for membership of the assembly that operated separately from the question of who could bring a petition. A planter could be heard in petition without necessarily qualifying for the deliberative body, and the council preserved that distinction even when refining a single matter.

The bringing forward of the petition at this consultation, immediately after the resolution to summon the thirty-six for the law reading, fits with the pattern observed at the previous consultation in which administrative business was clustered around major regulatory transitions. With the corpus being prepared for publication and the assembly being constituted, the petitioners had positioned their grievance at the moment when the council was most likely to add a new measure to the body of orders. The timing reads as a calculated use of the regulatory calendar by planters who had identified the law-book project as the right occasion to bring forward longstanding local problems.

224

216

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday the 19[th] day

of Aprill 1709 At Fort James

John Roberts Govern[r]

Thom[s] Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Gov[r]

Pres[en]t Ed[w] Mashborne 3 in [Coun]d

Will[m] Marsden 4 in Coun[d]

Dan[l]: Griffith 5 in Coun[d]

The Governour Reported to the Councill That According to

their[s] Desire in the Consultation Held the 12 of this [in]stant, he had

Sumoned Thirty Six of the [P]rinciple Inhabitants to In[s]pect into the

Laws orders and Statutes of Said [I]sland in the following Manner

M[r] N B

The Governour thinks it very [P]roper and Nec[e]sary That

you Joyntly with the Number of Thirty Six of the Inhabit[ants]

Should Meet on Tuesday the 20[th] Instant at the Church by the [P]lanta-

tion House where the E[s]tablish[d] Laws of this [I]sland will be read over

to you, of which you are to Co[n]sider, It tends [s]o much to our good

fr[i]endly and [s]ociable Living together

Signed [p]er order of y[e] Gov[r] Jn[o]: Alexander

Ordered

That Cap[t]: Edward Mashborne, L[ieu]t: Daniel Griffith & Ensigne

John Alexander do attend the thirty Six [P]ersons at the [C]hurch

aforesaid and Deliver them the Laws that are now in Force as are

now Ingrosed, And To Admonish them to keep within bounds thereof

Least they Incurr the [P]ennalty therein Mentioned, And Should they

Scruple any of 'em Let them draw up the Same in Writing And

we Shall Clear their Doubts by the Originall, and when they are

Read to 'em Leave the Laws with the Church Wardens

J[no] Roberts

Tho Goodwin

Edw[d] Mashborne

W[m] Marsden

Daniel Griffith

[I]sland

Island of St Helena.

At a consultation held on Tuesday 19 April 1709 at Fort James.

Present: John Roberts, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

The Governor reported that, in accordance with the council's desire at the consultation of 12 April, he had summoned thirty-six of the principal inhabitants to consider the laws, orders and statutes of the island. The summons took the following form.

Mr N B.

The Governor considered it very proper and necessary that, jointly with the other thirty-six inhabitants, the addressee meet on Tuesday 20 April instant at the church by Plantation House, where the established laws of the island were to be read to them for their consideration, the laws tending so much to good, friendly and sociable living together.

Signed by order of the Governor, John Alexander.

The council ordered that Captain Edward Mashborne, Lieutenant Daniell Griffith and Ensign John Alexander attend the thirty-six persons at the church and deliver to them the laws then in force, as engrossed in the new corpus. They were to admonish the inhabitants to keep within the bounds of the laws, lest they incur the penalties stated in them. If any of the thirty-six had scruples about any of the laws, they were to draw up their doubts in writing, and the council would clear the questions from the original archive. After the reading, the laws were to be left with the churchwardens.

Signed: John Roberts, Thomas Goodwin, Edward Mashborne, William Marsden, Daniell Griffith.

Interpretations

The use of a written summons addressed to each of the thirty-six individually shows the council giving the consultative assembly a formal procedural foundation rather than relying on general notice. Each principal inhabitant received a personal communication identifying him as one of the thirty-six and naming the date and place. This converted the gathering from a public meeting into a constituted body whose members had been formally called to serve. The mechanism reads as a deliberate institutionalisation of the new assembly, drawing on the same documentary practice used to authenticate other council instruments.

The decision to hold the reading at the church by Plantation House, rather than at the church in Fort James Valley, shows the council using the country church for an event drawing principal inhabitants from across the island. The Fort James church was nearer to the seat of council and might have signalled close executive supervision of the gathering; the country church provided a more neutral location for an assembly intended to consider the laws on their merits. The choice indicates a sensitivity to the symbolic implications of venue, with the council distinguishing between proceedings under its direct control at Fort James and those held under the colour of inhabitant consideration in the country.

The composition of the delegation sent to attend the thirty-six, with Mashborne as third councillor, Griffith as fifth and Alexander as clerk, shows the council assigning the law-reading task to the officers most familiar with the corpus. Mashborne and Griffith had compiled the law book under the 11 January order, and Alexander, as clerk, had handled the documentary work throughout. Sending the same officers to read the laws to the inhabitants ensured continuity between compilation and publication, with the men best placed to answer questions or clarify provisions being the same who attended the reading. This indicates that the council treated the publication exercise as a substantive engagement rather than a formality, and resourced it accordingly.

The provision that any scruples about the laws were to be drawn up in writing and the council would clear the doubts from the original archive shows a structured mechanism for handling inhabitant objections. The thirty-six were not to debate the laws aloud at the reading and reach collective views; instead, individual or collective objections were to be reduced to writing and submitted for council consideration. The council would then resolve the questions by reference to the original record from which the corpus had been compiled. This indicates how the consultative process operated through documentary exchange rather than open deliberation, with the council retaining final authority over the meaning of the laws while inviting inhabitant scrutiny of their content.

The simultaneous instruction to admonish the thirty-six to keep within the bounds of the laws, lest they incur the penalties stated, shows the council combining consultation with warning at the same event. The principal inhabitants were being invited to consider the laws and to raise scruples about them, but also being reminded that the laws applied to them and carried penalties for breach. This dual framing kept the consultation within bounds that the council controlled, with the inhabitants placed in the position of subjects who could comment on the laws but who remained accountable under them regardless of the outcome of their consideration. The structure preserved the council's executive authority while opening a narrow channel for inhabitant input.

The deposit of the laws with the churchwardens after the reading completes the documentary architecture set out in the 12 April resolution. The corpus would now reside at the country church, available to be consulted by inhabitants and copied as requested. The reading at Plantation House and the subsequent deposit at the same location concentrated the new institutional infrastructure of the law book in the rural part of the island, complementing the council's seat at Fort James. This indicates how the council was building a regulatory presence outside the fort itself, distributing the working tools of governance to locations where the inhabitants actually lived.

Speculations

The choice of the country church at Plantation House for the reading, rather than the Fort James church, points to the council positioning the consultation away from the immediate associations of garrison authority. A gathering at Fort James would have placed the thirty-six within sight of the fortifications, the storehouse and the council chamber, where their consultative role might have appeared as a subordinate function of the executive establishment. Plantation House, with its agricultural setting and country church, provided a venue at which the principal inhabitants could engage with the corpus in a context more closely resembling the rural community they represented. The choice of location reads as a deliberate alignment of the symbolic setting with the consultative purpose of the gathering.

The requirement that scruples be drawn up in writing for resolution by reference to the original archive, rather than addressed at the reading itself, points to the council closing off the possibility of collective deliberation by the thirty-six. Allowing the gathering to debate the laws openly might have produced collective resolutions that the council could not easily ignore. By channelling objections through individual written submissions back to the council, the structure preserved the council's authority to consider each point separately and to rule on it by reference to the documentary record. The mechanism reads as a deliberate constraint on the assembly's capacity to act as a collective body, even while it formally consulted the assembly on the corpus.

225

217

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday the 27[th]

day of Aprill 1709 At Fort James

Pres[en]t Jn[o]: Roberts Esq[r]: Govern[r]

Thom[s]: Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Govern[r]

Ed[w]: Mashborne 3 in [Coun]d

Will[m]: Marsden 4 in Coun[d]

Dan[l]: Griffith 5 in Coun[d]

According to an order of Councill bearing date the 19[th] [p]ast

Captaine Edward Mashborne L[ieu]t: Daniel Griffith and Ensigne

John Alexander made Report to the Coun[cill] This day That they did

attend Thirty Six of the [P]rinciple Inhabitants of this [I]sland on Tuesday

the 26[th] [in]stant at the Church in the Countrey by the [P]lantation house

and Did there read over the Laws orders and Statutes of [s]aid [I]sland

and afterwards Lyft them with the Church Wardens And Admonished

all the A[s]embly According to their Instructions and they [s]eemed to

be very well [s]attisfied therewith, And that amongst themselves they

Chose Twelve to Co[n]sider the Same for their better Information

which Persons are viz[t]

1 Henry Coales

2 Thom[s] Swallow [Sen]r

3 John Nichols [Sen]r

4 M[att]hew Bazett

5 Rob[t]: Addis

6 Orlando Bagley

7 Rich[d] Swallow

8 Henry Francis

9 James Greentre[e]

10 Charles Steward

11 Rich[d]: Gurling

12 John Coles

Island of St Helena.

At a consultation held on Tuesday 27 April 1709 at Fort James.

Present: John Roberts, Esquire, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

In accordance with the order of council of 19 April, Captain Edward Mashborne, Lieutenant Daniell Griffith and Ensign John Alexander reported to the council that they had attended thirty-six of the principal inhabitants of the island at the country church by Plantation House on Tuesday 26 April. They had read over the laws, orders and statutes of the island, deposited the corpus with the churchwardens afterwards, and admonished the assembly in accordance with their instructions. The thirty-six had appeared well satisfied with the laws, and had chosen twelve of their number to consider the corpus further for the better information of the assembly. Those twelve were:

  1. Henry Coles
  2. Thomas Swallow senior
  3. John Nichols senior
  4. Matthew Bazett
  5. Robert Addis
  6. Orlando Bagley
  7. Richard Swallow
  8. Henry Francis
  9. James Greentree
  10. Charles Steward
  11. Richard Gurling
  12. John Coles

Interpretations

The selection of twelve from the thirty-six shows the assembly producing a smaller working committee from within its own ranks. The mechanism of selection was internal to the gathering, with the thirty-six choosing the twelve among themselves rather than receiving names from the council. This indicates that the assembly was operating with at least limited capacity to organise itself, electing a working group to carry forward consideration of the corpus on behalf of the wider body. The structure reads as the emergence of a two-tier consultative arrangement, with the thirty-six functioning as the broader assembly and the twelve as a deliberative subcommittee.

The choice of twelve as the number of the smaller body draws on a recognisable English administrative tradition. Twelve was the size of a jury and of various parish and manorial bodies, and its use here gave the new committee a familiar form. By settling on this number rather than on some other figure, the assembly aligned its working group with the conventional size of a deliberative body in English local governance, signalling that the consideration of the laws was to be conducted in a form the inhabitants would recognise as proper. This indicates how administrative practice on the island drew on metropolitan precedent even in novel arrangements.

The composition of the twelve preserves most of the planter network that had appeared in the thirty-six and overlaps with names that had featured in routine council business. Matthew Bazett the churchwarden, Henry Francis whose grant had been confirmed in December, Robert Addis who had appeared earlier in the season's land business, and the two Swallows all appear, indicating that the working committee drew on planters with established standing in council dealings. This shows the consultative mechanism reinforcing rather than disrupting the existing hierarchy of planter participation, with the same individuals who had appeared singly in council business now appearing as a body considering the corpus.

The report that the assembly seemed well satisfied with the laws records the immediate response to the reading at Plantation House. The phrase is the council's own characterisation of the gathering's reception, conveyed through the three officers who attended. This indicates how the council assessed the success of the publication exercise through the reported demeanour of the inhabitants rather than through any formal vote or expression of approval. The satisfaction noted was a matter of impression rather than measurement, but its inclusion in the consultation record gave the publication exercise its first piece of institutional validation.

The absence of any written scruples submitted to the council, taken with the choice of twelve to consider the laws further for better information, suggests that the assembly preferred internal review to immediate written objection. The 19 April resolution had provided that any scruples be drawn up in writing for the council to clear by reference to the original archive. The thirty-six chose instead to establish their own working group to study the corpus in greater depth. The arrangement reads as a deliberate intermediate step, with the twelve giving the assembly time to consider the laws before any formal objections were raised through the written channel.

Speculations

The decision of the thirty-six to choose twelve from among themselves, rather than to raise written scruples at the close of the reading, suggests that the principal inhabitants saw the law book as a substantial body of regulation that required sustained study before objections could be sensibly formulated. A reading at a single sitting could not produce considered responses to the full corpus, and the inhabitants chose to give themselves the time and the working structure to read the laws more carefully. The twelve were the mechanism by which that further reading could be organised, with their conclusions to be reported back to the wider thirty-six in due course. The arrangement reads as a request for time disguised as a procedural step.

The composition of the twelve, drawn heavily from planters whose names had appeared in council business across the preceding months, points to the assembly choosing members with experience of how the council actually operated in practice. Bazett, Francis, Addis and the Swallows had all dealt with the council on individual matters and would know how the council interpreted and applied its orders. By selecting men with this institutional familiarity, the assembly equipped its working committee with the practical knowledge needed to assess whether the engrossed laws matched the working practice the inhabitants had experienced. The choice reads as a deliberate preference for experienced petitioners over purely senior figures.

226

218

We[e] find that our Lower Table which Consists of Eighteen [P]eople

is very b[u]rdensom and Chargable to the Company for besides the

Eighteen there has been an Addition for about these three Months

[P]ast, Eight Carpenters one Smith and one Stone Layer, which

makes Twenty Eight, And Upon Computing the Charge of their

Maintainance (that is) Beef Pork, Yams Flour Arrack Sugar Candy

Lemon Juice Vinager [s]uering[?], Salt and Sometimes bread, Two Blacks

for dr[e]ssing their Victualls, One to Fetch wood, besides D[a]mage and

Waste of Linnen, [P]ewter, Knives &c

That by Computation at a Medium it cost[s] the Hono[ble] Comp[y] [...] [s] [d]

to Maintaine those Twenty Eight [P]eople p[e]r weeke as [p]er Acc[t]: 24-3-3

Beef 120 at 3[d] [p]er - 1- 5- 3

Yams 700 at 6[s] [p]er - 2-2-0 -

Pork 80 at 6[d] [p]er - 2- - -

Flour 100 at 4 [...] [p]er - 1- - 10

Suet 14 at 6 [...] [p]er - - 7- -

Bread 50 at 2 [...] - - 10- 5

Vinager 3 Gall[ons] at 4[s] [p]er Gall[on] - - 12- -

Fish - - 1- -

Salt 1[½] Bushells at 6 [s] [p]er [b]ushell - - 9- -

Wood two Shillings [p]day for a Black to fetch it - - 14- -

Two Cooks to Dress y[e] Victualls and their - 14- 8 -

own Dyet daily at 2[s] [p]day

Arrack [F]ide[?] Gallons [p]day at 5[s] [p]er Gall[on] - 6- 6- -

Sugar Candy 5 [...] Each - 1- 1- -

Lime [J]ucie 4 [G]all[on] [p]day y[?] at 5[s] [p]er Gall[t] - - 17- 6

Sum Totall[s] 24- 3- 3

Which [p]day to one Man amounts to near [...] 6[d] And yet

at the Same Time the people often Di[s]ati[s]fyed & Co[m]plaining

And therefore the Governeur thought it Convenient to go on

a new Contract with these Carpenters Allowing of em four Shillings

and Six pence [p]day for their L[a]bour, and Eighteen [P]ence [p]day for

their Victualls, And the better to reduce this Vaste Charge of

that Lower Table

ordered

The council found that the lower table, consisting of eighteen people, had become very burdensome and costly to the Company. For about the past three months, eight carpenters, one smith and one stone layer had been added to the eighteen, making twenty-eight in all. The cost of maintaining these twenty-eight in beef, pork, yams, flour, arrack, sugar candy, lime juice, vinegar, salt and sometimes bread, with two slaves to dress the victuals and one to fetch wood, besides the damage and waste of linen, pewter, knives and other items, had been computed at a medium rate.

By that computation it cost the Honourable Company £24 3s 3d a week to maintain the twenty-eight people, as per the account.

Beef, 420 lb at 3 d per lb: £5 5s 0d Yams, 700 at 6 d per [...]: £2 2s 0d Pork, 80 lb at 6 d per lb: £2 0s 0d Flour, 100 lb at 2½ d per lb: £1 0s 10d Suet, 14 lb at 6 d per lb: £0 7s 0d Bread, 50 lb at 2½ d per lb: £0 10s 5d Vinegar, 3 gallons at 4 s per gallon: £0 12s 0d Fish: £1 1s 0d Salt, 1½ bushels at 6 s per bushel: £0 9s 0d Wood, two shillings per day for a slave to fetch it: £0 14s 0d Two cooks to dress the victuals and their own diet daily, at 2 s per day: £1 4s 8d Arrack, two gallons per day at 9 s per gallon: £6 6s 0d Sugar candy, 3 lb per diem: £1 1s 0d Lime juice, ½ gallon per day at 5 s per gallon: £0 17s 6d

Sum total: £24 3s 3d

This came to nearly [...] 6 d per day for each man, and yet the people often went away dissatisfied and complaining. The Governor therefore thought it convenient to enter into a new contract with the carpenters, allowing them four shillings and sixpence per day for their labour and eighteen pence per day for their victuals, the better to reduce the heavy charge of the lower table.

The council ordered that [...]

Interpretations

The detailed weekly costing of the lower table shows the council subjecting an everyday establishment expense to the same itemised audit it applied to cargo schedules and revenue returns. Each commodity was recorded with its quantity, unit price and weekly total. The presentation as a vertical account, summing to £24 3s 3d, gave the lower table the documentary form of a small enterprise account rather than a general household expense. This indicates how the council brought the maintenance of dependent staff within the accounting discipline it had developed for trade and tenure, with the implication that the line item was now open to managerial intervention.

The composition of the lower table reveals the working hierarchy of the establishment. The eighteen original diners had been the standing complement, joined for three months by the eight carpenters, the smith and the stone layer drawn in for the building works under the new fort programme. The lower table thereby served as the messing arrangement for skilled tradesmen on Company business, not for soldiers or labourers, and the surge in numbers tracked the intensification of construction. This shows how the labour requirements of the fortification project propagated through the establishment's accounts as a measurable cost, with each additional craftsman adding a quantifiable burden to the lower table.

The single largest line in the account was arrack at £6 6s 0d for the week, accounting for more than a quarter of the total cost. Two gallons per day for twenty-eight people, at nine shillings per gallon, made the spirit ration the dominant element of the maintenance bill, exceeding beef, pork and yams combined. This shows the central role of arrack in the daily diet of the establishment and the substantial portion of the lower table's cost that was driven by its supply. The pricing of nine shillings per gallon, against the six shillings recorded for Batavia arrack in the March cargo schedule, indicates that the lower table was charged at a higher internal accounting rate than the retail price in the store.

The decision to move the carpenters from the lower table on to a new contract at four shillings and sixpence per day for labour and eighteen pence per day for victuals shows the council converting a maintenance obligation into a piece-priced employment. The lower table provided food in kind at whatever cost the Company incurred; the new contract fixed the daily food allowance at a sum the carpenter spent for himself, transferring the management of victuals to the worker and capping the Company's exposure. By detaching the victualling element from the messing arrangement, the council shifted the financial risk of price fluctuations in beef, arrack and other lines from the establishment to the carpenter, while keeping the construction work itself going under contract terms.

The eighteen-penny daily allowance for victuals against the four-and-sixpenny labour rate placed food at exactly a third of the carpenter's total remuneration. The proportion gave the carpenter a recognisable share of his pay for subsistence while preserving the larger portion as wages proper. The structure indicates that the council had calculated what a working man could reasonably feed himself for on the island, and chose to make that figure the visible victualling component of the contract rather than burying it within a single combined rate.

The reference to the people often going away dissatisfied and complaining, despite the heavy charge, shows the council recognising that high cost did not equate to participant satisfaction. The lower table was producing both excessive expense and complaint, which justified a structural change rather than incremental adjustment. This shows the council using the combination of cost and unrest as the basis for institutional restructuring, with neither factor alone sufficient to justify the change but their combination producing the decisive case for moving to contract.

The inclusion of damage and waste of linen, pewter and knives among the costs of the lower table, even though these items did not feature in the weekly computation itself, shows the council acknowledging hidden costs beyond the food account. Crockery, cutlery and table linen were Company property used in the messing arrangement, and their attrition added to the real cost of the lower table without appearing in the weekly food line. By naming these items in the narrative, the council signalled that the formal £24 3s 3d figure understated the true burden, strengthening the case for the contractual shift even though the additional costs could not be precisely quantified.

Speculations

The decision to take the carpenters off the lower table while presumably retaining the smith, the stone layer and the original eighteen suggests that the council was identifying the carpenters as the marginal group whose treatment could most readily be restructured. The carpenters had been the largest single addition to the table, with eight men compared with one smith and one stone layer, and their removal would yield the most immediate reduction in maintenance costs. By converting their arrangement first, the council captured the largest fraction of the recent expansion while leaving the smaller groups for later consideration. The choice reads as a deliberate prioritisation of the changes that would produce the largest financial effect.

The framing of the new arrangement as a contract rather than a wage rise points to the council giving the change a legal form that bound both sides. A simple wage increase paid alongside continued messing would have left the Company exposed to further requests, since the carpenters would have retained their place at the lower table while drawing higher pay. A contract that combined labour rate, victualling allowance and the implicit withdrawal of the messing arrangement settled all three elements at once. The mechanism reads as a calculated piece of restructuring in which an inflationary pressure was redirected into a fixed-cost arrangement, with the contract providing the documentary form that made the new terms enforceable.

The size of the arrack line at £6 6s 0d, well above any other single item, points to the council using the contract change to detach the carpenters from the largest variable cost in the lower table account. A carpenter on contract would have to buy his own arrack at island prices, or do without, and the Company would no longer be carrying the daily two-gallon ration as part of the messing arrangement. The eighteen-penny daily food allowance would not stretch to the same quantity of spirit, which suggests that the council expected the contract to reduce arrack consumption among the affected workers as well as transferring its cost. The mechanism reads as a quiet temperance measure folded into a financial restructuring.

227

219

Ordered

That all ways and means that can be thought on hereafter be used for the Reduceing of that Table Into a Le[s]er Compass and if [P]o[s]ible Utterly to abolish it, And that for the future care be taken that we make no Bargains with any Artificers or others but to Exclude them from the Victualls at the Companys Charge

Ordered

That Hugh Bodley overseer of the Blacks who had Twenty Six pound[s] a year and his victualls at the Companys Charge be Discharged

Cap[t]: Edward Mashborne Advises that he has taken up five head of Cattle viz[t] one Young Bull, two Bullocks and one Yearling Hei[f]er which he found Trespa[ss]ing Upon the Common where to his Certaine Know- ledge they have Grazed above Ten days which Cattle being taken up and pound[e]d in the Companys [P]ound, findes by their Markes they belong to M[rs] Elizabeth Johnson, Th[e] [W]id[ow] of y[e] former Gov[r] Johnson

Ordered

That a Warrant be I[m]mediately I[s]sued out, and that the Marshall Su[m]mons her to Appe[a]re before [Gover]n[r] and Councell on Tuesday Next, being the 3[rd] of May

J[no] Roberts Tho Goodwin Edw[d]: Mashborne W[m] Marsden Daniel Griffith

The council ordered that every possible means be used in future to reduce the lower table to a smaller compass, and if possible to abolish it entirely. For the future, care was to be taken that no bargains were made with any artificers or others except on terms that excluded them from victualling at the Company's charge.

The council ordered that Hugh Bodley, overseer of the slaves, who had been receiving twenty-six pounds a year and his victualling at the Company's charge, be discharged.

Captain Edward Mashborne reported that he had taken up five head of cattle, namely one young bull, two bullocks and one yearling heifer, which he had found trespassing upon the common. To his certain knowledge they had grazed there for more than ten days. He had impounded the cattle in the Company's pound. From their marks, he had identified them as belonging to Mrs Elizabeth Johnson, widow of the former Governor Johnson.

The council ordered that a warrant be issued at once, and that the marshal summon Mrs Johnson to appear before the Governor and Council on Tuesday next, 3 May.

Signed: John Roberts, Thomas Goodwin, Edward Mashborne, William Marsden, Daniell Griffith.

Interpretations

The order to reduce the lower table to a smaller compass and if possible to abolish it entirely shows the council establishing the carpenters' contract as the first step in a broader institutional retreat from in-kind provisioning. Rather than treating the new contract as a one-off response to a specific cost problem, the council placed it within a stated policy of progressive elimination. This indicates that the establishment was moving away from the early-modern household model of feeding dependants at the master's table towards a contractual model in which all workers received cash allowances for their own subsistence. The standing instruction that future bargains were to exclude victualling at Company charge gave the policy retrospective consistency, binding future agreements to the new principle whether or not specific reductions had yet been achieved.

The discharge of Hugh Bodley, overseer of the slaves at twenty-six pounds a year plus victualling, shows the council acting on the new policy in the same consultation in which it was announced. Bodley appears as one of the thirty-six principal inhabitants summoned for the law reading earlier in the month, indicating his standing on the island, and his removal from a salaried Company post freed the position for restructuring on the new terms. The combined value of the salary and victualling made his post a substantial Company outgoing. By discharging him at this moment, the council took action that produced an immediate saving and provided a working example of the policy being applied at the level of an individual office.

The cattle case against Mrs Elizabeth Johnson activated the cattle marks register established by the 11 January and 26 February orders. Captain Mashborne identified the trespassing animals by their marks and traced them to a named owner, demonstrating that the registration system was now operating as designed. The chain ran from observation on the common through impoundment to identification by mark to the issue of a summons. This shows the cattle scheme functioning as a working enforcement instrument within months of its introduction, with the documentary record translating directly into a procedural action against the owner.

The status of the defendant as the widow of the former Governor Johnson shows the council prepared to apply the cattle order to inhabitants of the highest standing on the island. A widow of a former Governor would ordinarily expect a measure of deference in routine administrative matters, and her exclusion from such deference signals the council's intent to apply the cattle order uniformly. The decision to issue a warrant and summon her through the marshal placed her on the same procedural footing as any other inhabitant whose cattle had trespassed for ten days on the common. This indicates the council's commitment to demonstrating that the new registration regime would operate without partiality, a principle expressly invoked in the 12 April resolution to publish the laws.

The procedural form of the response, with impoundment preceding summons, shows how the cattle order operated through physical detention of the animals as the first step. The trespassing beasts were already in the Company's pound by the time the council issued the summons, which meant that the owner faced a settled position rather than an open allegation. To recover her cattle Mrs Johnson would have to appear, accept the council's finding and pay whatever fee or fine attached to the trespass. The mechanism gave the council a powerful procedural lever, with the cattle themselves serving as the security for the owner's compliance with the council's process.

Speculations

The simultaneous announcement of the lower-table reduction policy and the discharge of Hugh Bodley points to the council using the policy statement as cover for what was in substance the removal of a particular individual. A discharge presented in isolation might have appeared as a judgement on Bodley's performance, inviting representation or appeal on the merits. Folded into a wider policy of restructuring, the discharge appeared as the implementation of a general principle that happened to apply first to him. The sequence reads as a calculated piece of administrative framing, in which the policy provided the justification and the discharge supplied the immediate financial saving.

The choice to bring the cattle case against Mrs Johnson at this particular consultation, with the principal inhabitants newly acquainted with the published laws, suggests that the council saw an early enforcement action against a person of standing as a test of the regulatory framework now in force. A first prosecution against an obscure planter might have passed without notice; a prosecution against the widow of a former Governor would be known throughout the island within days. By choosing a defendant whose case would attract attention, the council demonstrated the new system at work and signalled to the thirty-six that the laws would be applied as the 12 April resolution had promised, without partiality.

228

220

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday the 3[rd]

day of May 1709 At the United Castle in James Valley

Jn[o]: Roberts Esq[r]: Govern[r]

Thom[s] Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Govern[r]

Ed[w]: Mashborne 3 in [Coun]d

Will[m]: Marsden 4 in Coun[d]

Dan[l]: Griffith 5[th] in Coun[d]

Whereas an Advertizement was I[s]sued out bearing date the 26[th] of

February Last [p]ast Enjoyning all [P]ersons to give an Acc[t] of their Cattle

and how many upon the Lo[rd]s [P]roprietors Common within a week

after the Turning of Such Cattle

Contrary to which Advertizem[t] M[rs] Eliz[h] Johnson wid[ow] to the Late

dec[ease]d Govern[r] Johnson hath not given any Such Acc[t] But Suffered

her Cattle in Co[n]tempt thereof To gra[z]e Upon the Common Whereof

five is Seized and [P]ut into the Companys [P]ound viz[t] One Young Bull

two Young Bullocks and one Yearling Heifer

Which Cattle According to the Hono[ble] Comp[ys] orders and the

Advertizement Issued out is forfeited to y[e] Said Hono[ble]: Lo[rd]s [P]roprie[tors]

Wherefore

Resolved Nemine Contradicente

That the Said M[rs] Eliz[h] Johnsons five head of Cattle viz[t] one Young Bull

two Young Bullocks and one Yearling [H]eifer be Confiscated and

forfeited to the said Hono[ble] Compa[n]y, And that She may have

Liberty to buy the Said Cattle at Twelve [P]ounds which we Vallue

them at, and She to give her Answer Immediately whether She will

buy 'em or not, And to [P]ay y[e] Charges

The Question being put to the Said M[rs] Eliz[h] Johnson whether [s]he would

buy the said five head of Cattle or not, made Answer She was willing

to take them again and to pay the Twelve pound aforesaid

Ordered

That the Store Keeper do make the Said M[rs] Elizabeth Johnson debtor

to the Honourable Company for the Sume of Twelve pounds

and

You are right, that is a much more plausible reading. May 1709 sits within the period of the union and the political reconstitution that followed. The Act of Union of 1707 had created the United Kingdom of Great Britain by uniting England and Scotland. By 1709 the new political identity was filtering through to the colonial establishments, and the renaming of Fort James to the United Castle most likely reflects that union rather than the completion of construction. The Honourable United Company itself, named in every consultation, derived its title from the union of the Old and New East India Companies under the 1708 settlement, so the language of union was already established in the council's working vocabulary.

Here is the full corrected text for the page.

Island of St Helena.

At a consultation held on Tuesday 3 May 1709 at the United Castle in James Valley.

Present: John Roberts, Esquire, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

An advertisement of 26 February last had required all persons to deliver an account of their cattle, including how many they turned upon the Lords Proprietors' common, within a week of so turning them.

Contrary to that advertisement, Mrs Elizabeth Johnson, widow of the late deceased Governor Johnson, had not delivered any such account, and had allowed her cattle to graze on the common in contempt of the order. Five head had been seized and placed in the Company's pound: one young bull, two young bullocks and one yearling heifer.

Under the Honourable Company's orders and the advertisement, the cattle were forfeit to the Honourable Lords Proprietors.

The council resolved unanimously that Mrs Johnson's five head of cattle, namely one young bull, two young bullocks and one yearling heifer, were confiscated and forfeited to the Honourable Company. Mrs Johnson was to have liberty to buy the cattle back at twelve pounds, the value the council placed on them. She was to give her answer at once whether she would buy them, and was to pay the charges.

Mrs Johnson, on being asked whether she would buy the five head of cattle, answered that she was willing to take them again and to pay the twelve pounds.

The council ordered that the storekeeper enter Mrs Johnson as debtor to the Honourable Company for the sum of twelve pounds, and [...]

Interpretations

The renaming of Fort James as the United Castle, recorded for the first time at this consultation, marks the propagation of the 1707 Act of Union into the colonial nomenclature of St Helena. The Union had created the United Kingdom of Great Britain by joining England and Scotland under a single crown and parliament, and the language of union ran through public institutions in the years that followed. The Honourable United Company itself drew its name from the union of the Old and New East India Companies under the settlement of 1708, and the renaming of the fort placed the island's principal stronghold within the same vocabulary. This indicates how political events in London worked through to the symbolic geography of the Company's settlements, with the union of the kingdoms reflected in the formal naming of the buildings that housed colonial administration.

The application of the cattle forfeiture order to the widow of a former Governor demonstrates the council carrying through the principle invoked at the 12 April reading of the laws, that the due execution of the laws would be observed in future without partiality. A widow of high standing was treated under the same forfeiture rule as any other inhabitant. The unanimous resolution, recorded in the Latin form nemine contradicente, gave the decision the additional weight of explicit collective endorsement. This indicates how the council marked particular decisions with formal phrases when the case carried implications beyond the immediate facts, with the Latin tag serving as a notation of unanimity that the simple recording of signatures did not convey.

The mechanism of forfeiture followed by buy-back at twelve pounds shows the council operating a financial penalty that preserved the working position of both parties. The cattle were forfeit in law, with the Company taking title at the moment of seizure. The offer of buy-back at the council's valuation gave the owner the choice between losing the animals entirely or paying the valuation as a fine in all but name. By framing the twelve-pound charge as a price rather than a penalty, the council preserved the legal position that the cattle had been forfeited while delivering a financial outcome that left the owner with her animals. This indicates how the council combined strict application of the forfeiture rule with practical accommodation of the owner's interest, producing an outcome that satisfied both the principle of the law and the working economy of the island.

The requirement that Mrs Johnson give her answer immediately on whether she would buy the cattle shows the council compressing the decision into a single sitting rather than allowing the matter to drift across consultations. Adjournment for consideration would have given the widow time to organise support or representation, and might have invited modification of the terms. By demanding an answer at once, the council fixed the terms it had set and converted the case into a completed transaction within the consultation that opened it. This indicates a procedural compression designed to prevent erosion of the council's position through delay.

The decision to enter Mrs Johnson as debtor to the Company for the twelve pounds, rather than requiring immediate cash payment, shows the council folding the cattle forfeiture into the same store-book accounting system that handled debts, revenue charges and routine transactions. A twelve-pound entry on the store books was a settled obligation that the storekeeper could recover through subsequent dealings with the widow, whether in cash, in goods or in further livestock. The mechanism removed the need to extract immediate payment and integrated the forfeiture into the continuous ledger of inhabitant obligations. This indicates how the council used its single accounting system to absorb varied forms of liability without requiring distinct procedures for each.

The valuation of the five animals at twelve pounds, against the original cattle prices implied by the November 1708 transactions, allows the council's pricing assumption to be read against the market. Five animals at the November price scale would have varied considerably, with bullocks worth more than a yearling heifer or a young bull. By setting twelve pounds as a single figure for the lot, the council produced a working composite valuation that did not require itemised assessment of each beast. The structure indicates that the council preferred to handle the forfeiture as a single transaction rather than as five separate valuations, simplifying the procedural step at the cost of any precision the cattle marks scheme had introduced into individual identification.

Speculations

The renaming of Fort James as the United Castle may also reflect the council's own sense of timing in marking the completion of the new fort construction with a name that drew on the political moment. The August 1708 order had begun a new fort of 130 feet square, and the Governor's house had been integrated with the rampart in December. By May 1709 the work had presumably reached a stage that justified a formal designation, and the council took the opportunity to attach a name carrying contemporary significance rather than retaining the older Stuart-era title. The choice of the United Castle linked the island's physical defences to the political unity proclaimed in London, giving the new structure a name that placed it within the current political vocabulary rather than the older one.

The compression of the case into a single sitting, with the demand for an immediate answer, suggests that the council had anticipated Mrs Johnson's acceptance and had set the twelve-pound figure at a level it judged she would meet rather than at the highest sum the rules might support. A widow facing the loss of five working animals on a small island with limited replacement options was unlikely to refuse the buy-back, and the council's procedural urgency points to confidence in that outcome. The figure reads as set with the certainty of acceptance in mind, rather than as a punitive valuation that might have provoked refusal and required onward enforcement.

The decision to record the resolution as unanimous, using the Latin form, suggests that the council recognised the case as one whose handling would be scrutinised by inhabitants and proprietors alike. A widow of a former Governor receiving an apparently severe forfeiture might generate complaint to London or unease among the planters. The explicit notation that no member dissented gave the decision an institutional weight that any later challenge would have to confront. The form reads less as a record of the council's internal practice than as a marker for external audiences, signalling that the decision had carried full collective endorsement at the moment it was made.

229

221

and the five head of Cattle Delivered her Accordingly

J[no] Roberts

Tho Goodwin

Edw[d]: Mashborne

W[m]: Marsden

Daniel Griffith

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday the

17[th] day of May 1709 At the United Castle in James

Valley

Jn[o]: Roberts Esq[r] Govern[r]

Thom[s]: Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Govern[r]

Pres[en]t Ed[w]: Mashborne 3 in [Coun]d

Will[m] Marsden 4[th] in Coun[d]

Dan[l] Griffith 5[th] in Coun[d]

Considering our [P]roclamation of the 26[th] February

wherein is Inserted as followeth

Likewise it is hereby required and ordered

That when any [P]erson or [P]ersons do or turn any [N]eat Cattle upon

the Hono[ble]: Companys Waste That they do forthwith bring or Cause

to be brought and Delivered to Captein Edward Mashborne or in his

absence to the Chief overseer at y[e] said Hono[ble] Comp[ys] Great [P]lanta-

tion An Acc[t] of Said Cattle their [k]inds and Markes, where Ranging

and when they Shall take Home Kill or that any Casualty fall upon

any of them, The Acc[t] be given in Accordingly That thereby the Honou[ble]

Comp[y]: may have their just due, and the owners of Such Cattle not

over charged

And whomsoever Shall be found Rem[i]ss and faile in this

order to performe the Same within one week Next after y[e] driving

of

The order was made, and the five head of cattle were delivered to her accordingly.

Signed: John Roberts, Thomas Goodwin, Edward Mashborne, William Marsden, Daniell Griffith.

Island of St Helena.

At a consultation held on Tuesday 17 May 1709 at the United Castle in James Valley.

Present: John Roberts, Esquire, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

The council considered its proclamation of 26 February, in which the following clause had been inserted.

It had been required and ordered that, whenever any person turned neat cattle upon the Honourable Company's waste, an account of the animals was to be delivered forthwith to Captain Edward Mashborne, or in his absence to the chief overseer at the Honourable Company's Great Plantation. The account was to state the kinds and marks of the cattle and the place where they were ranging. Whenever the owner took home, killed any of the animals or lost them through any casualty, a further account was to be delivered, so that the Honourable Company might receive its just due and the owners of the cattle would not be overcharged.

Any person found remiss and failing to comply with the order within one week of driving cattle on to the waste was to [...]

Interpretations

The decision to reopen the cattle proclamation of 26 February at this consultation, only two weeks after the Johnson forfeiture, shows the council taking up the order again in the immediate aftermath of its first major enforcement action. The Johnson case had demonstrated that the proclamation could be applied to a defendant of high standing and could produce a substantial financial outcome through forfeiture and buy-back. The decision to revisit the text of the order at this point indicates that the council was now considering whether the working of the proclamation required revision in light of the Johnson experience, or whether further measures were needed to address gaps that the case had exposed.

The form in which the proclamation was set out in the consultation, with its full text recited verbatim, shows the council treating the proclamation as the working document under review rather than as a settled background instrument. By placing the text before itself, the council made the proclamation the subject of the deliberation rather than its premise. This indicates a deliberative practice in which standing orders could be reopened and reconsidered on the basis of their actual provisions, with the recital establishing the precise terms that any new resolution would amend or supplement.

The placing of Captain Mashborne at the centre of the reporting requirement, with the chief overseer at the Great Plantation as the alternate point of receipt, shows the cattle scheme operating through a clear administrative chain. Mashborne carried the formal authority, with the overseer providing continuous on-site availability. The 3 May Johnson case had been initiated by Mashborne himself, who had identified the cattle by their marks and impounded them. The reopening of the proclamation at this consultation indicates that the council was now assessing the full operation of the chain across the months since 26 February, with particular attention to the relationship between the formal officer named in the order and the working overseer responsible for daily oversight.

The dual purpose of the reporting requirement, recorded as ensuring both that the Company received its just due and that owners were not overcharged, shows the council framing the scheme as a balance of interests rather than as a one-sided imposition. Owners had an interest in being charged only for cattle actually grazing at the time of assessment, and the reporting of removals, slaughter and casualties protected them against assessment on the basis of stale information. By repeating this dual justification at the May consultation, the council was reaffirming the cooperative reading of the order, even as it considered whether further enforcement measures might be needed.

The phrase that any person found remiss and failing to comply within one week was to suffer some consequence, broken off at the foot of the page, leads into a forfeiture clause that the Johnson case had already activated against a delinquent owner. The reopening of the order at this consultation suggests that the council was about to consider whether the one-week reporting window had proven adequate in practice, or whether the experience of the past three months indicated that the window needed adjustment, the penalties needed sharpening or the procedure needed clarification in some respect that the original text had not fully addressed.

Speculations

The decision to revisit the cattle proclamation only two weeks after the Johnson forfeiture suggests that the council was responding to a pattern of non-compliance that the Johnson case had brought to its attention. The widow had failed to report her cattle for more than ten days, well beyond the one-week window allowed under the order. If a person of her standing had ignored the requirement entirely, the council had reason to suspect that other inhabitants were doing the same on a smaller scale, with their cases simply going undetected. The reopening of the order reads as the beginning of a wider tightening exercise, in which the lessons of the first prosecution were to inform amendments designed to capture the larger pattern of evasion that the prosecution had exposed.

The recital of the full text of the proclamation in the consultation, rather than a brief reference to it, points to the council preparing the documentary base for substantive amendment rather than for mere endorsement. A confirmation of an existing order could be effected by reference; an amendment required the text to be in front of the deliberative body so that specific clauses could be modified or new provisions inserted at identified points. The structure of the entry indicates that some change to the cattle regime was likely to follow at this consultation or in a subsequent sitting, with the May reopening serving as the procedural beginning of that change.

230

222

of Such Cattle upon the coaste Shall Forfeit the said Cattle to

the Honou[ble]: Company They [s]eizing upon the Same as their owne

Stock, and this to be taken as a Stand[i]ng Rule and Law till otherwise

[P]rovided altered or abrogated

Now it app[ea]rs to us That to keep an Acc[t] of their Cattle,

when they [P]utt 'em on and take them off, and where about it is

So very Troublesome that it will [im]ploy one Man a [P]urpose to keep

it, and we don't Find by the Acc[t] of Co[m]monage at a Medium

for Six years [P]ast That it do's Amount to above Twelve [P]ounds

Ten Shillings and Ten pence [p]annu[m] which is not Sufficient to

[P]ay a man for above half his diet, and to leave it to y[e] [P]eoples

Consciences they will [p]ay after the Rate of a [P]enny a month

So that Ten head of Cattle in three months comes to half a Crowne

Co[m]monage Wherefore

Ordered

That an Advertizement be Issued out and placed up at y[e] [P]lanta-

tion Church, Store house, and United Castle Gate That all [P]eople

that [P]utts any Cattle Upon the Co[mm]on do within a week after

Give an Account to Cap[tn]: Edward Mashborne at the [P]lantation

house The Number and where they Range All the Same Time

they Shall be Stated at Twelve [s]hill[in]gs a head, Let them Take 'em

off and put them on as often as they [P]lease, the year about

For no monthly Acc[t]s will be Kept, and Should we find more then

they give an Acc[t] of Such Cattle is Seizable to the Hono[ble] Compa-

n[i]es

And they are to take Notice That y[e] year begins and Ends on

the 1[st] of March, and if any Cattle is Turn[e]d on the Common

in September, October &[c] Later, we Shall Expect as much as tho[ugh]

they were on y[e] Co[mm]on all the year

J[no] Roberts

Tho Goodwin

Edw[d]: Mashborne

W[m] Marsden

Dan[l] Griffith

Island

Any person who drove cattle upon the coast and failed to comply within one week was to forfeit the cattle to the Honourable Company, which would seize them as its own stock. This was to stand as a settled rule and law until changed or repealed.

The council now considered that the requirement to keep an account of cattle on every occasion of putting on, taking off and ranging had become so troublesome that it would take one man's whole time to maintain. From the accounts of commonage over the previous six years, the average annual yield came to no more than £12 10s 10d. That sum was not sufficient to pay a man even half his diet. Left to their consciences, the inhabitants paid at a rate of about one penny per month, so that ten head of cattle for three months produced only half a crown of commonage.

The council ordered that an advertisement be issued and posted at the Plantation church, the storehouse and the gate of the United Castle. All inhabitants placing cattle upon the common were within one week to deliver to Captain Edward Mashborne at Plantation House an account of the number of cattle and the part of the common where they ranged. The animals were to be charged at twelve shillings a head for the year, and the owner could take them off and put them on as often as he pleased through the year. No monthly accounts were to be kept. Where the Company found more cattle than the owner had reported, those further animals were to be seizable to the Honourable Company.

The year was to begin and end on 1 March. Any cattle turned upon the common in September, October or later was to be charged at the same rate as cattle on the common for the full year.

Signed: John Roberts, Thomas Goodwin, Edward Mashborne, William Marsden, Daniell Griffith.

Interpretations

The shift from per-event reporting to an annual head charge of twelve shillings shows the council redesigning the commonage scheme around its actual yield rather than its formal procedure. The 26 February order had required reports on every movement of cattle on or off the waste, with the underlying intention of producing a precise charge tied to actual grazing days. The six-year average of £12 10s 10d, presented at this consultation, showed that the entire scheme could not pay even half a man's annual diet. The administrative cost of maintaining the per-event system had become disproportionate to the revenue it produced, and the council moved to a flat-rate model that captured the same revenue at much lower running cost.

The reasoning, that to leave it to the people's consciences they would pay after the rate of a penny a month, reveals the council's frank assessment of inhabitant honesty under self-reporting. Ten head of cattle for three months would yield a charge of half a crown under the inhabitants' preferred reporting, which the council clearly regarded as inadequate to the actual grazing benefit obtained. By naming this baseline, the council acknowledged that compliance under the old scheme had become a routine understatement of grazing, and the new flat rate was set high enough to recover what the inhabitants had been quietly withholding under the per-event regime.

The flat rate of twelve shillings per head per year, applied regardless of when in the year an animal was turned on the common, eliminated the incentive to game the reporting calendar. Under the per-event scheme, an owner who could delay putting cattle out until late in the season could limit the chargeable period; under the new scheme, the charge applied in full once an animal entered the common at any point. The explicit note that cattle turned on in September, October or later would still be charged as if they had been on the common all year closes the obvious avoidance route. This indicates that the council had observed seasonal patterns of placement timed to minimise commonage liability under the old system, and built the new structure to prevent the same behaviour.

The retention of the forfeiture clause for under-reporting, with cattle found beyond those declared seizable to the Company, shows the new scheme preserving the enforcement instrument that had produced the Johnson outcome. The reporting requirement was reduced in frequency from per-event to annual, but the consequence of a false report remained the same. An owner who declared three head and grazed five on the common still risked seizure of the unreported animals. The combination of a simpler reporting requirement and an unchanged forfeiture penalty produced a scheme that was easier to comply with and more dangerous to evade.

The selection of the year beginning 1 March aligns the commonage calendar with the existing administrative year used for the revenue returns and the store account cutoff. The February 1709 advertisement had required annual returns covering the year to that point, and 1 March fell immediately after the close of that exercise. By tying the commonage year to the same date, the council placed cattle, lands and revenue accounts within a single annual cycle. This indicates how the council was consolidating its administrative calendar around a small number of fixed dates, reducing the number of distinct cycles inhabitants and officers had to track.

The posting of the new advertisement at three locations, the Plantation church, the storehouse and the gate of the United Castle, shows the council distributing its notices across the principal public points of contact on the island. The Plantation church served the rural population around Plantation House, the storehouse drew inhabitants conducting trade or settling accounts, and the United Castle gate was the formal seat of government. By placing the notice at all three, the council ensured that the change reached inhabitants whatever their usual routine. This indicates a settled publication practice in which the three sites operated as a triangulated network of administrative communication across the island.

Speculations

The six-year average of £12 10s 10d, presented as the basis for the redesign, points to the council having conducted a retrospective analysis of the cattle account before the May consultation. A figure averaged over six years requires the running of past records and the calculation of a mean, work that would have to have been done outside the consultation itself. The presence of the figure in the resolution suggests that Mashborne or one of the other officers had prepared the analysis in advance, perhaps as the lessons of the Johnson case were being absorbed, and brought it to the council with the recommendation for a flat-rate scheme already worked out. The structure of the resolution reads as the endorsement of prepared analysis rather than the working out of fresh policy in council.

The choice of twelve shillings per head per year as the new flat rate, set against the six-year average of around £12 10s for the whole common, allows a rough estimate of the herd the council expected the scheme to capture. Twelve shillings a head would generate the old £12 10s yield from about twenty head, while the council clearly expected the new scheme to produce more than the old. A target of, say, fifty head at twelve shillings would yield thirty pounds, more than double the old return. The figure reads as set with such expansion in view, with the council pitching the rate to bring expected revenue to a level that would pay a modest officer rather than fall short of half a man's diet.

231

223

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Thursday the

19[th] day of May 1709 At the United Castle in James

Valley

Pres[en]t Jn[o]: Roberts Esq[r] Gove[rn]r

Thom[s]: Goodwin D[e]p[t]y [G]ove[rn]r

Ed[w]: Mashborne 3 in Coun[d]

Will[m]: Marsden 4 in Coun[d]

Dan[l]: Griffith 5 in Coun[d]

We considering the Vast Charge our Hono[ble] Masters are at in Forti-

fying the outside of this [I]sland at the Same Time, the Inside is going

to Ruine, and has been decaying for fifteen years [P]ast, E[s]pecially in what

Article of wood and the Nec[esit]y of [P]lanting it has been Laid before the

Inhabitants who have determined amongst themselves To [P]lant and

Inclop one Acre in Twenty within three years Time, which we Cant

by no means Approve of as not being a Sufficient Quantity, But are

Resolved They Shall [P]lant one Acre in[ ]Ten, and That within Two

years And for that [P]urpose Let the following Declaration be

Issued out

Whereas the Hono[ble] Lo[rd] [P]roprietors of this [I]sland did formerly

Give an order to the Then [G]overn[r] and Counsill, To Fence in the [G]reat

wood and has from Time to Time Repeated those orders for our Care

and [P]reservation of it, more [P]erticularly by the Fleet Frigueed West-

moreland, which orders has from Time to Time been Allayd, which

Tired their [P]atience So much That they Tell us [P]lainly we are not to

Dispute their orders but to Execute them, And for [in]asmuch as the [I]nha-

bitants of this Place has represented unto us what a [P]ublick

Damage and Greivance it would prove to them if So [In]closed

We Designe once more to Interced in their behalf That they may Still

have the Liberty of the Great wood and Common there, [P]rovided

they will take that care of themselves So farr as to [P]lant & [P]rovide

a Sufficient Quantity of wood That may Serve their owne Nec[essary]

Ocations, which ought not to be Le[s]s than one Acre in Ten

Wherefore it is hereby ordered

That all Freeholders, Leefees and Inhabitants [P]o[s]essing Lands under

what Denomination [s]oever Do forthwith begin to Fence in one

Acre

Island of St Helena.

At a consultation held on Thursday 19 May 1709 at the United Castle in James Valley.

Present: John Roberts, Esquire, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

The council considered the heavy charge that the Honourable Masters bore in fortifying the outside of the island, while the inside was going to ruin and had been decaying for the past fifteen years, particularly in the matter of wood. The need to plant had been laid before the inhabitants. They had determined among themselves to plant and enclose one acre in twenty within three years. The council could by no means approve that proposal, the quantity being insufficient, and resolved that the inhabitants were to plant one acre in ten, and that within two years. The council ordered that the following Declaration be issued.

The Honourable Lords Proprietors of the island had formerly given an order to the then Governor and Council to fence in the Great Wood, and had repeated those orders from time to time for the care and preservation of it, most recently by the Fleet frigate and the Westmoreland. The orders had been delayed from time to time, which had so tried the proprietors' patience that they had now told the council plainly that the council was not to dispute their orders but to execute them. Since the inhabitants of the island had represented what a public damage and grievance it would prove to them if the Great Wood were enclosed in this way, the council designed once more to intercede on their behalf. The inhabitants were to retain the liberty of the Great Wood and the common ground there, provided they took care to plant and provide a sufficient quantity of wood for their own necessary uses, which was not to be less than one acre in ten.

The council ordered that all freeholders, lessees and inhabitants holding lands under any title were to begin forthwith to fence in one acre [...]

Interpretations

The contrast between the fortification of the outside of the island and the ruin of the inside, set out by the council at the opening of the consultation, shows a recognition that the works under way at the United Castle had absorbed institutional attention at the cost of internal husbandry. Fifteen years of decay in the wood resources had passed while successive councils prioritised defence over conservation. The council's framing of the problem placed the two programmes in deliberate opposition, with the fortification works on one side and the preservation of the woods on the other, and acknowledged that the imbalance had now become unsustainable. This indicates a moment of strategic self-assessment in which the council weighed the long-term cost of continued neglect against the immediate demands of the construction programme.

The relationship between the council and the inhabitants on this question reveals a layered process of negotiation. The inhabitants had proposed planting one acre in twenty over three years. The council found this insufficient and required one acre in ten over two years. The doubling of the ratio and the shortening of the timetable indicate that the council had heard the inhabitants' counter-proposal, judged it inadequate and substituted its own terms. The structure shows the inhabitants as a body capable of formulating proposals and the council as the decision-maker that accepted, rejected or adjusted them. This places the woods consultation within the same broader pattern of inhabitant engagement that produced the thirty-six and the twelve at the April reading of the laws.

The framing of the Great Wood proposal as the council interceding on the inhabitants' behalf with the proprietors shows the council positioning itself as an intermediary rather than an executor of London's orders. The proprietors had instructed that the Great Wood be fenced in. The inhabitants had represented that this would damage their interest. The council presented its own proposal, requiring planting on a one-in-ten ratio, as a compromise that preserved inhabitant access to the Great Wood while meeting the proprietors' broader concern about wood supply. This indicates how the council used its mediating position to translate metropolitan instructions into terms the local population could accept, while preserving the substance of the proprietorial direction.

The reference to repeated orders from the proprietors over fifteen years, most recently by the Fleet frigate and the Westmoreland, shows how the metropolitan instruction had been delivered through the ordinary channel of shipping correspondence. Each fleet brought general letters from London, and the woods order had been included in successive despatches. The accumulation of repeated instructions, all delayed locally, had produced the impatience that the council now reported to the inhabitants. This indicates how the relationship between London and the island operated through cumulative pressure exerted across multiple correspondence cycles, with the proprietors' patience treated as a measurable institutional resource that could run out.

The statement that the proprietors had told the council plainly that the council was not to dispute their orders but to execute them shows the metropolitan principal asserting authority directly against persistent local delay. The language captures a moment at which the proprietors had moved from instruction to command, drawing a line between the council's discretion and their own settled direction. The council's response, in turning to the inhabitants with a substantive proposal, used the proprietors' impatience as the ground for action on the island. This indicates how the council managed a strained relationship with London by pointing local audiences towards the consequences of further delay rather than its own preferences.

The reasoning that the inhabitants were to plant a sufficient quantity of wood for their own necessary occasions, with the threshold set at one acre in ten, shows the council framing the planting requirement as a measure of self-provision rather than a contribution to the proprietors' resource. The trees grown under the new order would serve the planters' households, with the Great Wood preserved as the wider reserve. By tying the planting requirement to the planters' own need for wood, the council aligned the order with their immediate interest and avoided the framing of the planting as a tax or service performed for the proprietors. This indicates a careful presentation of the substantive obligation as a benefit conferred on those required to perform it.

Speculations

The acknowledgement that the inside of the island had been decaying for fifteen years, set against the most recent proprietorial demand delivered by the Fleet and the Westmoreland, points to the council using the new fort programme as the occasion for unblocking the long-deferred woods order. With Governor Roberts having arrived only the previous August and the fortification works in full swing, the council was already remaking the island's physical infrastructure. Adding the woods order to the agenda at this stage absorbed it into a wider reform programme rather than presenting it as an isolated requirement, and made the obligation easier to impose on inhabitants already adjusting to other changes. The timing reads as a deliberate use of the broader institutional moment to discharge an instruction that earlier administrations had quietly avoided.

The substitution of the council's one-in-ten ratio for the inhabitants' one-in-twenty proposal, together with the reduction of the timetable from three years to two, suggests that the council had a definite target in mind for total acreage replanted and worked backwards to the rules. A one-in-ten ratio across all freeholders, lessees and inhabitants would generate a calculable total of new planted ground, and the two-year timetable would deliver that planting within the current council's institutional horizon rather than leaving it to a successor administration. The structure reads as outcome-driven, with the inhabitants' proposal rejected not on its merits but for failing to produce the volume of planting that the council judged necessary to satisfy the proprietors.

232

224

one Acre in Ten or [P]roportionable to the Quantity of Lands they

[P]oses[s], and that the said [P]roportion be [P]lanted on the Compa[n]ys

Leafe Land as well as their owne free hold the Like [P]roportion

within the Compass of two years To Comm[en]ce from the day of

the date hereof And if any [P]erson or [P]ersons Should want A[s]istance

we will Sup[p]ly them with Blacks after the Rate of Eighteen pence

[p]day Untill they have Fenced in and planted as afore[s]aid which

Blacks they Shall Employ to that use only, If any be Found to

Employ them any other ways then the [F]encing in and [P]lanting

the wood as aforesaid, They Shall pay Twenty Shillings [p]day for

the Blacks So [m]isimployed Contrary to this order

And it is further ordered

That all [P]ersons that Shall Neglect the Fencing and [P]lanting of

wood as aforesaid, Shall for Ever after have no [B]ennefitt of the [Comp]a[s]

wood or Common And if any Such [P]erson or [P]ersons Shall [P]resume

to Cutt, Fetch or take away any of the Hono[ble]: Comp[s] wood Shall

for Such offence be Deemed Fellons and Robbers of the Said Hono[ble]:

Comp[ys] Estate and wood and Shall Suffer for y[e] Same Accordingly, And

their Cattle Turn[e]d on the Common Shall also be Forfeited to the[e]

Hono[ble] Compa[n]ys use

But in Case any [P]erson or [P]ersons Should not be able

within the Compass of two years for want of Seeds or young [P]lants

In Such a case the Land being Fenced in for that [P]urpose, The [Govern]r

and Councell will Consider of it, and Allow them a Longer Time

And we do hereby order That no [P]erson or [P]ersons

do presume to Cutt any Live wood untill Such time the Vast quantity[y]

of dead wood that Lays in the Honou[ble]: Comp[ys] woods be first made

use of, on the [P]ennalty of Twenty Shillings for every Tree So Cutt, be Co-

fined or Great, unless they have Leav[e] and Licence from the Govern[r]

for So doing

And Forasmuch as our Hono[ble] Masters [P]lantations

being Quite De[s]titute of wood That one day in the week it Employs

all the Blacks to fetch wood from the Hor[s]e Castin[g] and Great

wood to Sup[p]ly them for fireing which una[c]countable Charge it

being about four Miles Distance it is very [P]rejudic[i]all and a Great

[E]nimence[?] to [P]lanting and other busin[e]ss that the Blacks might

have been better Employ[e]d in, had Care been Taken to [P]lant as

they Cutt downe And Altho' wood will be Ten years before it com[es]

to Maturity fitt for fireing, It is better to [P]lant Late then Never

As

The order required every person to plant one acre in ten, or a proportion equivalent to the quantity of land held. The same proportion was to be planted on the Company's lease lands as well as on the freeholders' own ground, the whole work to be completed within two years from the date of the order. Where any planter needed assistance, the council would supply slaves at the rate of eighteen pence per day until the fencing and planting had been completed. The slaves so supplied were to be employed on that work only. Any person found employing them on other tasks was to pay twenty shillings per day for the slaves misemployed contrary to the order.

The council further ordered that any person who neglected to fence and plant as required was to have no benefit of the Company's wood or common thereafter. Any such person who afterwards presumed to cut, fetch or take away any of the Honourable Company's wood was to be deemed a felon and robber of the Honourable Company's estate and wood, and was to suffer accordingly. Such a person's cattle turned upon the common were also to be forfeit to the Honourable Company.

Where any person was unable to complete the planting within the two years for want of seeds or young plants, and where the land had been fenced in for the purpose, the Governor and Council would consider the case and allow a longer time.

The council further ordered that no person was to cut any live wood until the great quantity of dead wood lying in the Honourable Company's woods had first been used up. The penalty for cutting any tree in breach of this order, whether confined or great, was twenty shillings per tree, unless leave and licence had been obtained from the Governor.

The Honourable Masters' plantations were now wholly destitute of wood. One day in every week was taken up by all the slaves fetching firewood from Horse Casting and the Great Wood to supply them. The distance of about four miles made this charge wholly disproportionate and was a serious hindrance to planting and to other work for which the slaves could otherwise have been employed, had care been taken to plant as the trees were cut down. Although new wood would take ten years to reach maturity fit for firing, it was better to plant late than never.

As [...]

Interpretations

The supply of slaves at eighteen pence per day to assist with the planting shows the council embedding a labour-rental scheme within the planting order. The same eighteen-penny figure appeared at the previous consultation as the daily victualling allowance for the carpenters' new contract, and its reuse here suggests that the council had adopted it as a working unit rate for daily labour-related charges. By offering Company slaves at a fixed daily rate, the council combined enforcement of the planting requirement with a revenue stream that returned cash to the proprietors. The mechanism made the planting order easier for inhabitants to comply with while ensuring that the labour did not simply absorb Company resources without return.

The twenty-shilling penalty per day for slaves misemployed against the eighteen-penny hire rate produced a sixteen-fold premium over the lawful charge. A planter who hired a slave for an unauthorised task therefore faced a penalty more than three weeks of legitimate hire would have cost. The disparity shows the council using exemplary financial penalties to enforce the strict purpose of the scheme, with the supply of slaves treated as a privilege contingent on observing the specified use. This indicates how the council combined incentive and sanction within a single labour transaction, with the same arrangement serving both the planter's need and the council's regulatory interest.

The penalty structure for breach of the planting order operated in two distinct registers. A non-complying planter forfeited future access to the common and the Company's wood, which removed a continuing benefit rather than imposing an immediate charge. A non-complying planter who then took Company wood became a felon and robber of the Company's estate, exposing himself to criminal prosecution rather than administrative penalty. The dual structure shows the council distinguishing between passive non-compliance, met with loss of privilege, and active appropriation following non-compliance, met with the full weight of criminal sanction. This indicates a graduated enforcement scheme in which the severity of the response tracked the seriousness of the conduct.

The clause allowing extension of the two-year deadline for want of seeds or young plants, provided the land had been fenced in, shows the council distinguishing between obligations within the planter's control and those depending on external supply. Fencing required only labour and materials available on the island; planting required propagating stock that the planter might not be able to source within the period. By tying the extension to evidence of fencing already done, the council preserved the seriousness of the obligation while accommodating supply constraints. The mechanism reads as a calibrated piece of regulation that distinguished bad-faith delay from genuine practical difficulty.

The order against cutting live wood until the dead wood had been used up shows the council managing the existing wood resource through a hierarchy of consumption. Dead wood was already lost to growth and could be removed without further damage to the standing forest. Live wood represented the productive capital of the woodland and was to be preserved. The twenty-shilling penalty per tree applied equally to confined or great trees, with no proportion to the tree's value, which suggests that the council prioritised the integrity of the rule over fine calibration of the penalty. The structure indicates how the council protected the wood resource through a single straightforward prohibition, supported by a uniform penalty that any inhabitant could understand.

The account of slaves spending one day in every week fetching firewood from Horse Casting and the Great Wood, a four-mile round, shows how the depletion of nearby wood resources had translated into a continuing labour cost on the Company's plantations. The slaves diverted to firewood gathering were unavailable for planting and other productive tasks, creating a cycle in which the failure to replant earlier had now imposed a weekly tax on the labour force. The reasoning that better-managed planting in the past would have avoided this charge places the present planting order within a long-term resource management view, in which present labour was being invested to avoid future losses of the same kind.

The acknowledgment that new wood would take ten years to reach maturity fit for firing shows the council accepting that the planting order would not relieve the immediate firewood problem. The benefits were to accrue to a future administration rather than to the present council. By framing the policy as better to plant late than never, the council positioned itself as acting for the long-term interest of the proprietors and inhabitants alike, even at the cost of investment that would yield no present return. This indicates how the council understood institutional time horizons and accepted obligations that crossed its own working span.

Speculations

The choice of eighteen pence per day for hired slaves, identical to the carpenters' victualling allowance set at the previous consultation, suggests the council was deliberately working with a single unit rate for daily labour charges across its various schemes. A consistent figure simplified the administration of multiple programmes and gave inhabitants a familiar benchmark when comparing different forms of Company assistance. The choice of eighteen pence rather than two shillings, which was the rate paid to the slaves at the lower table to fetch wood, suggests that the council had calculated the eighteen-penny figure as the minimum cost of providing slave labour while preserving a margin to the Company on each day of hire. The rate reads as set with both administrative consistency and a small revenue margin in view.

The provision that the planting could be extended where the inhabitant could not obtain seeds or young plants, requiring that the land first be fenced, points to the council anticipating that propagating material would be the binding constraint on compliance rather than labour or willingness. With the wood resource depleted island-wide, the supply of cuttings and seedlings would be limited, and inhabitants might genuinely find themselves unable to source the material within the two-year window. By tying the extension to demonstrated fencing, the council ensured that the practical preparation went ahead regardless of whether the planting itself could be completed on schedule, capturing the structural investment even when the biological investment was delayed.

233

225

as well to Show the Inhabitants a good Example, as the Great

Bennefitt our Honourable Masters will [R]eap by it

Resolved

That fifteen Acres of Land That Lies in [P]lantation Valley be well

fenced in and [P]lanted with G[u]m wood, And That Cap[tn]: Mashborne

have Six Stoute able Blacks to be Constantly Employed about that

busin[e]ss and no other and that he do forthwith [P]roceed upon the Same

and that Cap[t]: Mashborne when the Said Land is So Fenc[e]d and planted

do report the Same to Governour and Councill

We[e] also Consider that our Honou[ble] Masters is [P]ut to a Vast and

unaccountable Charge in buying Lemon J[u]ice and Lemons, and Since

the Lemon Trees in this Valley hath been [P]lanted, we find they wont

take againe Kindly, but that they Grow much more [N]aturall in

the [c]ountrey

Ordered

That Captain Mashborne be Appointed Two Blacks more to [P]lant

to the Number of Five Hundred Lemon Trees more then now is, in the

most [P]roper [p]laces about the Great [P]lantation which when done, he

is to Report the Same to the Gov[r] and Councill

We[e] Likewise consider the Vast and Great Charge our Said

Hono[ble]: Masters are at In buying Yams for their Blacks which Tak[i]ng

one year with another it Cost them One Hundred and fifty [P]ound, And

had they not bought M[r] Luskins [P]lantation we are [...] to beleive it

would Cost 'em much more for the daily Expence To feed the Blacks,

Hoggs, Fowles &c amounts to about one Thousand p[er] diem

And we cant find in all the Companys [P]lantations That there's

[P]lanted above Six hundred thousand, And Considering that they are

three years at Least before they come to Maturity, It is therefore

Neec[e]sary to Save that Charge and Expence to Clear Ground to [p]lant

to the Number of Twelve Hundred Thousand

Ordered

That Captaine Edward Mashborne have a Sufficient Number of

Blacks to Clear Ground for that [P]urpose and that all Endeavours

be u[s]ed to buy Suckers of the [P]lanters for [p]lanting, And that in

the

As well to set the inhabitants a good example as to secure the great benefit the Honourable Masters would reap from it, the council resolved that fifteen acres of land in Plantation Valley were to be well fenced in and planted with gum wood. Captain Mashborne was to have six stout, able slaves constantly employed on the work and no other task. He was to proceed at once, and to report to the Governor and Council when the planting and fencing were complete.

The council also considered that the Honourable Masters were put to a heavy and disproportionate charge in buying lemon juice and lemons. Since the lemon trees in James Valley had been planted, the council had observed that the trees did not take kindly there, but grew much more naturally in the country.

The council ordered that Captain Mashborne be allocated a further two slaves to plant an additional five hundred lemon trees, over and above those already in place, in the most suitable parts of the Great Plantation. He was to report to the Governor and Council when the work was done.

The council also considered the heavy charge that the Honourable Masters bore in buying yams for their slaves. Year on year this came to about one hundred and fifty pounds, and had it not been for the purchase of Mr Luskin's plantation, the cost would probably have been higher. The daily expense of feeding the slaves, hogs, fowls and other livestock came to about one thousand yams per day.

The Company's plantations did not contain more than about six hundred thousand yams in total. Since yams took at least three years to reach maturity, it was necessary to save the charge by clearing ground to plant up to twelve hundred thousand.

The council ordered that Captain Mashborne have a sufficient number of slaves to clear ground for the purpose. Every effort was to be made to buy suckers from the planters for the planting, and in the [...]

Interpretations

The decision to plant fifteen acres of gum wood in Plantation Valley shows the council leading the planting programme by direct example before requiring compliance from the inhabitants. The wider order at the same consultation had required all freeholders, lessees and inhabitants to plant one acre in ten within two years. By committing the Company's own ground to a substantial planting at once, the council placed itself on the same footing as the planters it was directing. The phrase that the work was as well to show the inhabitants a good example as to secure the proprietors' benefit makes this dual purpose explicit. This indicates how the council understood that an order requiring substantial private investment would be more readily complied with if the institution issuing the order had visibly committed to the same investment itself.

The allocation of six stout, able slaves to Mashborne for the gum wood planting, with the instruction that they were to be employed on no other task, shows the council protecting the integrity of the planting project against competing demands for labour. The same problem the planting order itself addressed, of slaves being diverted to firewood gathering instead of replanting, had previously left the Company's plantations destitute of wood. By ring-fencing the six slaves to the planting work, the council ensured that its own programme would not fall victim to the same diversion. This shows the council applying to its own operations the discipline it was now imposing on inhabitants.

The lemon juice and lemon programme reveals the medical and dietary significance of citrus to the Company's establishment on the island. Lemon juice was a recognised antiscorbutic, and the council's concern with the cost of buying it pointed to its routine use among the establishment, the garrison and the slave population. The observation that lemon trees did not take kindly in James Valley but grew more naturally in the country reflects practical horticultural experience gathered since the trees were first planted, with the council adjusting the planting location to suit the observed conditions. This shows the council using accumulated local observation to direct an agricultural investment, allocating two slaves under Mashborne to plant five hundred trees in the more suitable parts of the Great Plantation.

The detailed costing of the yam supply situation shows the council applying the same itemised analysis to its food economy that it had applied to the lower table. The Honourable Masters spent about one hundred and fifty pounds per year on bought yams. Daily consumption to feed slaves, hogs and fowls came to a thousand yams. Plantation stock stood at six hundred thousand. Yams needed three years to mature. The figures together produced a clear case for doubling the planted stock to twelve hundred thousand. This shows the council reasoning numerically about its own subsistence base, identifying the gap between current consumption and current production and setting a quantitative target for closing it.

The decision to buy suckers from the planters for the new yam planting connects the Company's own programme to the inhabitants' agricultural capacity. The 2 November 1708 transaction with Mr Sprogers had established the principle that planters' suckers could supply the Company's plantings, and the present order extends that principle into a sustained procurement effort. The reference to buying suckers, rather than to seizing or requisitioning them, indicates that the Company was operating as a market participant for propagating stock alongside its other roles. This shows the council combining institutional direction with commercial procurement in the management of the food supply.

The reference to the purchase of Mr Luskin's plantation as having limited the yam cost shows that the Company had been buying productive land directly as a means of internalising food production. The council noted that without the Luskin acquisition the yam cost would have been higher, indicating that the plantation had reduced the volume of yams the Company needed to buy from external sources. This places the Luskin purchase within the council's wider strategy of consolidating subsistence production on Company-controlled ground, alongside the new gum wood and lemon plantings now being ordered. The whole programme reads as a movement towards self-sufficiency in the basic supplies the establishment required.

Speculations

The figure of twelve hundred thousand yams, exactly double the current six hundred thousand, points to the council setting the new target as a simple multiplier of the existing stock rather than as the result of detailed consumption modelling. Doubling the plantation would yield, after three years, sufficient stock to cover existing consumption with a substantial reserve, even if consumption rose modestly. The choice of a clean doubling rather than a precisely calculated figure suggests that the council valued the clarity of the target over its precision, with the round multiplier easier to convey to Mashborne, to the slaves engaged on the work and to the planters from whom suckers would be bought.

The combination of three programmes at the same consultation, gum wood at fifteen acres in Plantation Valley, an additional five hundred lemon trees in the country and a clearance for six hundred thousand new yam plantings, suggests that the council was using the May sitting to set out a comprehensive agricultural renewal of the Company's plantations. The three commodities, fuel wood, antiscorbutic juice and staple food, together covered the principal subsistence needs of the establishment. By ordering all three at once, the council produced a coordinated programme rather than three separate initiatives, with Mashborne placed in charge of all three and tasked with reporting on completion. The structure reads as a deliberate consolidation of the council's productive investment under a single supervising officer, in the same way that the legal corpus had been consolidated under Mashborne and Griffith earlier in the year.

234

226

the yearly Account of Cattle &c The Number of Yams be

Given Also That the Honourable Company may Know

the decrea[s]e and Increase of their [P]lantations

J[no] Roberts

Tho Goodwin

Edw[d] Mashborne

W[m] Marsden

Daniel Griffith

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday

the 31 day of May 1709 At the United Castle in

James Valley

Jn[o]: Roberts Esq[r]: Gov[r]

Thom[s]: Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Gov[r]

Pres[en]t Ed[w]: Mashborne 3 in Coun[d]

Will[m]: Marsden 4[th] in [Coun]d

Dan[l]: Griffith 5[th] in Coun[d]

Whereas on Sunday Last being the 29[th] [in]stant Arrived in the Road of th[is]

[I]sland a Ship Named the Windsor Comanded by Cap[t]: Kirk and M[r] Thom[s]

Clark Supra Cargoe belonging to the Seperale [s]tock, [the] Said they

came Last from Bombay

It was debated in Councill in what ma[n]ner we ought

to receive them and the Method to Sup[p]ly them with [P]rovisions & other

Necesarys And upon [P]erusall of the L[ett]ers from the Hono[ble] Company

Since the [U]niting of both Companys and their Acco[un]ts with us don't

find there has been any Distinction made But all rec[eive]d and Sup[p]ly[e]d

alike, as for Example The Frederick in 1704 The Rosper in 1705 The

Mary & Anne in 1706 The Hossam in 1707 besides Severale others

It is ordered

That the Said Windsor be received and Sup[p]ly[e]d with Such Nec[e]sarys

as She wants [P]aying the Customary dutys of the [P]l[a]ce as hath been

already offered

That

In the yearly account of cattle and other livestock, the number of yams was also to be given, so that the Honourable Company would know the decrease and increase of its plantations.

Signed: John Roberts, Thomas Goodwin, Edward Mashborne, William Marsden, Daniell Griffith.

Island of St Helena.

At a consultation held on Tuesday 31 May 1709 at the United Castle in James Valley.

Present: John Roberts, Esquire, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

On Sunday 29 May, a ship named the Windsor, commanded by Captain Kirk, with Mr Thomas Clark as supercargo, had arrived in the road of the island. The ship belonged to the separate stock, and was said to have come last from Bombay.

The council debated the manner in which the Windsor was to be received and the method by which provisions and other necessaries were to be supplied to her. On reviewing the letters from the Honourable Company since the union of both Companies, and the Company's accounts with the island, the council found no distinction had been made in the treatment of separate-stock ships. All had been received and supplied alike. The Frederick in 1704, the Rosper in 1705, the Mary and Anne in 1706 and the Hossam in 1707, among others, had been handled on the same terms.

The council ordered that the Windsor be received and supplied with the necessaries she wanted, on payment of the customary duties of the place, as had already been offered. That [...]

Interpretations

The addition of yams to the annual livestock return shows the council extending the documentary regime it had built around cattle into the wider agricultural record of the Honourable Company's plantations. The 26 February advertisement had required inhabitants to deliver an account of their cattle, goats, sheep and swine alongside their other annual returns. The May order added yams to the same return, treating the staple crop as part of the same accounting system that captured livestock. By giving the proprietors information on the decrease and increase of yam stocks alongside the existing data on animals, the council provided London with a complete picture of the food production base of the establishment. This indicates how the council understood the annual returns as a cumulative information system, with each successive order adding a further category to a single recurring submission.

The arrival of the Windsor introduced the council to the question of how to treat ships belonging to the separate stock under the 1708 union of the Old and New East India Companies. The separate stock represented holdings that pre-dated or stood outside the principal trading stock of the United Company, and ships sailing under that authority occupied an ambiguous position in the new institutional architecture. The council's response was to consult its own records of past correspondence and to identify how separate-stock vessels had been treated since the union. The use of named precedents from 1704, 1705, 1706 and 1707 shows the council reasoning by reference to its own documented practice rather than seeking fresh instruction from London.

The list of named precedents, with the Frederick, Rosper, Mary and Anne and Hossam cited as examples of vessels received and supplied alike, shows the council's record system functioning as a working source of institutional memory. Past consultations were not merely archived but accessible for reference when new cases required precedent. The clerk's office had evidently preserved enough of the working record for the names of individual ships across four years to be retrieved and considered. This indicates the maturity of the council's documentary practice by 1709, with the records of preceding administrations available to inform current decisions.

The decision to receive the Windsor on the same terms as the proprietary ships shows the council resolving the separate-stock question through uniform treatment rather than differential procedure. A distinction between proprietary and separate-stock ships might have produced disputes over customs duties, supply rates and procedural standing. By applying a single set of rules to all incoming ships flying the United Company's authority, the council avoided creating a two-tier system that would have required separate documentation and enforcement. This indicates a preference for administrative simplicity in the handling of the union's complexities, allowing the council to absorb the new institutional arrangements without rebuilding its own procedures.

The reference to customary duties as already offered shows that Captain Kirk and Mr Clark had themselves been prepared to pay the standard charges. The council's role was therefore to confirm the customary treatment rather than to determine fresh terms. The offer from the ship's officers indicates that the practice of treating separate-stock ships on the same footing was understood on the trading side as well as on the council's. This shows the union's institutional arrangements operating through shared expectations between London, the ships and the colonial council, with each side able to anticipate how the others would handle the new framework.

Speculations

The council's review of its records and identification of four named precedents from before the union suggests that the question of how to treat separate-stock vessels had been anticipated by the working clerk, John Alexander, who would have prepared the documentary support for the consultation. A council debate proceeding from a settled list of precedents was likely to reach the uniform-treatment conclusion the precedents themselves implied. The presence of the named ships in the record indicates that Alexander, or another officer, had drawn together the relevant material in advance, framing the question for the council in a way that made the answer accessible. The mechanism reads as a small instance of clerk-led preparation shaping the form and outcome of council deliberation.

The framing of the Windsor's arrival as occasioning a debate, rather than being handled by routine clearance, points to the council using the new vessel as the occasion for formally settling the separate-stock question on the record. Earlier separate-stock ships had been received without formal debate, with each treated as if the established practice were a matter of course. The May 1709 consultation produced an explicit resolution that the Windsor was to be received on the customary terms, with reasons given. The structure reads as a deliberate institutionalisation of what had previously been informal practice, perhaps in anticipation that further separate-stock ships would arrive and that a recorded basis for their treatment would simplify future cases.

235

227

That upon [P]ublishing the Govern[r] and Councills order in Relation to wood

in the Consultation dated the 19 of May Last [P]ast The Inhabit[an]ts of

of this [I]sland did Unanimously Consent and Agree to a Law in that case

for [P]lanting one acre in Ten Rather then be Debared of y[e] wood and

Co[mm]onnage Upon which the following Law was Drawne agreed to

and Signed by the Govern[r] and Coun[cill] and Said Inhabitants

It being well known to us the Inhabitants of this [I]sland That

for these fifteen years Last [P]ast it has been Decaying in [s]everall re[s]pe[c]ts

But m[o]re E[s]pecially in wood for want of which in a Little time, This

[I]sland will be quite Ruined which in Course Ruines every Mans E[s]tate

unle[s] Timely Provided for

Wherefore the Govern[r] and Councill w[i]th the joynt Consent of us the[e]

Inhabitants of this [I]sland have agreed and do hereby Declare That all Inha-

bitants on this [I]sland [P]o[s]essing Lands under what Denomination [s]oever

Do forthwith begin to Fence and [P]lant with wood One Acre in Ten or

[P]roportionable to y[e] Quantity of Lands they [P]o[s]es[s], and that the [s]aid

[P]roportion be planted on the Hono[ble] Comp[ys] Leafe Land as well as their owne

free hold within the Compa[s]s of Two years To Comm[en]ce from the day

of the date hereof

And if any [P]erson be found N[e]gligent or Rem[i]ss of this their duty

which Tends So much to the [B]ennefitt of the whole, They Shall Forfeit the

Lands they [P]o[s]ess and the Fruits thereon to the Lo[rd]s [P]roprietors of

this [I]sland

It Is[?] further Declared When any [P]lan[t]er or other Shall Cutt downe

or Cause to be cutt any wood now [s]tanding Upon the Land they do [P]osses[s] or

Occupie or Shall hereafter grow thereon, Less than the one Acre in Ten, They

Shall be obliged to [p]lant the Same with wood of the Same Nature, So[on]

and as often as they Cutt thereof, and when the one Acre in Ten is So [p]lanted,

being [E]ntirely with [s]ecurity Fenced in from all Cattle, and the Trees [p]lanted

at Such Distance, as not to Exceed Seven feet from Each other, The Intent

of this Law is That every [P]erson Shall have a Sufficient quantity of wood to

[Sup]ply their owne Occations, and always keep [s]tanding the [F]ull Quantity of

one Acre in Ten which Shall be Continued E[s]tablish[e]d and Maintained Live

Acres of wood for ever

And it is further declare[d] That if Upon Surveying the Lands by y[e] Gov[r]

and Coun[cill] And Clerk of the Councill or whom the [Govern]r and Councill

Shall appoint The Said Quantity of wood be not therein Growing or [p]lanted

within the Limited Time of T[w]o years According to the true [In]tent and

meaning of this Law The Said Lands with use y[e] [P]roduct and fruit thereon

That Such [P]erson do [p]o[s]es[s] Shall be Seized and Taken for the use of the Hono[ble]

Lo[rd]s [P]ropriet[ors] any Law Custome or u[s]age to y[e] Contrary [N]otwithstanding Unle[s]

they Shall make good [P]roof that for want of Seeds or [P]lants was the Ocasion

of

On the publication of the Governor and Council's order concerning wood at the consultation of 19 May, the inhabitants of the island had unanimously consented and agreed to a law for planting one acre in ten rather than be debarred from the wood and commonage. The following law was accordingly drawn up, agreed and signed by the Governor and Council and the inhabitants.

It was well known to the inhabitants of the island that for the past fifteen years it had been decaying in several respects, but most especially in wood. Without a timely remedy the island would in a short time be wholly ruined, and every man's estate ruined with it.

The Governor and Council, with the joint consent of the inhabitants, agreed and declared that all inhabitants of the island holding lands under any title were forthwith to begin to fence and plant with wood one acre in ten, or a proportion equivalent to the quantity of land they held. The same proportion was to be planted on the Honourable Company's lease land as well as on the holder's own freehold, within two years from the date of the law.

Any person found negligent or remiss in this duty, which tended so much to the benefit of the whole, was to forfeit the lands held and the fruits standing on them to the Lords Proprietors of the island.

Where any planter or other person cut down, or caused to be cut, any wood then standing on land held or occupied by him, or any wood that grew on it thereafter, below the level of one acre in ten, he was to replant the cleared ground with wood of the same kind, as soon and as often as he cut from it. When the one acre in ten had been planted, the ground was to be securely fenced against all cattle, and the trees were to stand at a distance from one another not exceeding seven feet. The intent of the law was that every person should have a sufficient quantity of wood for his own occasions, and should always keep standing the full quantity of one acre in ten, which was to be continued, established and maintained as live wood for ever.

It was further declared that if, on survey of the lands by the Governor, the Council and the clerk of the council, or such persons as the Governor and Council appointed, the required quantity of wood was not found growing or planted within the two-year period, in accordance with the true intent and meaning of the law, the land, with the produce and fruit standing on it, was to be seized and taken for the use of the Honourable Lords Proprietors, any law, custom or usage to the contrary notwithstanding. The only exception was where the holder could make good proof that the want of seeds or plants was the occasion of [...]

Interpretations

The conversion of the 19 May order into a law agreed and signed by the Governor, the Council and the inhabitants shows the council using the consultative procedure established earlier in the year to produce binding legislation through joint subscription. The earlier order had been issued unilaterally by the council. The inhabitants' response, faced with the alternative of losing access to the wood and commonage, was to consent to the substantive requirement and sign their assent. The resulting law combined the executive authority of the council with the personal commitment of the planters, producing an instrument that bound the inhabitants by their own subscription as well as by the council's order. This indicates how the council used the consultative architecture to convert orders into laws with broader institutional weight, with the act of inhabitant signature giving the resulting provision a quasi-contractual standing.

The framing of the preamble, with the inhabitants themselves declaring the fifteen years of decay and the prospective ruin of every man's estate, transferred the rhetorical authority of the order from the council to the planters. The earlier consultation had recorded the same observation in the council's own words. The signed law placed those words in the mouths of the inhabitants, presenting the obligation as one they had recognised and accepted rather than received and submitted to. This shows the council using documentary practice to reposition a substantive obligation, with the same content carrying different institutional weight depending on whose voice was attached to it in the formal record.

The seven-foot maximum spacing for the planted trees shows the law operating at a level of specification far below the general planting ratio. A density requirement at seven feet between trees, applied across an acre in ten of every holding, would produce a recognisable woodland rather than the scattered planting that might otherwise satisfy a quantity-based rule. By including the spacing specification in the law itself, the council closed off the route by which a planter could nominally comply with the one-in-ten ratio while producing a thin, ineffective planting. The specification indicates how the council embedded technical horticultural standards within its legal instruments rather than leaving them to administrative practice.

The requirement that the planting be maintained as live wood for ever shows the council giving the obligation a perpetual character rather than treating it as a one-off compliance event. Once a planter had planted his acre in ten and secured it against cattle, he was bound to maintain it as living woodland thereafter. The cutting clause reinforced this by requiring replanting in kind, as often as wood was taken. The structure converted the law from a target with a completion date into a continuing standard, with the holder's relationship to the wood treated as a permanent feature of his tenure. This indicates how the council was thinking in generational terms rather than within the institutional horizon of the present administration.

The forfeiture provision, with the lands and fruits to be seized for the use of the Lords Proprietors any law, custom or usage to the contrary notwithstanding, shows the council inserting the language of paramountcy into the new law to override any existing claim a defaulting planter might raise. The phrase any law, custom or usage to the contrary notwithstanding was the standard formulation by which a new statutory provision asserted itself against prior rights. By including it in the local law, the council gave the planting requirement priority over inheritances, leases and customary uses that might otherwise have shielded land from forfeiture. This indicates how the council adapted metropolitan legislative drafting conventions to the island's regulatory needs.

The exception for proof that want of seeds or plants had occasioned the failure to plant preserves the carve-out introduced at the 19 May consultation. The earlier order had distinguished between control over labour and dependence on external supply, with extensions available where the propagating stock could not be obtained. The signed law incorporates the same distinction, embedding it in the legal text rather than leaving it to administrative discretion. This shows the council taking care that the law would not impose forfeiture in circumstances the council had already recognised as falling outside the planter's control, building structural fairness into the instrument as a guard against later challenges to its enforcement.

Speculations

The decision to convert the 19 May order into a signed law shows the council recognising that an obligation requiring sustained private investment over two years and perpetual maintenance thereafter needed a stronger institutional foundation than a council order alone could provide. A unilateral order, however well drafted, could be ignored, contested or revisited by a successor council. A signed law, with the inhabitants themselves bound by subscription, made compliance personal as well as institutional. The mechanism reads as a deliberate strengthening of the obligation in anticipation of the long enforcement horizon the planting programme would require, with the signatures of the inhabitants providing a documentary basis for action against future defaulters that the order alone would not have supplied.

The choice to incorporate the inhabitants' own consent into the preamble, rather than recording it separately, points to the council using documentary integration to bind the planters more firmly to the substantive obligation. A separate consent document, attached to a council order, would have allowed the inhabitants to argue at a later stage that they had agreed to one thing while the council had ordered another. By weaving the consent into the operative law itself, with the inhabitants and the council appearing as joint authors of the instrument, the council foreclosed any later attempt to separate the two voices. The structure reads as a calculated piece of drafting in which the form of the document carried as much enforcement weight as its substance.

236

228

of their N[e]glect, which from time to time they are to make the [Govern]r

Acquainted with

And it is further declar[e]d That all [s]uch [P]ersons that doe[s] Hire

any of the Hono[ble] Lo[rd]s [P]roprie[t]rs Blacks to Fence in and [P]lant as afore[said]

Shall be obliged to Employ their own Blacks at the Same Time upon

the Same Fencing and planting which if they Employ otherwise The

Govern[r] and Council will Lett them have no more A[s]istance And

the rique[?] and Forfeiture of their E[s]tates and Lands Shall Neverthele[ss]

be Lyable to a Seizure

And it is further declar[e]d That if any [P]erson or [P]ersons Shall for

want of A[s]istan[c]e not be able to Comply with this Law to [p]lanting

as afor[esa]id The Govern[r] and Councill will upon Timely Application

made Sup[p]ly them with Blacks after the Rate of Eighteen Pence

[p]day, Until[l] they have Fenced in and [p]lanted as before[s]aid, which

Blacks they Shall Apply to that use only, and if any be found to

Employ them otherwise, they will be taken from them and they Shall

be obliged to pay twenty Shillings [p]day for the Time they have h[i]red

them

J[no] Roberts

Tho Goodwin

Edw[d] Mashborne

W[m] Marsden

Daniel Griffith

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tu[e]sday the[?] [...]th

day of June 1709 At the United Castle in James Valley

Jn[o] Roberts Esq[r] Govern[r]

Thom[s] Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Gov[r]

Pres[en]t Ed[w] Mashborne 3 in Coun[d]

Will[m] Marsden 4 in Coun[d]

Dan[l] Griffith 5 in Coun[d]

Whereas the twelve men that were Chose by Thirty Six of th[e]e

[P]rinciple Inhabitants of y[is] [I]sland whose Names are in the Co[n]sulta-

tion bearing date the 27 day of Aprill Last [p]ast Delivered a request

in the behalf of Said Inhabitants Touching [s]everall Statutes in the

Laws (which they think are agreivance to them) and humbly desire

redrese[?] delivered on the 26[th] Aprill to y[e] Church Wardens, which are

as followeth

[Items?]

Any person neglecting to plant for want of seeds or plants was to acquaint the Governor with the difficulty from time to time.

It was further declared that any person hiring slaves from the Honourable Lords Proprietors to fence and plant as required was also to employ his own slaves at the same time on the same fencing and planting. Where the holder's own slaves were employed otherwise, the Governor and Council would withdraw further assistance, and the holder's lands and estate would remain liable to seizure.

It was further declared that any person who could not comply with the law for want of assistance was, on timely application, to be supplied by the Governor and Council with slaves at the rate of eighteen pence per day until the fencing and planting had been completed. The slaves so supplied were to be employed on that work only. Where they were found employed otherwise, they were to be withdrawn, and the holder was to pay twenty shillings per day for the time they had been hired.

Signed: John Roberts, Thomas Goodwin, Edward Mashborne, William Marsden, Daniell Griffith.

Island of St Helena.

At a consultation held on Tuesday [...] June 1709 at the United Castle in James Valley.

Present: John Roberts, Esquire, Governor; Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor; Edward Mashborne, third in council; William Marsden, fourth in council; Daniell Griffith, fifth in council.

The twelve men chosen by the thirty-six principal inhabitants of the island, whose names appeared in the consultation of 27 April, had delivered a request on behalf of the inhabitants. The request concerned several statutes in the laws which the inhabitants regarded as grievances and asked to be redressed. The request had been delivered on 26 April to the churchwardens, and was as follows: [...]

Interpretations

The requirement that any holder hiring Company slaves must also employ his own slaves on the same work shows the council using the hire scheme to leverage rather than substitute for the holder's own labour. The eighteen-penny daily rate made Company labour attractive, and without the parallel-employment clause a planter might have used the hire to relieve his own slaves of the planting work and divert them elsewhere. By requiring matched effort from the holder's own slaves, the council ensured that the hire produced an addition to the labour force on the planting, not a replacement of it. This indicates how the council designed the hire scheme to expand total planting activity on each holding rather than to redistribute it from the planter's account to the Company's.

The combination of the eighteen-penny hire rate and the twenty-shilling penalty per day for misemployment reproduces the structure already set out in the 19 May order, with the same figures preserved when the order was converted into the signed law. The consistency between the order and the law shows the council carrying its operational rates forward into the new instrument without revision. This indicates how the council treated the substantive policy of the order as settled at the point of its original adoption, with the conversion to law concerned with form and binding force rather than with reopening the underlying terms.

The mechanism by which the planters' grievances were channelled through the twelve to the churchwardens, and from there back to the council, shows the consultative architecture functioning across multiple stages. The thirty-six had been summoned to hear the laws read on 26 April. They had chosen twelve to study the corpus further. The twelve had now produced a written request identifying particular statutes as grievances. The request had been deposited with the churchwardens, who held the corpus for inhabitant consultation under the 12 April resolution. The churchwardens had delivered the request to the council. This shows the church functioning as the working intermediary between the inhabitants and the council, with the deposit of the corpus at the country church providing the institutional location through which inhabitant feedback returned to the executive.

The arrival of the inhabitants' grievances at the council, recorded in this consultation, completes the consultative cycle initiated at the 12 April resolution. The 19 April order had provided that any scruples about the laws were to be drawn up in writing and the council would clear the doubts from the original archive. The 26 April reading at Plantation House had taken place. The 27 April report had recorded the choice of the twelve. The June consultation now received the formal grievances. The whole arc shows the council operating a structured consultative process across a period of two months, with the inhabitants given time and means to formulate their objections through the working group they had selected from among themselves.

The characterisation of the inhabitants' submission as a request and the items as grievances shows the council retaining control over the terms in which the consultative process operated. The inhabitants did not present their concerns as demands or as objections of right, but as requests for redress directed to the council. The council retained the authority to consider and dispose of the requests as it saw fit. This indicates that the consultative architecture preserved the council's executive position even while opening a channel for inhabitant input, with the form of the inhabitants' submission tracking the asymmetry of authority that the council's position presupposed.

Speculations

The two-month interval between the 26 April reading and the June consultation at which the grievances were received suggests that the inhabitants had used the time substantively rather than merely letting it pass. The twelve had been chosen for their familiarity with council business, and their submission of identified statutes as grievances indicates careful study of the corpus. The interval points to a genuine process of inhabitant deliberation rather than a perfunctory adoption of stock objections, with the period long enough to permit considered review but short enough to produce a working response. The duration reads as one that the council had implicitly tolerated by not pressing for earlier submission, suggesting that the council too saw value in giving the inhabitants real time to engage with the corpus.

The decision to record at this consultation that the twelve had delivered their request to the churchwardens on 26 April, and that the churchwardens had delivered it onward to the council, shows the council documenting the procedural chain by which the grievances had reached it. A simple statement that the grievances had been received would have served for substantive purposes. The detailed recital of the path from the twelve through the churchwardens establishes that the consultative architecture had functioned as designed, with each station of the process performing its assigned role. The recording reads as deliberate documentation of institutional success, preserved for the proprietors' eventual review as evidence that the law-book project had reached its consultative goal in the form the council had set out.

237

229

Armes First they desire the Chief of Families may have Armes in their houses

A[ss]embly[s] 2[ly] In their Friendly Meetings and Merry Makings, it may not be deemed

as Riots and that upon any Time by order of y[e] Govern[r] they will Seperate

if ever it Should Enter into his thoughts Such Meeting is for any Evill Intenti-

ons which they Say God forbid it Should

Allarms 3[ly] They desire they may not be Corporally [P]unnished in Case any Neglect their

duty But to be [P]unni[s]hed in their [P]urses

Blacks they 4[ly] They humbly desire that when their Blacks are Run away from them

they may not be obliged to pay four S[hill]d for what they Steale, but only to

make Sati[s]faction for y[e] thing [s]tole to y[e] [P]erson Injured

Markitt they 5[ly] They desire if there be a Markett house Built they may not be obliged to

House Bring their Goods out of the Countrey to a [P]ublick Markett

Be[e]fe they 6 They desire to have Free Liberty to Sell Beef to Ships

Doggs they 7 They desire that themselves may not be obliged to Lead their Doggs in a

[s]trin[g] but are willing their Servants Shall do it

Cattle they 8 They desire the Tole of Cattle may be taken off that they Sell to one another

which is 2 [s]/head, For that the Trouble of giving Such Acc[t]s is more b[u]rdensome

to them, than the thing it Self

Ditto they 9 They desire that the troubles they are put to, when they Sell any Cattle

In carrying the Hide, Hornes and Ears, to persons that has b[i]n Appointed

for that [P]urpose, may be redre[ss]t

Fenceing they 10 They desire they may not be obliged to Fence in their Land at all it being

Land a new thing they never heard of before

Jurys they 11 They desire all other Matters may be tryed by Jurys besides Life L[i]mb and

Land as the Cl[ai]mant[?] Shall think fitt

Whole Sale they 12 They desire that the Liquors a Called whole Sale, being three Gallons

may be reduc[e]d to one Gallon Arrack four pound [S]ug[ar] and one or two pound[s]

of Tobaco and this be deemed a whole Sale

Liquors they 13 They desire that we would E[s]tablish a [c]ertaine Rule upon Liquors

Retayled Retayled by the [P]unch ho[us]es

Causes 14 They desire to be tryed by the Civill Law and not by Martiall Law

14[ly] They

Arms. First, the inhabitants requested that the chief of each family be permitted to keep arms in his house.

Assemblies. Second, that their friendly meetings and merry-makings might not be deemed riots, and that at any time, on the Governor's order, they would separate if he should ever think that such a meeting was being held for any evil intention, which they prayed God forbid.

Alarms. Third, that they should not be corporally punished if any of them neglected their duty at alarms, but should be punished in their purses instead.

Slaves. Fourth, that when their slaves ran away from them, they should not be obliged to pay four shillings for whatever the slave had stolen, but only to make satisfaction for the thing stolen to the person injured.

Market house. Fifth, that if a market house were built, they should not be obliged to bring their goods out of the country to a public market.

Beef. Sixth, that they should have free liberty to sell beef to ships.

Dogs. Seventh, that they themselves should not be obliged to lead their dogs in a string, although they were willing for their servants to do so.

Cattle. Eighth, that the toll of two shillings per head on cattle sold between inhabitants be taken off, since the trouble of giving the accounts was more burdensome than the toll itself.

Cattle. Ninth, that the trouble they were put to in carrying the hide, horns and ears to the persons appointed to receive them when any cattle were sold be redressed.

Fencing land. Tenth, that they should not be obliged to fence in their land at all, this being a new requirement they had never heard of before.

Juries. Eleventh, that all matters other than life, limb and land might be tried by jury, at the claimant's election.

Wholesale. Twelfth, that the wholesale quantity for liquors, currently set at three gallons, be reduced to one gallon of arrack, four pounds of sugar and one or two pounds of tobacco, this quantity to be deemed a wholesale lot.

Retailed liquors. Thirteenth, that the council establish a certain rule for liquors retailed by the punch houses.

Causes. Fourteenth, that they be tried by the civil law and not by martial law.

Interpretations

The list of fourteen grievances reveals the working life of the planters across the registers in which the laws bore on them. The items move from arms and assembly through punishment, slaves, market arrangements, livestock administration, fencing, juries, liquor regulation and the form of law itself. The breadth shows the inhabitants reading the corpus as a single instrument touching every aspect of their domestic, commercial and civic existence, and the request as a sustained engagement with that instrument across all its principal headings. This indicates how the planters experienced the law book not as a set of distinct rules but as a comprehensive regime, and responded to it in the same comprehensive form.

The arms request shows the planters seeking confirmation of household weaponry as a settled right rather than an executive permission. Arms in the house served both as militia readiness for any defensive call and as ordinary household security on a small island far from English law-enforcement institutions. By framing the request as one concerning the chief of families, the planters anchored the right in domestic hierarchy rather than in individual entitlement, drawing on a familiar metropolitan concept of the householder as the responsible point of security and discipline within the dwelling.

The assemblies grievance shows the planters distinguishing their friendly meetings and merry-makings from the legal category of riot. The offer to separate at the Governor's order if he ever suspected evil intentions converts the prospective sanction into a procedural step rather than a substantive prohibition. The mechanism the planters propose preserves the council's ultimate authority to break up a gathering while protecting routine social occasions from the legal classification of riot. This indicates how the planters worked within the council's authority while seeking to redraw the line between permitted sociability and prohibited assembly.

The slaves grievance against the four-shilling charge for what runaway slaves stole reveals an existing mechanism by which planters were held to a fixed payment regardless of the value of the property taken. The planters' proposal that they make satisfaction for the thing stolen to the person injured aligns the remedy with ordinary tort principles, replacing an administrative charge with compensatory restitution. This shows the planters reading the original provision as a windfall charge unrelated to actual loss, and seeking to convert it into a remedy proportionate to the injury suffered.

The cattle administration grievances, with the toll on inter-inhabitant sales and the requirement to deliver hide, horns and ears to appointed officers, reveal the documentary burdens that the new cattle regime placed on routine transactions. The planters did not object to the underlying registration scheme but to the friction it created in everyday dealings between them. A two-shilling toll, modest in itself, became burdensome when combined with the recording obligations. The hide-horns-ears requirement, intended to verify slaughter against the marks register, multiplied the procedural steps required for each transaction. This indicates how the planters identified the administrative cost of compliance as a separate burden from the substantive obligations, and sought relief on the administrative side without challenging the regulatory framework.

The fencing grievance, with the planters claiming the requirement to fence their land was a new thing they had never heard of before, shows the consultative process surfacing genuine objections to substantive provisions of the corpus. Unlike the other items, which sought adjustment of existing rules, the fencing complaint denied the validity of the underlying requirement. The grievance was raised at the same moment that the 19 May order and the signed planting law had introduced obligations to fence in one acre in ten across all holdings. The juxtaposition shows the inhabitants pushing back against the fencing requirement as a class of obligation, even as they had subscribed to the specific planting law of late May.

The jury request shows the planters seeking to expand trial by jury beyond the existing reserved categories of life, limb and land to all other matters at the claimant's election. The proposal converts the jury from a guarantee in serious cases to an option in any case the claimant chose. This indicates how the planters viewed the jury not as an exceptional protection but as a default form of trial preferable to the alternative procedures the corpus may have specified. The civil-law-not-martial-law request at item fourteen completes the picture, with the planters seeking trial under the ordinary civil framework rather than under military procedure.

The wholesale and retailed liquors items show the planters engaging with the regulation of the punch houses, which were the working liquor retailers on the island. The wholesale threshold determined when a sale became a regulated retail transaction. By proposing a reduction from three gallons to one gallon of arrack with four pounds of sugar and one or two pounds of tobacco, the planters were redefining the basic unit of liquor commerce. The companion request that the council establish a certain rule for retailed liquors shows the planters wanting clarity on the regulatory framework for the punch houses themselves, indicating their interest as participants in that trade rather than as outside observers of it.

Speculations

The grouping of the cattle administration grievances at items eight and nine, together with the dogs item at seven, points to the planters identifying livestock regulation as the area of the corpus producing the most pervasive administrative friction. The requirement to lead dogs in a string, the cattle toll and the hide-horns-ears reporting all imposed daily-level inconveniences on the planters in ways that the broader provisions on land and labour did not. The planters' willingness to have their servants lead the dogs in a string while exempting themselves shows that the objection was to the personal indignity rather than to the underlying regulation. This indicates how the planters distinguished compliance work that could be delegated to dependants from work that they had to perform themselves, and sought relief specifically on the latter.

The framing of the fencing grievance as a thing they had never heard of before suggests that the planters were preserving their position to argue against the requirement on the ground of novelty, even after they had subscribed to the planting law. A subscription to one obligation did not preclude later challenge to the related fencing rule, and by recording the objection in the formal grievances, the twelve preserved a procedural foothold for resisting fencing enforcement in particular cases. The submission reads as a calculated piece of legal preservation, with the planters using the consultative mechanism to lay down markers that might be invoked when individual disputes arose at later dates.

238

230

Shipps 15[th] They desire the Liberty That they Always had to go on Board of any

[s]hip when in the road asking the Govern[rs] First

Taxes 16[th] They desire to be Eas[e]d Something in the Tax of [P]aying Ten Shillings

Every Year for Each Black they have

Gunns 17[th] They desire that Each Chiefe of Family That has Guns Allowed them

may for their diver[s]ion, have Liberty to go a [s]hooting

Greatwood 18[th] They desire Liberty to make use of the Great wood & Co[m]mon other-

wise they will be Ruined

Le[a]fees 19[th] They desire Le[a]fees may Vote for [P]arrish officers, And also Serve

in their Turns

And all these Grievances they Humbly Begg may be Redrese[?]

as by their A[d]dress in the following Manner

[I]sland St Helena

That whereas your Worship and Councell was [P]leas[e]d on the 16 Day of

Aprill Last [P]ast To Sumons thirty Six of the [P]rinciple Inhabitants to the

Church in the Countrey and there to have the Laws read over which was

Accordingly done, And forasmuch as we were a Long Time Kept in the dark

and knew nothing of it The Inhabitants So Sumon[e]d did By a Co[m]mon Choise

Twelve of us, to Inspect into them and to make our Remarks Upon the [P]remi[ss]es

of your Worship and Councell That in case of any G[r]eivances which

Appeared reasonable, That your Worship and Coun[cill] would be [P]leased to make

A[d]dress to the Lo[rd]s [P]roprie[t]rs for redress

And this day we do[e] with humble [P]resent the Same to y[e] Worship

and Councill with our remarks thereon, and hope you will find them

reasonable, And in the mean time we Shall be ob[e]dient to those Laws and

orders Delivered to the Church wardens on the 26 Aprill Last [p]ast

And whereas your Wors[hip] and Councill having Repre[s]ented to us thee

Receipt[s] we are in for the Good of our Selves and Suce[ss]ors To use Means for

the [P]reservation of Wood, which grows very Scarse, and will inevitably be

at Last the undoing of the [I]sland and the Inhabitants of it, if due Care is

not taken for the Maintaining of wood in [P]lanting y[e] [S]ame We making

Serious Reflections on this Act Came to this Conclusion viz[t] That

Every [P]lanter [P]osse[s]ed of T[w]enty Acres of Land Shall be obliged to Enclo[s]e

one Acre and plant it with wood And [P]roportionably for more or Less and

to take that Care that no Cattle or Hoggs Shall com[e] to Graze on the Said

Land That the Said wood So growing may not be Spoiled, And also that

Every [p]lanter Shall from the Time of th[is] Re[s]olution be oblige[d] to Fence

the [s]aid [P]eice of Land in three years Time This is to be understood of those

[P]lanters that have no wood growing on their Land to take in any more

Land for the Same [P]urpose

Ships. Fifteenth, the inhabitants requested the liberty they had always enjoyed of going on board any ship in the road, after first asking the Governor's leave.

Taxes. Sixteenth, that they be eased somewhat in the tax of ten shillings per year for every slave they held.

Guns. Seventeenth, that the chief of each family who had guns allowed him might have liberty to go shooting for his diversion.

Great Wood. Eighteenth, that they have liberty to use the Great Wood and the common, without which they would be ruined.

Lessees. Nineteenth, that lessees be permitted to vote for parish officers, and to serve in their turn.

The inhabitants humbly prayed that all these grievances might be redressed, as set out in their address in the following terms.

Island of St Helena.

The address recited that on 16 April last the Governor and Council had been pleased to summon thirty-six of the principal inhabitants to the church in the country, where the laws had been read over to them. The inhabitants had for a long time been kept in the dark and had known nothing of the corpus. Those summoned had by common choice selected twelve of their number to inspect the laws and to make their remarks on them, so that, in the case of any grievances that appeared reasonable, the Governor and Council might be pleased to address the Lords Proprietors for redress.

The twelve now humbly presented the same to the Governor and Council, together with their remarks, and hoped that the council would find them reasonable. In the meantime, the inhabitants were obedient to the laws and orders delivered to the churchwardens on 26 April last.

The Governor and Council had represented to the inhabitants the reasons for taking means for the preservation of wood, which was growing very scarce and would in the end be the undoing of the island and its inhabitants if due care were not taken to maintain it by planting. On serious reflection on this matter, the inhabitants had come to the following conclusion. Every planter holding twenty acres of land was to be obliged to enclose one acre and plant it with wood, and proportionably for more or less. The planter was to take care that no cattle or hogs grazed on the planted ground, so that the wood growing there might not be spoiled. Every planter, from the date of this resolution, was to be obliged to fence the parcel of land within three years. This applied to planters who had no wood growing on their land, and required them to take in further land for the purpose.

Interpretations

The final five grievances together cover commerce with shipping, the slave tax, the recreational use of household arms, access to the Great Wood and the political standing of lessees. The selection shows the inhabitants attentive to both economic interests, such as ship trade and the slave tax, and civic standing, such as the right to vote for parish officers. The lessees' claim to vote and to serve in parish office places a substantial section of the planter community within the political process from which their status as tenants rather than freeholders had previously excluded them. This indicates how the consultative process surfaced political demands as well as commercial ones, with the twelve giving voice to constitutional ambitions of the planter population alongside its working complaints.

The Great Wood request shows the inhabitants seeking to preserve their access to the common woodland even as they accepted the obligation to plant on their own holdings. The 19 May order and the signed planting law had presented the planting requirement as the price of continued access to the Great Wood and the common. The eighteenth grievance reads as the inhabitants insisting that the price be honoured, with the Great Wood remaining open to them in return for the planting they had subscribed. This shows the inhabitants treating the consultative bargain as binding on both sides, with their continued use of the Great Wood understood as the necessary corollary of their commitment to plant.

The slave tax grievance asks for relief from the ten-shilling annual charge per slave, the principal head of direct taxation on slave-owning planters. By framing the request as one for some easing rather than abolition, the twelve adopted a calibrated position that recognised the tax in principle while seeking reduction in its weight. The slaves held by the planters were both productive assets and tax-bearing items, and a substantial holder would face a meaningful annual outgoing under the ten-shilling charge. The grievance shows how the planters approached fiscal questions through proposed adjustment rather than outright resistance, accepting the legitimacy of the levy while seeking to soften its impact.

The address that accompanies the grievances places the consultative process within an explicit account of how the inhabitants had been brought into it. The reference to having been kept in the dark for a long time, and to having known nothing of the corpus before the summons, acknowledges the asymmetry of information that had previously existed. The 16 April summons and the 26 April reading had ended that condition. The address presents the inhabitants as engaged participants in a process in which they had not previously been included, and frames their participation as cooperative rather than oppositional. This shows the twelve using the form of their submission to position the inhabitants as good-faith subjects of the law book rather than as challengers to it.

The substantive proposal at the end of the address, with the planters offering enclosure of one acre in twenty within three years, restates the inhabitants' original position of 19 May before the council had imposed its own one-in-ten ratio over two years. The fact that the proposal is now repeated at item nineteen, after the planters had subscribed to the council's more stringent law in late May, shows the twelve preserving the inhabitants' preferred terms in the formal grievances even after the binding law had been signed. This indicates a settled strategy of using the consultative submission to record the inhabitants' substantive preferences for the proprietors' eventual consideration, even where those preferences had been overridden by local agreement.

The lessees' grievance, asking that they be allowed to vote for parish officers and to serve in their turn, reveals the prior exclusion of leaseholders from parish political life on the island. Freeholders evidently held the franchise and the eligibility, with the lessees treated as a separate class lacking civic standing. The lessees' demand for inclusion places the question of who counted as a full member of the island community squarely before the council, with implications beyond the immediate matter of parish office. This shows the consultative process exposing the structural distinction between freeholders and lessees as a target for redress, and indicates how the law-book project had become the occasion for broader constitutional claims that the corpus itself had not addressed.

Speculations

The repetition of the inhabitants' one-in-twenty proposal at item nineteen of the grievances, after they had signed the council's one-in-ten law in late May, points to the twelve operating on the assumption that the formal submission to the proprietors might displace the locally signed law. By recording the inhabitants' preferred terms in the address to be transmitted to London, the twelve preserved the possibility that the Lords Proprietors might prefer the more lenient ratio when reviewing the corpus. The mechanism reads as a calculated use of the metropolitan review stage as a court of appeal against the local agreement, with the inhabitants relying on London's distance from the immediate enforcement pressure to soften the terms.

The clustering of the political grievances, with the lessees' voting claim at item nineteen, the chief-of-family arms confirmation at item one and the gun-shooting liberty at item seventeen, points to the inhabitants using the consultative process to assert the rights of the householder as the basic unit of island society. The chief of family carried arms, went shooting for his diversion and, if a lessee, would now vote for parish officers. The cumulative effect of these requests would be to define a recognisable class of household heads with civic, military and recreational liberties. The selection of items suggests the twelve sought to harden the planter community into a definable estate within the island's constitution, with rights attaching to the household head as the elementary political actor.

239

231

After having Made Inspection into all the Laws concerning this [I]sland

which your Worship and Councill have b[i]n [P]leased to Communicate to us To

the End where we Saw any thing that was not Agreeable to the [P]lace And

against the Co[m]mon Interest of the [I]sland To make our Remarks thereon, and to

give our reasons for it Which we have done Accordingly, We hope if yo[r] Wors[hip]

and Councill finds any thing in those Remarks and reasons that are not Conso[n]ant

with reason Will not Attribute, to us as done on [P]urpose To infringe Some of the

[P]roperties that rightly belong to the Hono[ble]: Company and the Government of

this Place But are all willing to Submitt our Selves to any thing that [...]

Reasonably Shall be E[s]tablish[e]d by your Worship and Councill, And that every

one of us will Comply with the Utmost of our [P]owe[r] for we all know we mu[s]t

Sub[m]itt our Selves to our [S]uperio[ur]s not only for wrath but Con[s]cience [s]ake

also, And we hope that Every one of us and altogether will do our Utmost

Endeavours To do any thing for the Pre[s]ervation of this [I]sland and the Good

of the Hono[ble]: Company, And that we [p]romise that we will not be Remi[s]s in

our Military dutys but when Occasion Shall [P]resent we will not be Frugall

of our blood, but ready to Spill Every drop of it for the [P]reservation of the

[I]sland our wives and Familles against any Enemy That Shall come here To

Invade us And finally we give your Worship and Councell our Humble

thanks for having bin [P]leas[e]d to Communicate to us y[e] aforesaid

Laws and Co[n]stitutions for our Conwall[?] that we might be the better be

Enabled to know our duty (a thing which was never done before) But

have Always bin Kept in Ignorance of y[e] [s]ame, We have no more to Say,

to your Worship and Councill but wishing You all the health Imagi-

nable in Your Government and we'd [P]u[ss]ett and [P]eacable Living

under it, for which we beseech Almighty God to Grant To you and us

We Remain Your Worships and Councells Most humble and obedient

Servants

Henry Coales

John Nichols

Tho[s] Swallow

Rob[t] Addis

M[att] Bazett

James Greentre[e]

Henry Francis

Richard Gurling

Orlando Bagley

Charles Steward

John Coles

Rich[d] Swallow [Sen]r

After Consideration of their Severall Desires for redress It was odered[?]

to Su[m]mons the Twelve [P]ersons Representatives as aforesaid To the United

Castle which Accordingly was done, where they received the following

Answer

First

After making inspection of all the laws concerning the island, which the Governor and Council had been pleased to communicate to them, the twelve had made remarks where they saw anything not agreeable to the place and contrary to the common interest of the island, and had given their reasons. They hoped that if the Governor and Council found any of their remarks or reasons not consonant with reason, the council would not attribute the submission to any purpose of infringing the rights properly belonging to the Honourable Company or to the government of the place. The twelve were all willing to submit themselves to whatever the Governor and Council reasonably established, and each of them would comply to the utmost of his power. They acknowledged that they must submit to their superiors not only for wrath but for conscience sake also, and undertook to do their utmost endeavours for the preservation of the island and the good of the Honourable Company.

They promised not to be remiss in their military duties, but when occasion presented themselves they would not be frugal of their blood and would be ready to spill every drop of it for the preservation of the island, their wives and their families against any enemy that might come to invade. They gave the Governor and Council their humble thanks for having communicated the laws and constitutions, so that they might the better know their duty, which had never been done before, and they had always been kept in ignorance of the laws. They had nothing more to say to the Governor and Council, but wished them all health imaginable in their government, and a quiet and peaceable life under it, for which they besought Almighty God on behalf of the council and the inhabitants alike. They remained the Governor and Council's most humble and obedient servants.

Signed: Henry Coles, John Nichols, Thomas Swallow, Robert Addis, Matthew Bazett, James Greentree, Henry Francis, Richard Gurling, Orlando Bagley, Charles Steward, John Coles, Richard Swallow senior.

After consideration of the several requests for redress, the council ordered that the twelve representatives be summoned to the United Castle. This was done, and at the United Castle the twelve received the following answer.

First [...]

Interpretations

The closing address shows the twelve carefully positioning their submission within the bounds of subjection while exercising the consultative role the council had created. The acknowledgement that they must submit not only for wrath but for conscience sake, drawn from the standard biblical formulation, places their grievances within the framework of legitimate obedience rather than oppositional protest. The substantive complaints are presented alongside an explicit recognition of the council's authority to dispose of them. This shows the twelve operating with sophisticated awareness of the rhetorical conventions appropriate to a body of subjects addressing their governors, with their formal humility serving as the necessary frame within which substantive claims could be advanced.

The undertaking that the inhabitants would not be frugal of their blood in defending the island shows the twelve incorporating the military service obligation into their formal subscription. The earlier alarms grievance had sought to convert corporal punishment for military neglect into financial penalties, while preserving the underlying obligation to serve. The closing address reaffirms that obligation in extravagant terms. The pattern shows the inhabitants distinguishing carefully between the manner of enforcement, which they wished to soften, and the substantive duty, which they accepted without qualification. This indicates how the twelve managed their submission to retain credibility on questions of loyalty while pressing for procedural adjustments.

The remark that the communication of the laws and constitutions had never been done before, but that the inhabitants had always been kept in ignorance of them, places the April reading at Plantation House within a long history of administrative opacity on the island. The twelve thank the council not only for the substantive content of the law book but for the act of making it known, treating publication as itself a benefit conferred. This shows the consultative process being valued by the inhabitants for its informational function as much as for its participatory one, with the corpus mattering as much for its visibility as for its substance.

The composition of the twelve signatories matches in substance the list recorded at the 27 April consultation, with eleven of the twelve names from the earlier roll appearing on the address. The twelfth name in the earlier roll is replaced or supplemented by the inclusion of Richard Swallow senior, in place of a different Swallow. This indicates that the consultative body had operated with continuity of membership across the two months between selection and submission, with the same persons engaged from end to end of the process. The stability of the group reinforces the institutional standing of the twelve as a recognisable body rather than as an occasional gathering.

The summoning of the twelve to the United Castle to receive the council's answer shows the consultative process moving from the country church, where the laws had been read, to the seat of government, where the formal response was delivered. The shift in venue tracks the shift in the procedural moment. The reading at the country church had presented the laws to the inhabitants as the council's communication outward. The answer at the United Castle returned the engagement to the executive seat, with the inhabitants summoned to receive the response in the place where authority on the island was concentrated. This indicates how the council used the geography of the island's institutions to mark the different stages of the consultative cycle.

Speculations

The decision to communicate the answer in person at the United Castle, rather than through the churchwardens or by written reply, points to the council's intention to give the response the formal weight of an executive pronouncement. A written answer transmitted through the churchwardens would have completed the cycle through the same intermediary that had carried the grievances inward. The summons to the United Castle placed the twelve in the position of subjects attending the executive seat, with the answer delivered as an act of government rather than as a counterpart of their submission. This reads as a calculated piece of procedural choreography in which the form of delivery reinforced the asymmetry between the consultative body and the council itself.

The careful framing of the twelve's submission, with its insistence that their remarks were not intended to infringe the rights of the Honourable Company or the government of the place, suggests that the twelve anticipated possible objection to the substance of their grievances and wished to disarm it in advance. By presenting their proposals as offered for the council's consideration on the express understanding that the council retained authority to dispose of them, the twelve insulated themselves against the charge that the consultation had given them ideas above their station. The frame reads as a deliberate piece of defensive drafting designed to keep the consultative channel open for future use, regardless of how the council disposed of the present submission.

240

232

First

Armes As to Armes the Governo[r] will give them his Warrant in the follow-

ing Manner to Such Chief of Families

Forasmuch as the [P]rinciple Inhabitants of this [I]sland have [S]olicited

to have Armes in their houses, which they think very Nec[e]sary to them

(which the Laws Prohibits) But the Govern[r] and Councill have Di[s]pensed

with it

Wherefore this do's give Leave and Licence to you M[r] A B for Such

Nec[e]sary Armes as you think Convenient which Armes you are to Deliver

up at any time when required by ord[er] of the Govern[r] for the Time

being

And you have further [P]ower to Seize any Armes from any [P]erson

That has not my Licence which Armes Shall be yours to Dispose of as you

Shall think fit, giving me Notice of the [P]erson [F]ind for So doing Th[is] Shall

be your Warrant

Jn[o]: Roberts

Given Und[er] my hand the[?] [...]

day of May 1709 At the

United Castle [in] James Valley

And then ordered That the Following declaration be I[s]sued

out

St Helena

These are to give Notice to all [P]ersons Inhabiting the Said [I]sland

That none Do [P]resume to [P]osse[s], Keep or Carry any Armes without

Leave and Licence first obtained from the Govern[r] under hand & Seale

Upon the [P]ennalty of Twenty Shillings to the Hono[ble] Comp[y], and having

the Same Seized and Taken from them by any [P]erson Lic[en]ced thereunto

for their owne use, and to receive Such Corpo[r]all [P]un[i]sh[men]t as the Gov[er]n[r]

and Councill Shall think fitt, and that no Lic[en]ced [P]erson do Lend or

[P]ermit any [P]erson to make use of their Arms Upon the [P]ennalty

of having their Licence and Armes Imp[a]ired

Dated the 31 day of May 1709 At the United Castle in

James Valley

Signed [p]er order of Govern[r] & Councill

[p]me Jn[o]: Alexander

They are [s]ati[s]fied

First.

Arms. As to arms, the Governor was to give a warrant to each chief of family in the following form.

The principal inhabitants of the island had solicited to have arms in their houses, which they thought very necessary, although the laws prohibited it. The Governor and Council had dispensed with the prohibition.

The warrant gave leave and licence to Mr A B to keep such necessary arms as he thought convenient. The arms were to be delivered up at any time when required by order of the Governor for the time being.

The holder was further empowered to seize any arms from any person not holding a licence. Any arms so seized were to be at the holder's disposal as he thought fit, on his giving notice to the Governor of the person found in possession. The warrant was to serve as authority for so doing.

John Roberts.

Given under my hand on [...] May 1709 at the United Castle in James Valley.

The council then ordered that the following Declaration be issued.

St Helena.

Notice was given to all persons inhabiting the island that none were to presume to possess, keep or carry any arms without leave and licence first obtained from the Governor under his hand and seal. The penalty for breach was twenty shillings to the Honourable Company, together with the seizure of the arms by any licensed person for that person's own use, and such corporal punishment as the Governor and Council should think fit. No licensed person was to lend his arms or permit another to make use of them, on penalty of having his licence and arms impaired.

Dated 31 May 1709 at the United Castle in James Valley.

Signed by order of the Governor and Council, John Alexander.

The inhabitants were satisfied [...]

Interpretations

The arms answer shows the council converting the planters' first grievance into a regulated licensing scheme rather than a general permission. The inhabitants had requested that the chief of each family be permitted to keep arms in his house. The council responded by granting individual warrants from the Governor to each qualifying chief of family, with the arms held subject to recall on the Governor's order. The grant was therefore a permission revocable at will rather than a settled right. This indicates how the council converted a generalised inhabitant claim into a regime of personal licences, with each warrant operating as a continuing executive instrument rather than as the recognition of an underlying entitlement.

The empowerment of each licence-holder to seize arms from any unlicensed person, with the seized arms passing to the seizer for his own use, transfers the enforcement of the arms regime from the council to the licensed planters themselves. A licensed chief of family had a direct material interest in detecting unlicensed weapons, since any arms he seized would become his own property. The mechanism turned the planter class into a self-policing system for the prohibition on unauthorised arms, distributing enforcement responsibility across the same group that benefited from the permitted exception. This shows the council using personal incentive to extend its reach without enlarging its own machinery.

The accompanying Declaration completes the regime by setting out the penalties for unlicensed possession. The twenty-shilling fine, the seizure of the arms by any licensed person and the corporal punishment at the Governor and Council's discretion together produced a tiered penalty structure. The financial charge fell to the Company, the arms passed to the seizer and the corporal sanction remained at executive discretion. This indicates how the council combined fiscal, property and disciplinary sanctions within a single offence, with each element of the response calibrated to a different institutional interest in enforcement.

The prohibition against a licence-holder lending arms to any other person, on penalty of having his own licence and arms impaired, shows the council protecting the integrity of the licensing scheme against indirect breach. Without the lending prohibition, the warrants would have functioned as a means of distributing arms throughout the wider population, with each licensed planter operating as a small armoury for his unlicensed neighbours. The clause closes that route and ties each warrant to the personal use of the licensee. This indicates the council's attention to the secondary effects of the licensing scheme, with the design extending to indirect as well as direct breaches of the underlying prohibition.

The form of the warrant, with its preamble recording that the inhabitants had solicited arms and that the council had dispensed with the prohibition, shows the council preserving the legal position that arms in private hands required dispensation. The warrant did not declare a right but recorded a discretionary grant. By embedding this framing in every individual licence, the council ensured that no future generation of planters could rely on accumulated practice to convert the warrants into a customary right. The preamble made each warrant fresh and contingent, with the underlying prohibition still in place and the dispensation operating only by the council's continuing grace.

Speculations

The choice to issue individual warrants rather than a general permission to the class of chiefs of families suggests that the council wished to retain knowledge of which households were armed. A general permission would have created a population of armed planters known only collectively. Individual warrants gave the Governor a list of named licence-holders, each identifiable by warrant, with the arms in each household recorded. The structure reads as designed to preserve administrative visibility over the distribution of weapons on the island, even while granting the substantive permission the inhabitants had requested.

The decision to make the seizure of unlicensed arms an act available to any licensed person, rather than to officers or constables, points to the council recognising that formal enforcement officers were too few to patrol arms holdings across the island. Distributing the seizure power to the licensed class produced a much larger informal enforcement body, with personal motivation tied to the value of the arms that could be acquired. The mechanism reads as a recognition of the limits of the council's own enforcement reach, with the licensed planters drawn into the work of maintaining the regime as a quasi-deputised group whose actions the council had pre-authorised through the standard form of the warrant.

241

233

A[ss]embly 2

God forbid that any Merry Meetings and Innocent Diversions Should be Deemd Riots its not the Intent of the Law Sati[s]fied

Allarms 3 You Shall not Suffer Corporall [P]unni[s]hment for not Coming to Allarms Except it be in time of Warr [S]atti[s]fied

Blacks 4 We Shall di[s]pen[s]e with that Law of four fold and desire the Lo[rd]s [P]roprie- tors to repeal it Satti[s]fied

Marketts 5 As this Law is not [P]enall, we cannot See how it can be a g[r]ievance, and Altho' Marketts have never b[i]n used and not benefit[i]all to the Inhabitants It is no Rule it ever Should be, So in your Favour We Shall write to our Masters about it

Be[i]f 6 You desire free Liberty to Sell Beefe We[e] Shall write to our Masters in your Favour about it

Doggs 7 You desire Not to Lead your Doggs your [s]elves but your Servants We[e] Shall di[s]pen[s]e with it [S]ati[s]fied

Cattle[Tole] 8 You desire the Tole of Cattle may be Taken off, for that it C[r]eates you a Great Deale of Trouble It is So nec[e]sary that we Should know How you Sell your Cattle to one another Because [...]e[...] Common That it may both [P]rejudice you and us to by not knowing it Satti[s]fied

Cattle 9 You desire that the trouble you are [P]ut to when you Kill any Cattle, in Carrying the Hide, Hornes and Ears to [P]ersons appointed may be redres[t] We Designe to make this Trouble Easier to you, But the Law is of So great use to this [I]sland in Generall as for Example: Aman kills a Beast and Steals for his next Neighbour He being a Reputed man and Warrants by the Gov[er]n[r] to have Armes in their hou[s]e[s] He Sh[e]ws him the Mark of his Beast that he has Killed That Shall be a Te[s]timony Sufficient without going any farther, Now the [u]sefullness of it Anothe[r] Loses a Beast and Gets a Warrant to Search Su[s]pected Houses In which houses if they find any Beef, if he Cannot bring his Testimony that he Killed it at Such a Time, By Such Substantia[b]le men as aforesaid, in where he had y[e] Same Such [P]erson ought to be Convicted

And we beleive if it went as F[a]rr as Hoggs, Goats and Sheep, It would be much to your Benefit, For if we are Rightly Informed That

Sever[a]ll

Council's answer to grievance 2 (assemblies)

The council saw no reason why ordinary merry meetings and innocent diversions should be treated as riots. That was never the intent of the law. The inhabitants were satisfied.

Council's answer to grievance 3 (alarms)

No corporal punishment was to be imposed for failing to attend an alarm, except in time of war. The inhabitants were satisfied.

Council's answer to grievance 4 (blacks)

The fourfold restitution law was to be set aside, and the council undertook to ask the proprietors to repeal it. The inhabitants were satisfied.

Council's answer to grievance 5 (markets)

Since the law on markets carried no penalty, the council saw no proper grievance in it. Markets had never been held on the island and brought no benefit to the inhabitants, but that gave no ground for a rule against them. In the inhabitants' favour, the council agreed to write to its masters on the point.

Council's answer to grievance 6 (beef)

The inhabitants asked for free liberty to sell beef. The council agreed to write to its masters in their favour about it.

Council's answer to grievance 7 (dogs)

The inhabitants asked not to be required to lead their own dogs but to have their servants do it. The council agreed to dispense with the requirement. The inhabitants were satisfied.

Council's answer to grievance 8 (cattle toll)

The inhabitants asked that the toll on cattle be removed, on the ground that it gave them a great deal of trouble. The council answered that it was necessary to know how cattle were sold between inhabitants, since the manuscript is unclear at the next phrase and only the sense of a shared concern can be recovered: not knowing of such sales might prejudice both the inhabitants and the Company. The inhabitants were satisfied.

Council's answer to grievance 9 (cattle - hides, horns and ears)

The inhabitants asked for relief from the trouble of carrying the hide, horns and ears of every beast killed to the persons appointed to receive them. The council intended to make this easier, but defended the law as being of great use to the island generally.

The council gave an example to show its use. A man kills a beast and steals one from his nearest neighbour. Being a reputed man and warranted by the Governor to keep arms in his house, he shows the neighbour the mark of the beast he has killed. That serves as sufficient testimony without further enquiry.

The use of the law also worked the other way. Another man loses a beast and obtains a warrant to search suspected houses. If beef is found in any such house, and the occupier cannot prove by substantial men, of the kind already described, that he killed it at a particular time and from a particular place, that person ought to be convicted.

The council believed that the same arrangement, if extended to hogs, goats and sheep, would be much to the inhabitants' benefit. On its present information, several -

Interpretations

The fourfold restitution law referred to under grievance 4 was the standing rule by which a slave's release or compensation for a wrong was reckoned at four times its value. The council's willingness to dispense with it locally, while referring repeal to the proprietors in London, shows the working division of authority on the island: the Governor and council could suspend a rule in practice, but a formal change in the legal code rested with the proprietors. The same pattern appears in the answers on markets and on the sale of beef, both of which the council passed upward rather than settling on the spot.

The hide, horns and ears requirement was an evidentiary device, not a tax. By compelling every slaughter to be reported through fixed tokens, the council created a register against which any later claim of theft could be tested. The Governor's warrant to reputed inhabitants to keep arms in their houses fed into the same system: those armed householders served as the witnesses whose word could clear or convict a man found with unaccounted beef. Arms, slaughter records and the search warrant together formed a single mechanism for policing livestock theft, which was the most exposed form of property on the island.

The proposed extension of the rule to hogs, goats and sheep shows how the council read the inhabitants' own complaints. A request for relief was answered with a proposal to widen the scheme, on the reasoning that the same evidentiary cover would serve smaller livestock as well. The grievance procedure was therefore not only a channel for redress but an occasion on which the council could enlarge the regulatory reach of the law it was defending.

Speculations

The pairing of "reputed man" with the Governor's arms warrant suggests that the right to bear arms on the island functioned as a recognised social marker rather than a general liberty. Only inhabitants already trusted by the Governor were warranted to keep arms, and only their testimony carried the evidential weight described. The hides-and-horns scheme worked because that smaller class of warranted householders could be relied on as witnesses, which in turn explains why the council was reluctant to abandon a procedure that the inhabitants found burdensome.

The council's repeated formula of writing to its masters on the inhabitants' behalf, used for both the markets and the beef grievances, looks like a deliberate way of conceding the point without surrendering the rule. By referring the matter to the proprietors, the council acknowledged the complaint, removed any immediate friction and yet left the existing position in force until London responded. The same device served to manage local pressure on several different rules in a single sitting.

242

234

[s]everall Su[s]pected [P]ersons Eate more F[l]e[s]h, then we think in Reason &

Con[s]cience they are able to Do if they Came by it honestly

Satti[s]fied

And ordered That a new Statute be [P]enned Accordingly

and Sent home by this Shipping to the Hono[ble] Lo[rd]s [P]rop[r]ietors for

their Concu[r]ance, and that it Take force from the [P]ublication

Lands 10. You desire you may not be obliged to Fence in your Lands at all

It being a new thing you never heard of before

This Law hath b[i]n made above 27 years ago, and no doubt, but it

hath been published for it is what you Hold your Lands by

And we must Say by this Law That what Land is not Fenced in

is by Course the Lo[rd]s [P]roprietors, We have no other way to know which

is your Land and which is theirs, However Because you Say you have

[s]o long b[i]n kept in the Dark, by not knowing any thing of it We Shall for

this time Neglect your duty in makeing Seizures and Will [p]ublish to the

Lo[rd]s [P]roprietors That the time appointed for fenceing May begin a

new from the 25[th] of March Last, In the m[e]an time [f]riendly Advi[s]e

you to Inclofe[?] a [P]art as you Can Least we Should be Check[t] for this

our Neglect of duty and receive Orders from [them] to make Seizures

Causes by 11 You desire all other Matters May be Tryed by Jurys, besides Life

Jurys Limb and Lands as the [P]laintiff Shall Think fitt

No Govern[r] and Coun[cill] will trouble themselves to give Sentence Upon

any Intr[i]cate Matter and that may be of great Importance as you say

by Giving a Definitive Sentence, the Order So Just [s]ildome [P]leafes both

Partys, which Creats an o[di]um to the Govern[r] and Counsell when the

Same thing may be Judged by your Selves As the Govern[r] is Judge of that

Court he ought to be a Judge what Shall be Tryed by Jurys and what he

H[i]m[self] will try in Counsell otherwise a L[i]tigeous Man that hath

Wealth and a cau[s]e Depending with a [P]ore man, Altho' a Trifling

one, Shall come and Demand to be tryed by Jury, which will [P]lace the

[P]ore man Such a Charge that he will Rather [s]itt down in his wrong

The Governour would willingly [P]ut you in mind that he hath

refused to try [s]everall Cau[s]es in Counsell as Some of you knows

And Indeed to take all this Matter Right, we Look upon it as

a burden our Masters has Laid upon us to Ea[s]e You

Sattisfied That

the Govern[rs] Shall be Judge of what Shall be Tryed in Counsell and

what in Court Ex[c]ept Life Limb and Land

Understood. Here is the corrected full text of this submission.

Several suspected persons ate more flesh than the council thought, in reason and conscience, they could have come by honestly. The inhabitants were satisfied. The council ordered a new statute to be drawn up accordingly, to be sent home by the next shipping to the Honourable Lords Proprietors for their concurrence, and to take effect from its publication.

Council's answer to grievance 10 (lands)

The inhabitants asked not to be obliged to fence in their lands at all, on the ground that it was something new to them and never heard of before. The council answered that the law had been made over 27 years earlier and must have been published, since it was the very tenure by which the inhabitants held their lands. Under that law, any land not fenced reverted, in course, to the Lords Proprietors. The council had no other way of telling which land belonged to an inhabitant and which to the proprietors.

Even so, since the inhabitants said they had been kept in the dark for so long, the council agreed to forgo its duty of making seizures for this time. It would write to the Lords Proprietors proposing that the time set for fencing begin afresh from 25 Mar 1709. In the meantime the council advised the inhabitants, in friendly terms, to enclose what part they could, lest the council itself be checked for neglecting its duty and ordered to make seizures after all.

Council's answer to grievance 11 (causes by juries)

The inhabitants asked that all matters apart from life, limb and land be tried by jury where the plaintiff thought fit. The council answered that no Governor and council would willingly take on the labour of giving sentence in any intricate matter of great importance. A definitive sentence, however just, seldom pleased both parties and created odium toward the Governor and council, where the same matter could be judged by the inhabitants themselves.

As the Governor was judge of the court, it fell to him to decide what should be tried by jury and what he himself would try in council. Otherwise a litigious man of wealth, with a cause pending against a poor man, could demand a jury trial even in a trifling matter and so put the poor man to such expense that he would rather sit down in his wrong than pursue it.

The Governor reminded the inhabitants that he had already refused to try several causes in council, as some of them knew. Taken rightly, the council viewed the whole arrangement as a burden their masters had laid on them in order to ease the inhabitants. The inhabitants were satisfied that the Governor was to be judge of what should be tried in council and what in court, except in cases of life, limb and land.

Interpretations

The fencing law described under grievance 10 worked as a tenure rule, not merely a regulation of land use. Land left unfenced was treated as falling back to the Lords Proprietors by operation of law, which meant that the boundary between Company land and inhabitant land was drawn on the ground by physical enclosure rather than by deed alone. The council's admission that it had no other way of telling which land was whose shows how much administrative weight rested on the fences themselves. The agreed restart of the fencing period from 25 Mar 1709 is significant: that date marked the start of the legal year and the point from which all annual returns of property and family had just been required, so the new fencing clock was aligned with the wider revenue settlement under way that spring.

The council's handling of the jury grievance reveals the structure of judicial business on the island. The Governor sat as judge of the court, but also presided in council, and the choice of which matters went to a jury rested with him rather than with the plaintiff. The council justified that arrangement as a guard for poor litigants against wealthy ones, on the ground that an unqualified right to a jury would let a rich man impose ruinous costs on a poor opponent in a trifling cause. The reservation of life, limb and land to jury trial in all cases marks the outer limit of that discretion and shows where the council was unwilling to concede ground.

The council's reminder that the Governor had already refused to try several causes in council served a particular purpose in this exchange. By pointing to prior refusals as evidence of restraint, the council answered the grievance not with a change of rule but with a record of practice. The grievance procedure thus turned partly on the inhabitants' acceptance that past conduct could stand in place of a formal concession.

Speculations

The council's decision to forgo seizures for unfenced land, while at the same time proposing to the proprietors that the fencing period restart from 25 Mar 1709, looks like a managed retreat rather than a simple concession. By suspending enforcement and referring the new start date upward, the council preserved the rule, gave the inhabitants a fresh and clearly dated window in which to comply, and protected itself against later criticism from London for neglecting its duty. The express warning to enclose at least a part in the meantime, lest orders to seize arrive from the proprietors, was a way of placing the risk of inaction back on the inhabitants while the local enforcement was paused.

The framing of jury allocation as a burden laid on the council by its masters, rather than as a power the council enjoyed, was a deliberate rhetorical move in answering grievance 11. By presenting judicial discretion as something done for the inhabitants' relief, the council deflected the charge of arrogating power to itself and reset the question as one of who was best placed to spare the inhabitants trouble and cost. The argument worked because it tied the Governor's discretion to a recognisable abuse, namely vexatious litigation by wealthy plaintiffs, and offered the existing arrangement as the remedy for that specific harm.

243

235

Liquor 12 You desire that the Liquo[r] Called whole Sale being three Gallons may be Reduced to one Gall[on] Arrack four pound [S]ugar, and one or Two pound[s] of Tobaco be Deemed whole Sale

We cannot See that Occasion there is to Deem any thing a whole Sale Le[ss] then what is Expre[s]sed in the Law, without [P]rejudice and wrong to those that pay for Lic[en]ces, And you all know very well that you may have what Small quantity You [P]lease out of the Stores Even to a [p]ound or Quart of any thing Satti[s]fied

Ditto retayled 13 You desire that we would E[s]tablish [c]ertaine Rates upon Liquor[s] [R]etayled By the [P]unch hou[s]es Ordered

That the following declaration be I[s]sued out

There are to give Notice to all Licencees or Retayers of Strong Liquors That a bowle of [P]unch made with one [P]int of Arrack with [Sug]ar and Lemon J[u]ice Answerable be from the day of the date hereof Sold at Two Shillings [p] bowle and no more while Arrack is at 14 Shillings [p] Gallon and if any one [p]resumes to Exact more Shall upon Information thereof Given to the Govern[r] and Councell Forfeit their Licence and Double y[e] Vallue which [P]int of Arrack aforesaid is to be put into Such a [s]izable bowle as will not be too [s]trong nor yet too weak But Pallatable and pleasant for the buyer But if any Lic[e]ncee or Retayler of Liquor Shall think this not Sufficient [P]rofit they may deliver up their Licen[ce], [P]aying [P]roportion- able for the Time they have had it after the rate of [P] Annum Lehich all Such Retaylors are to do within Eight days from the date hereof Sattisfied

Martiall 14 You desire to be tryd by Civill Law and not by Martiall Law Law We[e] Shall write to our Masters about it we think it is but reason that the [P]lanters Should be tryed by the Civill Law Except it be in time of Warr, and Action or that we hope never to See, Rebellion, Cowardize, Neglect of Duty which may be the [Ru]ine of the [I]sland and Severall other Mi[s]demeanours in time of Action which Cannot be [J]udged by the Civill Law And we Likewise denyh in our Court Martiall to those Such of y[e] Worthy [P]eople of this [I]sland to be of it Satti[s]fied

Goingon 15 You desire the Liberty that you Always had of going on board any board[?] ship[s] Sup[r]a Ships in the road asking the Governour Leave

It is what as our Masters Say was never done at the Cape or as we know of done in any other Dutch Factory in India However if there be any urgent Occasion The Govern[r] at that time will not d[e]ny them Leave Satti[s]fied

You're right, that opening sentence broke the rule. Here is the corrected full text of this submission.

The inhabitants asked that the liquor called wholesale, being three gallons, be reduced to one gallon, and that four pounds of sugar and one or two pounds of tobacco be deemed wholesale.

Council's answer to grievance 12 (liquor wholesale)

The council saw no reason to treat anything as wholesale below the quantity set in the law, since to do so would prejudice and wrong those who paid for licences. The inhabitants were reminded that they could take any small quantity they pleased out of the stores, down to a pound or a quart of anything. The inhabitants were satisfied.

Council's answer to grievance 13 (liquor retailed)

The inhabitants asked the council to set fixed rates on liquors retailed at the punch houses. The council ordered that the following declaration be issued.

Notice was given to all licensees and retailers of strong liquors. A bowl of punch made with one pint of arrack, with sugar and lemon juice in proportion, was from the date of the declaration to be sold at 2s 0d per bowl and no more, so long as arrack stood at 14s 0d per gallon. Any person presuming to exact more was, on information given to the Governor and council, to forfeit his licence and twice the value of the bowl. The pint of arrack was to be put into a bowl of such size as would make the punch neither too strong nor too weak, but palatable and pleasant for the buyer.

If any licensee or retailer thought this allowed insufficient profit, he might surrender his licence, paying for the time he had held it at the annual rate. All such retailers were to do so within eight days of the date of the declaration. The inhabitants were satisfied.

Council's answer to grievance 14 (martial law)

The inhabitants asked to be tried by civil law and not by martial law. The council agreed to write to its masters about it and thought it reasonable that the planters be tried by civil law, except in time of war and action, or in cases the council hoped never to see: rebellion, cowardice, neglect of duty which might ruin the island, and several other misdemeanours in time of action that could not be judged by the civil law. The council also declined to admit any of the worthy people of the island to its court martial. The inhabitants were satisfied.

Council's answer to grievance 15 (going on board ships)

The inhabitants asked for the liberty they had always had of going on board any ships in the road on asking the Governor's leave. The council answered that, as its masters had said, this was never done at the Cape, nor so far as the council knew at any other Dutch factory in India. Even so, where there was any urgent occasion, the Governor of the day was not to deny the inhabitants leave. The inhabitants were satisfied.

Interpretations

The wholesale rule defended under grievance 12 worked as a revenue protection rather than a trading restriction. The three-gallon threshold marked the line above which a sale escaped the retail licence regime, and the council's argument against reducing it ran in terms of fairness to those who had paid for licences. The reminder that small quantities could be drawn directly from the Company stores shows that the council distinguished between Company sales to inhabitants, which lay outside the licence system, and the licensed retail trade conducted by the punch houses. The grievance therefore turned on the boundary between two parallel channels of supply, not on access to liquor as such.

The retail price declaration under grievance 13 fixed the bowl of punch at 2s 0d while arrack stood at 14s 0d per gallon, and tied the size of the bowl to the strength of the drink. By linking the legal price to a specified ingredient, a specified strength and a current input price, the council built an automatic adjustment into the rule. The forfeiture of licence and double value for overcharging gave the regulation teeth, and the eight-day window for retailers to surrender their licences on a pro-rata refund offered an exit that contained the risk of resistance. The mechanism shows the council managing a price-controlled trade by combining a quality standard, a published tariff and a graduated penalty.

The exceptions reserved under grievance 14, namely rebellion, cowardice, neglect of duty and other misdemeanours in time of action, mark the working line between the civilian and military jurisdictions on the island. The council was prepared to write to London proposing that planters be tried by civil law in peacetime, but kept the court martial in hand for the conduct of defence. The refusal to admit any of the worthy inhabitants to the court martial drew that line in personnel as well as in subject matter: the military tribunal remained a closed body of officers, separate from the consultative architecture that had just produced the twelve. The grievance procedure was therefore allowed to remodel the civil side of justice while leaving the disciplinary side untouched.

Speculations

The reference to the Cape and to other Dutch factories in India under grievance 15 looks like a calibrated denial. By citing what was practised in rival European stations, the council placed its restriction on going aboard ships within a recognised pattern of garrison discipline rather than treating it as a local imposition. The concession that the Governor was not to deny leave in cases of urgent occasion left the rule formally in place while removing the practical edge of the grievance. The choice to answer with comparative practice rather than with internal reasoning shows the council using external precedent to dispose of a complaint that touched directly on commercial access to incoming shipping.

The eight-day deadline attached to the punch-house declaration suggests that the council expected at least some retailers to test the new tariff. By offering a clean pro-rata refund inside a short window, the council closed off the obvious form of resistance, which would have been to keep the licence, exact a higher price quietly and force the inhabitants to inform. The combination of a fixed lawful price, a stated penalty and a brief opt-out period left licensees with three clear choices and no neutral position. The arrangement reads as a deliberately designed compliance trap, not a general invitation to surrender licences.

244

236

Blacks

Tax 16 You desire to be Eased Something in the Tax of Ten Shillings Every

year for Each Black you have

There is no [N]ation under the Cope of Heaven, Nay we are apt to beleive

If there be any Wild [P]eople they Contribute to their own Safety in some

Measure, And if any man will Looking our Mother Countrey England we

Shall there find She f[o]ur Shillings in the pound Tax alone Gives the

Queen Every fifth year their whole E[s]tate, besides Taxes of windows

Lights [P]ari[s]h, Dutys and [P]arsons Fifths, and Sundry other Taxes which

Every English man knows but tha[t] has a five Hundred [P]ound [p]annu[m]

never gets in above three hundred [P]ound and very well if that

And now that the Honoura[ble] Company has for Six years Last [p]ast [P]aid

for Fortifications by Employing y[r] Blacks, and Articers of this [I]sland About

fifteen hundred [p]ound a year, besides the Co[n]stant Charge of the Garrison [&c]

for your [P]reservation, We Shall only now give you our Masters Reasons

but mu[s]t tell you we Little Expected at this time of day Such an Article

from you, which indeed as we find by a Medium of Six years Last [P]ast

Amounts but to fifty Eight [p]ound [p]annu[m], Agreed not to Such a Vast

Charge

The reason of which order is as the Negroes Inc[r]ea[s]e upon the[e]

[I]sland It will be nec[e]sary for the Honou[ble] Company [P]roportionably to

Increase the Garrison and Soldiers for the Security of the Inhabitants

as well as the [I]sland

Lic[en]ce 17 You desire that Each Cheef of a Family that have Guns Allowed you

to Shoot may have Liberty to go a Shooting for your Diver[s]ion

You must Keep within the Law of the [P]reservation of the Game,

But if any [P]erson Should Desire any further p[r]ivilidge, they are not to

presume to do it, without Leave first had of y[e] Gov[er]n[r] which is Left

to his [P]leasure to give or Lett a Lone Sati[s]fied

Great

wood 18 You desire Le[a]ve of the Great wood and Common

[P]rovided you will agree to make a Law to [P]lant one

Acre of wood in Every Ten Acres of Land you [P]oss[ess], otherwi[s]e you

Shall have no Bennefitt of our wood or Co[m]mon as our [p]ublished order

Expre[ss]es Agreed to and Satti[s]fied

Le[a]fees 19 You desire Le[a]fees may Vote for Election of [P]arrish officers, and Serve

in their Turns We Shall di[s]pen[s]e with that, and write to y[e] Lo[rd]s [P]rop[s]

to Repeal that Law, and hope they will Comply

Sati[s]fied

J[no] Roberts

Tho Goodwin

Edw[d] Mashborne

W[m] Marsden

Daniel Griffith

The inhabitants asked for some easing of the tax of ten shillings a year for each black they owned.

Council's answer to grievance 16 (slave tax)

The council answered that there was no nation under the cope of heaven that did not contribute to its own safety in some measure, and that even wild peoples did the same. Anyone who looked to England, the council said, would find the four shillings in the pound land tax alone gave the Queen the whole estate of every subject once in every five years, on top of taxes on windows, lights, parish rates, duties and parsons' fifths, and many other taxes that every Englishman knew. A man with £500 0s 0d a year there seldom cleared above £300 0s 0d, and counted himself fortunate to do that.

The council then set out the Company's own outlay. Over the previous six years the Honourable Company had paid about £1,500 0s 0d a year for fortifications, by employing the inhabitants' blacks and the island's artificers, besides the constant charge of the garrison and other expenses for the inhabitants' preservation. Taken across those six years, the slave tax produced an average of only £58 0s 0d a year, set against a charge of a wholly different scale.

The council added that the council had not expected an article of this kind at this time of day. The reason behind the order, the council explained, was that as the negroes increased on the island, the Honourable Company would need to increase the garrison and soldiers in proportion, for the security of the inhabitants as well as of the island.

Council's answer to grievance 17 (recreational shooting)

The inhabitants asked that each chief of a family allowed guns might have liberty to go shooting for diversion. The council answered that they were to keep within the law for the preservation of the game. Anyone wanting any further privilege was not to presume to take it without first obtaining the Governor's leave, which the Governor was free to give or withhold at his pleasure. The inhabitants were satisfied.

Council's answer to grievance 18 (Great Wood and common)

The inhabitants asked for the use of the Great Wood and common. The council answered that they might have it, provided they agreed to a law requiring one acre of wood to be planted in every ten acres of land they held. Otherwise they were to have no benefit of the Company's wood or common, as the published order already expressed. The inhabitants agreed and were satisfied.

Council's answer to grievance 19 (lessees and parish voting)

The inhabitants asked that lessees might vote in the election of parish officers and serve in their turns. The council agreed to dispense with the existing rule, and undertook to write to the Lords Proprietors for its repeal, in the hope they would comply. The inhabitants were satisfied.

Signed

John Roberts Thomas Goodwin Edward Mashborne William Marsden Daniel Griffith

Interpretations

The defence of the slave tax under grievance 16 rested on a comparative argument carried in two stages. The council first invoked English fiscal practice, citing the four-shilling land tax, the window tax, parish duties, parsons' fifths and lesser charges, to place the island's ten-shilling head tax within a wider pattern of imperial taxation. The council then set out the Company's own outlay, at about £1,500 0s 0d a year on fortifications for the six years preceding 1709, against an average yield from the slave tax of £58 0s 0d a year. The figures show how the council reframed the grievance, moving the question from the inhabitants' burden to the Company's net subsidy of the island's defence.

The council's justification for the slave tax also tied the levy explicitly to the size of the slave population. The reasoning given was that as the number of slaves on the island grew, the garrison and the soldiery would need to grow in proportion to keep the inhabitants and the island secure. The tax was therefore presented as a contribution to a security expense calibrated to demographic risk, not as a general revenue measure. That framing reveals how the council read the relationship between the slave population, the inhabitants' safety and the cost of the garrison as a single fiscal and military problem.

The arrangement under grievance 18 made access to the Great Wood and common conditional on a planting obligation of one acre of wood in every ten acres of land held. The grant of common rights was therefore tied to an enforceable contribution to the island's timber stock, and refusal to plant carried the loss of those rights as a direct sanction. This shows the council using common-resource access as the lever to secure compliance with a planting law, in a structure parallel to the earlier one-in-ten yam planting order of 19 May 1709.

The concession under grievance 19 extended the parish franchise to lessees and offered them their turn in parish office. Because the existing rule lay in the proprietors' code, the council could only dispense with it locally and write to London for repeal. The shape of the concession is consistent with the pattern seen across the grievances: a local suspension of enforcement, paired with a formal referral upward of any change to the rule itself, was the council's standard instrument for handling a demand it was prepared to accept.

Speculations

The choice of average figures in answering grievance 16, £1,500 0s 0d a year on fortifications against £58 0s 0d a year from the slave tax, looks like a deliberate framing rather than an incidental statistic. By presenting both sums on the same six-year basis, the council produced a single comparable number on each side and a ratio of about twenty-five to one in the Company's favour. The argument worked not by denying the burden of the head tax but by drowning it in the much larger figure of the Company's defensive outlay, so that any reduction in the tax would appear as a request to widen an existing imbalance.

The link drawn between the size of the slave population and the size of the garrison suggests that the council understood the head tax as the financial instrument by which a future expansion of the garrison would be paid for. The pairing implies a plan in which the slave count served both as the trigger for new soldiers and as the source of the revenue to pay for them, with the tax rising automatically as the population grew. The grievance touched a load-bearing element of the council's fiscal architecture for defence, which helps to explain why it produced the longest and most argued of the council's answers.

The conditioning of common-wood access on a one-in-ten planting obligation under grievance 18 reads as a deliberate solution to a free-rider problem. By tying the inhabitants' right to draw from the Great Wood to their own contribution to the island's timber stock, the council aligned the private incentive to take wood with a collective duty to replenish it. The fact that the inhabitants agreed at once, where they had resisted earlier planting and fencing rules, suggests that the council had identified the lever, namely access to a shared resource, that would secure assent to a planting law where coercion alone had not.

The decision to refer the lessee-franchise concession to the proprietors for formal repeal, while suspending the existing rule on the spot, shows the council using its dispensing power as a working substitute for legislation. The local dispensation gave the inhabitants what they had asked for at once, while the letter to London preserved the council's protection if the proprietors declined. The pattern allowed the council to close a grievance with the inhabitants without binding the Company beyond what its directors might ultimately approve.

245

237

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Wednesday the 22 day

of June 1709 At the United Castle in James Valley

Jn[o] Roberts Esq[r] Gov[r]

Thom[s] Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Gov[r]

Pres[en]t Ed[w]: Mashborne 3 in Coun[d]

Will[m]: Marsden 4 in Coun[d]

Dan[l]: Griffith 5 in Coun[d]

Whereas on Thursday the 2[d] [In]st[an]t Arrived the Hono[ble] Co[m]panys [s]hip[s]

Aurengzeb Comm[an]ded by Cap[t] Edmond [S]tary from Bombay, and

being upon her Voiage for England

Ordered

That we Send to our Honourable Masters the foll[o]wing writings

[p] Said Shipp[s] viz[t]

1 The Store Books which will be made up to y[e] 25[th] day of March L[a]st

2 An Acc[t] of the Hono[ble] Comp[ys] Stock of Cattle, Blacks &c

3 A List of y[e] Familles Land and Cattle for the year 1708

4 An Acc[t] of Gen[er]all Stores & [s]pence & Remains from the 24 august

1708 to the 25 day of March 1709

5 Coppy of our Indent Sent by the [s]hip[s] [...] & Blenheim

6 Coppy of Consultation Book from y[e] 16 of November 1708 to the 22 day

of June 1709

7 Coppy of y[e] Gen[er]all Letter [p] the d[i]spatch Galley

8 The old Companys Acc[t] & a Letter to them

9 Coppy of Court of Warr to y[e] Sev[er]all C[om]ittees of Shiping with a L[ett]er to 'em

10 And to Draw up, and Send a Gen[er]all Letter to the Court of Managers

J[no] Roberts

Tho Goodwin

Edw[d]: Mashborne

W[m] Marsden

Daniel Griffith

Thus farr hath b[i]n Coppyed

and Sent home by this Ship

Aurengzeb who [s]ailed the

2 [J]une 1709

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Wednesday 22 Jun 1709 at the United Castle in James Valley.

Present: John Roberts, Esquire, Governor Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor Edward Mashborne, third in council William Marsden, fourth in council Daniel Griffith, fifth in council

On Thursday 2 Jun 1709 the Honourable Company's ship Aurengzeb, under Captain Edmond Stary, arrived from Bombay and lay bound on her voyage for England.

The council ordered that the following writings be sent to the Honourable Masters by that ship:

  1. The store books, to be made up to 25 Mar 1709
  2. An account of the Honourable Company's stock of cattle, blacks and other livestock
  3. A list of the families, lands and cattle for the year 1708
  4. An account of general stores, expenditure and remains from 24 Aug 1708 to 25 Mar 1709
  5. A copy of the council's indent sent by the ships [...] and Blenheim
  6. A copy of the consultation book from 16 Nov 1708 to 22 Jun 1709
  7. A copy of the general letter sent by the Despatch Galley
  8. The Old Company's account, with a letter to them
  9. A copy of the court of war proceedings to the several committees of shipping, with a letter to them
  10. A general letter to be drawn up and sent to the Court of Managers

Signed

John Roberts Thomas Goodwin Edward Mashborne William Marsden Daniel Griffith

A marginal note records that the material had been copied so far and sent home by the Aurengzeb, which sailed on 2 Jun 1709.

Interpretations

The list of writings sent home by the Aurengzeb shows the working shape of the council's reporting cycle to London. The store books, the stock account, the families and cattle return for 1708 and the general stores account from 24 Aug 1708 to 25 Mar 1709 together formed a financial and demographic snapshot of the island, anchored at the proprietors' year-end of 25 March. Alongside these the council sent a copy of the consultation book from 16 Nov 1708, the date at which the previous dispatch ended, through to 22 Jun 1709, the date of the present meeting. The pairing of running accounts with a continuous record of consultations shows that the council understood its accountability to the proprietors as both quantitative and narrative.

The inclusion of a separate Old Company account with its own covering letter reflects the unfinished administrative consequences of the 1708 union of the Old and New East India Companies. Even after the proprietors had become the United Company, the books of the Old Company were still being settled and reported on as a distinct set, and the council handled them as such in its dispatch. The reference to the Court of Managers in the final item identifies the governing body of the united concern as the proper recipient of the general letter, while the separate letter to the Old Company shows that the older constituency still had to be addressed in its own right.

The despatch by the Aurengzeb on the day of her arrival, with materials already compiled and ready to send, indicates that the council kept its outgoing papers in a state of readiness against the next available shipping. The chain of references in the indent, naming the Despatch Galley and the Blenheim as previous bearers of related papers, shows how the council tracked its outgoing correspondence by ship, so that each new dispatch could be located against the last and continuity preserved across the long intervals between sailings.

Speculations

The decision to assemble the dispatch around the proprietors' year-end of 25 Mar 1709, rather than around the date of the Aurengzeb's arrival, suggests that the council had been holding the materials in expectation of the first homeward shipping after that date. The store books and the general stores account are both cut off precisely at 25 March, and the consultation book extract runs from the close of the previous dispatch to the day of the present meeting. The neatness of the cut-offs implies that the writings were prepared in advance and that the Aurengzeb's arrival simply provided the carrier for a package already shaped to a reporting cycle anchored in London.

The separate court of war proceedings, sent to the several committees of shipping with their own letter, point to a parallel channel of reporting on matters that touched the defence of homeward-bound shipping. By directing that material to the shipping committees rather than to the Court of Managers, the council mapped its outgoing papers to the specific London bodies competent to act on them. The structure of the dispatch therefore reads as a deliberate distribution of evidence across multiple London audiences, rather than as a single composite report, so that each set of papers reached the body able to use it.

246

238

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tu[e]sday the

5[th] day of July 1709 At[t] the United Castle in James

Valley

Jn[o]: Roberts Esq[r]: Gov[r]

Thom[s]: Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Gov[r]

Pres[en]t Ed[w]: Mashborne 3 in Coun[d]

Will[m] Marsden 4 in Co[unc]ell [P]ick

Dan[l] Griffith 5 in Counc[i]ll

That Barracks being mightily wanted for Soldi[e]rs and that no

more Convenient [P]lace cannot be found any where but from the Castle

along by the [Garden] wall up to Mad[d]am Johnsons house Fronting the

Street But we find that a great [P]art of this not the Honour[able] Companys

[P]roperty by a Consultation dated the 14 of March 168[5/6]

Pres[en]t

John Black[m]ore Gov[r]

Anthony [B]eale D[e]p[t]y Gov[r]

viz[t] Joshua Johnson L[ieu]t &c

Michael Morris [Lieu]t &c

M[r] Robert Swallow

L[ie]utenant Johnson having Desired That he may have the

old Wa[s]h House belonging to the Honou[r]ble Comp[s] our Master[s] [s]ituate over

against their Great Work House in Chapp[ell] Valley above Fort James, for

which he is willing to give reasonable Satti[s]faction, Now because the

Said Wash House is Decaying and of little use to the Hono[ble] Company

It is ordered

That the Said L[ieu]tenant Johnson Shall have the Said Old Wa[s]h House

for which he Shall have Stak[e]d to his debt with the Said Honou[ra]ble Comp[a]ny

the [S]umm of fo[r]ty Shillings and that a [W]arrant be Drawne & Signed

to Cap[t] Beale for that [P]a[ss]age

At a nother Consultation on the 16[th] January 1681

at Fort James Pres[en]t

John Black[m]ore Governo[r]

Anthony Beale D[e]p[t]y Gov[r]

Joshua Johnson L[ieu]t &c

Michael Morris L[ieu]t &c

M[r] Robert Swallow

viz[t]

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 5 Jul 1709 at the United Castle in James Valley.

Note: This section has been placed in the wrong order, this consultation on 5 July 1709 being followed by a consultation dated 28 Jun 1709 on film 251

Present: John Roberts, Esquire, Governor Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor Edward Mashborne, third in council William Marsden, fourth in council Daniel Griffith, fifth in council

Barracks were greatly wanted for the soldiers. The council could find no more convenient site than the strip running from the castle along the garden wall up to Madam Johnson's house, fronting the street. A large part of that ground, however, was not the Honourable Company's property.

The point rested on a consultation dated 14 Mar 1686.

Present at that earlier consultation: John Blackmore, Governor Anthony Beale, Deputy Governor Lieutenant Joshua Johnson and others Lieutenant Michael Morris and others Mr Robert Swallow

At that meeting Lieutenant Johnson asked to have the old wash house belonging to the Honourable Company, the council's masters, which stood opposite their great workhouse in Chapel Valley above Fort James. He was willing to give reasonable satisfaction for it. Because the wash house was decaying and of little use to the Honourable Company, the council ordered that Lieutenant Johnson should have it. The sum of 40s 0d was to be staked to his debt with the Honourable Company. A warrant was to be drawn and signed to Captain Beale for the transaction.

At another consultation held at Fort James on 16 Jan 1682.

Present: John Blackmore, Governor Anthony Beale, Deputy Governor Lieutenant Joshua Johnson Lieutenant Michael Morris Mr Robert Swallow

The text breaks off at this point before the substance of that earlier consultation is set out.

Interpretations

The barracks question reveals how property title constrained even the most direct military planning on the island. The council had identified the only convenient site for soldiers' quarters but could not simply proceed, because a substantial part of the strip from the castle to Madam Johnson's house lay outside the Company's ownership. The response was to reach back into the consultation books for the title chain, beginning with the 1686 entry on the old wash house. The procedure shows that the council's working archive was not merely a record but an active instrument of title research, used to establish what the Company could and could not build upon.

The 1686 entry itself documents the mechanism by which Company property passed into private hands on the island. Lieutenant Joshua Johnson's acquisition of the wash house was structured as a debit of 40s 0d to his existing account with the Company, rather than as a cash sale, and was authorised by a warrant drawn to the Deputy Governor. The transaction shows the Company employing its running accounts with its officers as a medium for property transfers, with the warrant serving as the formal instrument of conveyance. The reasoning, that the building was decaying and of little use to the Company, established the working test under which Company assets could be alienated to individual officers.

The reappearance of the same group of men under Blackmore and Beale in January 1682 indicates the continuity of the small governing circle on the island in the 1680s. Joshua Johnson, Michael Morris and Robert Swallow are all named at both consultations, alongside the same Governor and Deputy Governor, and the Johnson family interest in the disputed strip in 1709 is traceable through that earlier presence. The grievance procedure earlier in 1709 had already produced Mrs Elizabeth Johnson, widow of a former Governor, as a recurring figure on the cattle commonage and the lower table; the barracks site now placed the Johnson household at the centre of a property question that the council could not resolve without returning to the consultations of the 1680s.

Speculations

The council's decision to open its inquiry into the barracks site with the 1686 wash house consultation, rather than with any later instrument, suggests that the 1686 transaction was understood as the root of the private title now blocking the build. By beginning at that point and moving forward through subsequent consultations, the council was setting out to reconstruct the descent of the strip step by step. The structure of the entry, with the older consultation copied in full and a second January 1682 consultation already opened, points to a planned title search through the books rather than an incidental reference to a single precedent.

The 40s 0d charge against Johnson's Company account in 1686 looks like a calibrated price rather than a market figure. The wash house was described as decaying and of little use, which removed any need for the Company to recover its capital value, while the debit to an existing officer's account avoided the awkwardness of a cash sale of public property to a serving officer. The arrangement allowed the Company to alienate a small asset to a useful officer at a notional figure, while preserving the appearance of a properly accounted transaction supported by a warrant. The choice of mechanism explains why the title now needed to be traced through the consultation book itself, since the conveyance lived only in those records.

247

239

viz[t]

Whereas in the Consultation held on March the 14[th] 168[5/6] L[ieu]tenant

Johnson had granted to him for the Su[m]m of fo[r]ty Shillings The Honourable

Comp[ys] old Wa[s]h House Sci[t]uate and being in Chap[p] Valley and now desireing

to have a grant of Some Ground Adjoyning thereunto

It is ordered

That two rodd and a half towards the highway (including that End wall

of the Said Wa[s]h house over against a hou[s]e Lately built by John [E]vale) and

Six rodd from the Corner of the [s]o[u]th Corner of the Said Two Rodd and a half do[w]ne by

the meat House towards Fort James and About Two Rodd and a half at y[e] End of

the Said Six rodd to the Stone wall Lately built to Inclo[s]e a Large Garden for

the Said Honou[ra]ble Company L[i]kewi[s]e three Rodd in Length and Twenty one foot

in Breadth behind the Said House Adjoyning to the [S]tone wall at y[e] Upper End of

the Said Large Garden Wall, the whole Containing about Seventeen Rodd

(Including the [...] [...] be the Same more or Less be hereby Allotted & granted

unto the Said L[ieu]t: Johnson and his ass[i]gnes, and that he have a Certifi-

cate thereof Accordingly

Now that very Six rodd from the meat house Downe Towards Fort

James reaches within Ten foot of the old fort Wall, And 'tis that Six

Rodd with Some Additions we have That we want to build Barracks Upon

And since they had That Land given them for nothing as we can find no[r]

have they made any use or Improvement of it, Unle[s] it be a kind of a house

built upon y[e] Wash hou[s]e Ground we don't think to meddle with or come within

the bounds

Ordered

That Mad[d]am Johnson and her [s]on be Sumoned by next Co[un]cill day, which

will be on the 19 day of th[i]s [in]stant July

Further ordered That y[e] Following declaration be I[s]sued out and made

[P]ublick by beat of Drum

J[no] Roberts

Tho Goodwin

Edw[d] Mashborne

W[m] Marsden

Daniel Griffith

[I]sland

At the same consultation of 16 Jan 1682, the council recorded that Lieutenant Johnson had already been granted the old wash house in Chapel Valley for 40s 0d at the consultation of 14 Mar 1686, and that he was now asking for a grant of some ground adjoining it.

The council ordered that an allotment of ground be made out to him on the following terms.

Two and a half rods towards the highway, taking in the end wall of the wash house opposite a house lately built by John Evale.

Six rods from the south corner of the said two and a half rods, running down by the meat house towards Fort James.

About two and a half rods at the end of those six rods, running to the stone wall lately built to enclose a large garden for the Honourable Company.

Three rods in length and 21 feet in breadth behind the said house, adjoining the stone wall at the upper end of the large garden wall.

The whole containing about 17 rods, more or less, including the [...] [...], was allotted and granted to Lieutenant Johnson and his assigns, and a certificate to that effect was to be issued to him.

Returning to the present consultation of 5 Jul 1709, the council noted that the six rods running from the meat house down towards Fort James came within 10 feet of the old fort wall, and it was that strip of six rods, with some additions, that the council needed for the new barracks. The land had been given to Lieutenant Johnson for nothing, so far as the council could find, and no use or improvement had been made of it since, apart from a kind of house built on the wash house ground itself. The council did not propose to meddle with that house or to enter its bounds.

The council ordered that Madam Johnson and her son be summoned to attend at the next council day, which would be 19 Jul 1709.

The council further ordered that the following declaration be issued and made public by beat of drum.

Signed

John Roberts Thomas Goodwin Edward Mashborne William Marsden Daniel Griffith

The text breaks off at the point at which the declaration was to follow.

Interpretations

The grant set out in the 16 Jan 1682 consultation shows the council operating as the surveying and conveying authority for the island's built fabric. The allotment is given in rods running off named anchor points, namely the wash house itself, the meat house, the highway, John Evale's recently built house, the new stone wall enclosing the Company's large garden and the old fort wall. By tying the boundary to existing structures rather than to abstract coordinates, the council produced a description that could be walked on the ground and checked against neighbouring property. The total figure of 17 rods, returned at the end as "more or less", confirms that the area was reckoned by adding up the four legs of the description rather than by independent measurement.

The 1709 council's response to this earlier grant turned on the use, or absence of use, made of the land since 1686. The council recorded that Lieutenant Johnson had received the strip for nothing, that no improvement had followed apart from a house built on the wash house ground itself, and that this house lay outside the strip the council now wanted for barracks. The framing of the case shows the working logic by which the council distinguished between protected and recoverable property: a granted strip on which nothing had been built remained available for public use in a way that the wash house ground, with a dwelling on it, did not. The careful separation of the six rods needed for barracks from the wash house ground points to that distinction being drawn in real estate as well as in argument.

The summoning of Madam Johnson and her son to the council day of 19 Jul 1709 fits a recognisable pattern in the 1709 records. Mrs Elizabeth Johnson, widow of former Governor Joshua Johnson, had already appeared in the spring on the cattle commonage and the lower table restructuring, and the family now stood at the centre of a property dispute touching the security of the island. The use of a formal summons rather than an informal approach, combined with the parallel order for a public declaration by beat of drum, shows that the council intended to handle the matter on the record and in public, as a contested claim rather than as a private negotiation.

Speculations

The council's decision to summon the Johnsons before issuing any order against their title suggests a deliberate sequencing of pressure. The public declaration by beat of drum, which was the council's standard instrument for announcing measures of general interest, was ordered to go out at the same time as the private summons. The combined effect was to place the Johnson family under simultaneous public and private notice that the strip was to be reclaimed, while still preserving the form of a hearing on 19 Jul 1709. The arrangement reads as a way of making the council's intention known to the wider inhabitants before the Johnsons could attempt a private settlement on more favourable terms.

The careful exclusion of the wash house ground itself, with the house built on it, from the council's claim looks like a calculated concession designed to keep the dispute within manageable bounds. By limiting the proposed taking to the six rods of unimproved ground running down towards Fort James, the council avoided any need to dispossess the family of a standing dwelling and reduced the case to one of recovering unused common land for public works. The choice narrowed the legal and political ground of the dispute to the gap between an unimproved grant and a built one, where the council's argument from non-use was at its strongest.

The retrieval of grants from 1682 and 1686 to settle a building question in 1709 shows how the council used its own consultation book as a working title register a generation deep. The fact that two earlier Governors and a recognisable group of officers, Blackmore, Beale, Joshua Johnson, Michael Morris and Robert Swallow, had to be reconstructed from the books in order to establish the present state of title indicates that the island had no separate deeds office or register of conveyances. The council's procedure suggests that, in the absence of such a register, the consultation book itself served as the island's archive of land grants, and that the present case turned as much on the council's ability to read its own past records as on the merits of the claim.

248

240

Island St Helena

By the Govern[r] and Councill

A Declaration

Forasmuch as the Government Considering the well being and

[P]rosperity of this [I]sland, of which the Fencing in of Lands and Planting

of wood are the most E[s]ssentiall [P]arts and that the Laws Relateing

thereunto will be Exactly and Impartially [P]ut in Execution, And we do

have [P]eople not Flatter th[e]m[s]elves to the Contrary of

Wherefore It is hereby ordered

That all Blacks Shall be discharged from working at y[e] Fortifications

and all other busin[e]ss relateing to the Honour[ed] Lords [P]roprietors on Satur-

day the 9 [In]stant, Unle[s] they can give Sufficient Te[s]timony That they

have the Quantity of wood Enjoyned by the Law in that case, And that

they have their Lands Fenced in or that they have Blacks Enough to

Comply with these Laws and to Spare

Dated at United Castle in James Valley this 5[th] day

of July 1709

Sign[e]d [p]er order of [Govern]r and Councill

[p]me Jn[o]: Alexander

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday the 12[th] day of

July 1709 At the United Castle in James Valley

Pres[en]t Jn[o]: Roberts Esq[r] Gov[r]

Thom[s]: Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Gov[r]

Ed[w]: Ma[s]hborne 3 in Coun[d]

Will[m] Marsden 4 in Coun[d]

Dan[l]: Griffith 5 in Coun[d]

The Store Keeper has brought in Acc[t] of Sales of the Hono[ble] Comp[ys] [G]oods

from the 25 of March Last to the 9[th] May and also Included whatever

Served to the Garrison which amoynted to 791- 2- 8

Another Acc[t] from May y[e] 9 to y[e] 25 Ditto amounting to 161- 13- 14[?]

Another Acc[t] from May y[e] 25 to June y[e] 25 Amounting to 413- 11- 4[?]

1366- 6- 11[?]

Island of St Helena

By the Governor and council, a declaration.

The Government, considering the wellbeing and prosperity of the island, of which the fencing of lands and the planting of wood were the most essential parts, gave notice that the laws relating to those matters were to be carried into execution exactly and impartially. The inhabitants were not to flatter themselves to the contrary.

The council ordered that all blacks were to be discharged from working at the fortifications, and from any other business belonging to the Honourable Lords Proprietors, on Saturday 9 Jul 1709. The discharge was to apply unless their owners could give sufficient testimony that they had the quantity of wood required by law, that their lands were fenced in, and that they had blacks enough both to comply with these laws and to spare.

Dated at the United Castle in James Valley, 5 Jul 1709.

Signed by order of the Governor and council, John Alexander.

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 12 Jul 1709 at the United Castle in James Valley.

Present: John Roberts, Esquire, Governor Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor Edward Mashborne, third in council William Marsden, fourth in council Daniel Griffith, fifth in council

The storekeeper produced accounts of sales of the Honourable Company's goods, with the sums supplied to the garrison included.

From 25 Mar 1709 to 9 May 1709: £791 2s 8d From 9 May 1709 to 25 May 1709: £161 13s [...] From 25 May 1709 to 25 Jun 1709: £413 11s [...]

The manuscript is unclear at the penny figures in the second and third entries: the pence digits cannot be read with confidence, though the pound and shilling totals are legible.

Total: £1,366 6s [...]

The pence column of the total is similarly unclear; what can be recovered is the running total of £1,366 6s, with the final pence figure illegible.

Interpretations

The declaration of 5 Jul 1709 used the inhabitants' access to Company labour as the lever to enforce the fencing and wood-planting laws. By ordering that all blacks be discharged from the fortifications and from other proprietors' work on 9 Jul 1709, the council placed the burden of compliance on the owners rather than on the slaves themselves: a planter whose lands were unfenced or whose acre-in-ten of wood was unplanted lost the use of his slaves on Company contracts. The exemption clause, which kept slaves at the fortifications only where the owner could show both fencing and planting compliance and surplus labour beyond it, made the test cumulative. The declaration therefore worked as an enforcement instrument layered onto the planting and fencing laws agreed earlier in the year, including the one-in-ten yam planting order of 19 May 1709 and the conditional access to the Great Wood and common conceded under the council's answer to grievance 18.

The four-day window between the dated declaration of 5 July and the cut-off of 9 July gave the inhabitants almost no time to bring their holdings into compliance. The structure of the order suggests that its immediate purpose was not to secure compliance by that date but to force the owners to acknowledge non-compliance and so to expose themselves to the consequence. A planter whose slaves were turned off the fortifications on 9 July could no longer claim ignorance of the law; the declaration converted the fencing and planting requirements from latent rules into operative ones at a single fixed moment.

The storekeeper's accounts of 12 Jul 1709 show the Company's retail and victualling business broken into three accounting periods within a single quarter. The first ran from the proprietors' year-end of 25 Mar 1709 to 9 May 1709, the second from 9 May to 25 May, and the third from 25 May to 25 Jun. The first period ran roughly six weeks, the second a fortnight and the third a month, which points to the accounts being closed at natural breaks in the business, such as the departure of a ship or the end of a serving cycle, rather than at calendar intervals. The aggregate of £1,366 6s for the quarter, with the garrison's consumption included alongside ordinary sales, indicates that the Company's stores at this point functioned as both a public commissariat and a retail outlet, the two flows being aggregated in a single ledger.

Speculations

The decision to discharge slaves from the fortifications, rather than to fine non-compliant owners directly, looks like a deliberate redirection of the planting and fencing laws onto the most valuable form of labour the inhabitants commanded. A monetary penalty would have fallen on holdings of uneven worth and would have required the council to assess and collect it; cutting off Company employment of the inhabitants' slaves transferred enforcement to the inhabitants themselves, since the consequence operated automatically on the day of the cut-off. The mechanism allowed the council to put pressure on the planting law without committing its own administrative capacity to inspection or to litigation.

The aggregation of garrison supply with retail sales in the storekeeper's accounts of 12 Jul 1709 suggests that the council preferred a single consolidated figure for the quarter, rather than a separation of public and private custom. By presenting the garrison's consumption inside the same totals as ordinary sales, the storekeeper produced an account in which the Company's role as supplier to its own soldiers and its role as merchant to the inhabitants were not distinguished. The arrangement made it harder to read the underlying balance between the two streams, but it also produced a single defensible quarterly total against which the proprietors could measure performance.

The broken intervals of the three accounting periods, six weeks, a fortnight and a month, point to the storekeeper closing his books at the moments when an event in the business made closure convenient. The 9 May 1709 cut-off coincides with the period in which the Despatch Galley cargo from Bengal was being absorbed into the stores at the prices set on 22 Mar 1709, and the 25 May cut-off falls in the same week as the signed planting law. The choice to close the books at those moments, rather than at the end of a calendar month, suggests that the council kept its accounting periods responsive to operational events rather than to a fixed quarterly rhythm.

249

241

And although we have had the Constant Perusall of the Store Keepers

Books Yet to refresh our Memorie[s] by which we may be the better able[s]

to Judge what may be most usefull for us to Demand of our Masters,

and will Sell be[s]t on this [I]sland

Ordered

That for the future the Storekeeper do bring in his Monthly Accounts

on the 2 day of Every month An Acc[t] of what Goods is Sold to the Inha-

bitants, the Quality and [s]pecies of the Goods Mentioning the heads

as Haberda[s]hery Wo[o]len goods &c, and after that in the Same paper the

heads of Every Species Expended in the Garrison and [P]lantation So that at

one veiw we may See our Monthly Expences where and how it Arri[s]es and

that the Papers be Co[p]ied in our Councill Book

Since the discharge of the Blacks the Inhabitants hath Co[m]plained to

us of the hard Ships they Lay under in Fencing in their Lands and planting

of wood So that they must be obliged to keep their Blacks from working

at the Fortifications who[s]e [s]allarys from Said Fortifications was a great

help to them in Sup[p]lying them with Convenient Necesarys out of the

Stores Since [s]hips do not come here as formerly they did to Take of their [P]rovi-

sions

The work of [P]lanting and Fencing is So Materiall about, the want of which

has b[i]n the [R]uine of this [I]sland, The Trees being Cutt downe has Left the

Yams and other [F]r[u]it [N]aked and bare to the V[i]olence of the wind, which

Hinders their G[r]owing for want of [s]helter and the want of Fencing in of Lands

has been Sufficiently Mentioned formerly, and that there may be no Excuse

Left to [P]eople

Ordered

That a Declaration be Issued forth, and that Cap[tn] Mashborne with [a]dvice

of the Govern[r] do bey of the [P]lanters [P]rovi[s]ions to the amount of

Three Hundred [P]ound Re[s]erving always That the Storekeeper [s]top[s] One Third

Towards the [P]ayment of their old Debt[s], and that the [P]rices be given as

they do Customary one with another

By the Govern[r] and Councill

A Declaration

The Government Considering that the Law about [P]lanting wood and

Fencing in of Lands has b[i]n the means that Severall [P]eople has Taken their

Blacks off the work at the Fortifications to Comply with the Same

which

The council added that, although it had been in constant perusal of the storekeeper's books, a regular monthly review would refresh its memory and put it in a better position to judge what goods to demand of its masters and what would sell best on the island.

The council ordered that, for the future, the storekeeper was to bring in his monthly accounts on the 2nd day of every month. The accounts were to set out the goods sold to the inhabitants, by quality and species, under heads such as haberdashery, woollen goods and so on. On the same paper, and under the same heads, the goods consumed in the garrison and at the Plantation were to be returned, so that the council could see at a glance how its monthly expenses arose and where they fell. The papers were to be copied into the council book.

Since the discharge of the blacks, the inhabitants had complained to the council of the hardship they were under in fencing their lands and planting wood. They were obliged to keep their slaves from working at the fortifications, and the wages those slaves earned at the fortifications had been a great help to them in drawing necessaries out of the stores, especially as shipping no longer called at the island as it once did to take off their provisions.

The work of planting and fencing was so material that the want of it had been the ruin of the island. The cutting down of the trees had left the yams and other crops naked and exposed to the violence of the wind, which checked their growth for want of shelter. The need for fencing had been sufficiently rehearsed before. The council determined that no further excuse was to be left to the inhabitants.

The council ordered that a declaration be issued, and that Captain Mashborne, with the advice of the Governor, buy of the planters' provisions to the value of £300 0s 0d. The storekeeper was always to retain one third of the price toward payment of the planters' old debts, and the rates were to be those customarily passed between the planters themselves.

By the Governor and council, a declaration.

The Government, considering that the law about planting wood and fencing of lands had been the occasion of several inhabitants taking their slaves off the work at the fortifications to comply with it -

The text breaks off at the point at which the declaration was to continue.

Interpretations

The new monthly accounting rule reshaped the storekeeper's reporting cycle. By requiring the storekeeper to bring in his accounts on the 2nd day of every month, classified by species of goods under recognised commercial heads, and to combine sales to inhabitants with consumption at the garrison and the Plantation on a single sheet, the council produced a standing instrument for stock and demand analysis. The rule turned a working ledger into a management report, in a form suited to deciding what should be sent for from London and what should be carried on the shelf. The order shows the council moving from periodic perusal to a calendar-based monthly review, with the council book itself serving as the archive of those returns.

The reasoning behind the £300 0s 0d purchase of planters' provisions reveals how the fencing and planting laws had disturbed the island's wage economy. The slaves' fortification wages, the council recorded, had previously underwritten the inhabitants' purchases from the stores, and the discharge of those slaves on 9 Jul 1709 had cut off that flow. With outward shipping calling less often than before, the planters could no longer sell their crops to passing ships either, and so were squeezed at both ends. The council's purchase, with the rates to follow the customary prices among the planters themselves, acted as a substitute outlet, and the requirement that the storekeeper retain one third of each payment toward old debts tied the relief directly into the existing credit account between the Company and each planter.

The council's diagnosis of the island's decline, that the cutting down of the trees had left the yams and other crops exposed to the wind and so suppressed their growth, links the planting law to a recognised ecological problem rather than to a general agricultural duty. The argument identifies shelter, rather than timber supply or fuel, as the operative function of the wood-planting rule. That framing helps to explain why the council was prepared to absorb the short-term cost of buying up planters' provisions while still pressing the law: the rule was being defended as the means by which the planters' own future yam harvests, and so their future income, would be protected.

Speculations

The choice of £300 0s 0d as the ceiling for Captain Mashborne's purchase looks like a calibrated figure designed to cover the immediate cash gap left by the slaves' withdrawal from the fortifications without committing the Company to an open-ended subsidy. By fixing the sum in advance, the council set a budget that could be defended to the proprietors in London as a one-time accommodation, while still relieving the planters' most pressing need for store credit. The retention of one third toward old debts shows that the council intended the relief to discharge previous balances as well as to supply new necessaries, so that the operation served both as a price-support mechanism for the current crop and as a debt-collection device for older accounts.

The selection of Captain Mashborne to make the purchases, with the advice of the Governor, fits a recurring pattern in the 1709 records. Mashborne had earlier been named to oversee the receipt of Sprogers's 1,000 yams in November 1708 and Griffith's 20,000 yams in March 1709, and he was already established as the council's working agent for procurement from the planters. The instruction to buy at the customary prices among the planters themselves, rather than at a council-set rate, points to a deliberate decision not to use this purchase to reset market prices. The intention reads as one of stabilising the cash flow of the planters without unsettling the price structure for future yam transactions.

The framing of the declaration, opening with a recital that the planting and fencing law had been the reason several inhabitants withdrew their slaves from the fortifications, suggests that the council was preparing to acknowledge the wage loss in the public record before announcing the remedy. By placing the cause and the consequence on the face of the declaration, the council set up the £300 0s 0d purchase as a publicly explained response to a publicly recognised hardship, rather than as a concealed concession. The arrangement preserves the planting law in full force while presenting the council as openly mitigating its immediate effects.

250

242

which puts 'em under great Nec[e]sitys, for Since Shiping do's not Come here as

U[s]ually it was the only way they had for their Blacks working at the[e]

Fortifications to Sup[p]ly their wants for Nec[e]sarys out of the Stores

Therefore to Encourage So Materiall a work and that [P]eople may not be

Drove to Nec[e]sitys on that Account, and for their Encouragement It

is Resolved in Councill That they will buy of the [P]lanters any

Manner of [P]rovisions of what Kind or Sort So ever in reason

And that they will not beat downe [P]rices, nor [s]erew [P]oor [P]eople

in their Nec[e]sitys

Whomsoever has any Such Co[m]modity[s] to sell, Let them make

their Application to Cap[t] Edward Mashborne Chief of the Lo[rd]s

[P]roprietors [P]lantations who has Directions for what [P]urpose

Dated at the United Castle in James Valley This

12 day of July 1709

Sign[e]d [p]er order of Govern[r] and Councill

[p]me Jn[o]: Alexander

J[no] Roberts

Tho Goodwin

Edw[d]: Mashborne

W[m] Marsden

Daniel Griffith

The declaration continued by recording that the inhabitants had been put under great necessities, since shipping no longer called at the island as it used to, and the slaves' work at the fortifications had been the only means by which the planters could supply themselves with necessaries out of the stores.

To encourage so material a work, and to keep the inhabitants from being driven into want on that account, the council resolved that it would buy provisions of every kind from the planters in reasonable quantities. The council would not beat down prices, nor screw poor men in their necessities.

Anyone with provisions to sell was to apply to Captain Edward Mashborne, Chief of the Lords Proprietors' Plantations, who had directions for the purpose.

Dated at the United Castle in James Valley, 12 Jul 1709.

Signed by order of the Governor and council, John Alexander.

John Roberts Thomas Goodwin Edward Mashborne William Marsden Daniel Griffith

Interpretations

The published declaration translated the council's earlier private resolution into a public undertaking on prices. The earlier minute had ordered Captain Mashborne to buy provisions to the value of £300 0s 0d at the customary rates between planters, with one third of the price retained toward old debts. The public declaration stripped out the ceiling figure and the debt-retention rule and instead committed the council to two negative obligations: not to beat down prices and not to screw poor men in their necessities. The contrast between the internal instrument and the public one shows how the council separated its operational arithmetic from its statement of policy, keeping the budget and the debt-recovery mechanism in the consultation book while offering the inhabitants a plain assurance of fair dealing.

The naming of Captain Edward Mashborne as the point of application, with his title given as Chief of the Lords Proprietors' Plantations, set the procurement on a defined administrative footing. The title aligns Mashborne's role as the council's buyer of the planters' produce with his earlier responsibilities for the Company's own plantations, and concentrates both functions in a single officer. The arrangement gave the planters one address for their applications and the council a single accountable agent for the operation, in place of any open market or general invitation.

The recital that shipping no longer called as it used to placed the relief measure in the context of a structural change in the island's trade rather than a temporary disturbance. The planters' provisions had previously found a buyer in the passing ships, and the council's intervention was framed as filling the gap left by their absence. The declaration therefore registered, on the public record, an admission that the island's traditional outlet for its surplus had contracted, and that the Company's stores were now to act as the buyer of last resort.

Speculations

The omission of the £300 0s 0d ceiling and the one-third debt-retention rule from the published declaration looks like a deliberate calibration of what the planters were to be told. By presenting the offer in unbounded language, the council preserved the appearance of a generous and open-handed scheme, while the storekeeper's internal accounts continued to apply the budget and the debt set-off case by case. The structure of the announcement allowed the council to gain the political credit of an unconditional offer while retaining full administrative control over its execution.

The phrase that the council would not screw poor men in their necessities reads as a direct response to a particular suspicion that the planters were expected to hold. The wording suggests that the council anticipated that the inhabitants, faced with no other buyer and dependent on store credit for necessaries, would fear being squeezed on price at the very moment when their need was greatest. By putting the disclaimer on the face of the declaration, the council moved to disarm that suspicion in advance and to make any later complaint of a low price actionable as a breach of a published undertaking.

The concentration of the buying operation in Captain Mashborne, rather than the storekeeper, points to a deliberate separation of the new purchase scheme from the regular retail business of the stores. The storekeeper continued to handle the sale of Company goods to the inhabitants and the supply of the garrison; Mashborne, working under direct instructions and with the advice of the Governor, took the planters' provisions in as a separate stream. The split allowed the council to run the relief operation as a discrete administrative line, on which performance and price could be tracked without being absorbed into the ordinary store accounts.

251

243

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday the 28[th] day of

June 1709 At the United Castle in James Valley

John Roberts Esq[r] Govern[r]

Thom[s] Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Govern[r]

Pres[en]t Ed[w] Mashborne 3 in Coun[d]

Will[m] Marsden 4 in Coun[d] [P]ick

Dan[l]: Griffith 5 in Coun[d]

This Co[n]sulta-

tion ins[er]ted Forasmuch as we have [P]ublished a Law for [P]lanting and Fencing

by mistake in of wood and also fenceing in of their Lands which it is much for

the Good of the [I]sland in Generall, As the Hono[ble]: Lo[rd]s [P]roprietors in

[P]erticular

Resolved

That a declaration be Issued out next Generall Mu[s]ter day being the [...] of

July next Ensueing Declaring that the Governo[r] will Entertaine no

Blacks belonging to those Inhabitants of this [I]sland at the Fortifications

or otherwise Unless they can give Sufficient Te[s]timony That they have

the Quantity of wood Enjoyned by the Said Law and that they have their

Lands fenced in or that they have Blacks Enough to Comply with

those Laws and to Spare

Cap[tn]: Mashborne reports That he has planted with G[u]mwood To the

Number of Five Thousand Twenty nine Trees in [P]lantation Valley

in a [P]eice of Ground appointed for that [P]urpose at a Consultation of

the 19 May Last

And also five Hundred Lemon Trees as ordered in the Consultation

aforesaid Ordered

That the Said Blacks be detained in the [P]lantation in the Countrey

To [P]lant Yams To repaire Fences and to build them Higher

The Governo[r] has Bartred with Cap[t] Sandys and Gave half a [s]ugar

of Batavia Arrack for a [B]utt of Bardoma Wine

Ordered

That the Said Bardonia Wine be u[s]ed at Table, and a [P]roportionable [P]art

of Batavia Arrack [s]aved

The[?]

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 28 Jun 1709 at the United Castle in James Valley.

Note: This section has been placed in the wrong order, this consultation on 28 Jun 1709 being preceded by a consultation dated 5 July 1709 on film 251.

A note in the manuscript records that this consultation was inserted out of order by mistake.

Present: John Roberts, Esquire, Governor Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor Edward Mashborne, third in council William Marsden, fourth in council Daniel Griffith, fifth in council

The council had published a law for the planting of wood and the fencing of lands, which was greatly for the good of the island generally and of the Honourable Lords Proprietors in particular.

The council resolved that a declaration be issued on the next general muster day, being a date in July 1709 left blank in the manuscript. The declaration was to give notice that the Governor would entertain no slaves belonging to the inhabitants at the fortifications or in any other Company employment, unless their owners could give sufficient testimony that they had the quantity of wood required by the law, that their lands were fenced in, and that they had slaves enough to comply with those laws and to spare.

Captain Mashborne reported that he had planted 5,029 gum wood trees in Plantation Valley, in a piece of ground appointed for that purpose at the consultation of 19 May 1709. He had also planted 500 lemon trees, as the same consultation had directed.

The council ordered that the slaves used in this work be kept on at the Plantation in the country, to plant yams, to repair fences and to build them higher.

The Governor had bartered with Captain Sandys, giving half a sugar of Batavia arrack for a butt of Bardoma wine. The "sugar" denomination of arrack is unclear in the manuscript and cannot be confidently rendered into a standard measure of capacity; only the substance of the exchange is recoverable.

The council ordered that the Bardoma wine be used at table, with a proportionable part of the Batavia arrack saved.

The text breaks off at this point.

Interpretations

The 28 Jun 1709 resolution to discharge slaves from Company employment shows the planting and fencing rule moving toward enforcement before the formal declaration of 5 Jul 1709. The council had already fixed the principle and the form of words at this earlier meeting; the date for execution was left as a blank to be filled at the next general muster, which served as the standing occasion for public notices. The substantive condition, that owners had to show wood compliance, fencing compliance and surplus slave labour, is identical between the two records, and the 5 July declaration completed the work begun at this consultation. The note in the manuscript that the entry was inserted out of order by mistake therefore preserves the working draft of a measure whose published form has already appeared.

Captain Mashborne's planting return of 5,029 gum wood trees and 500 lemon trees in Plantation Valley shows the council's planting law being executed first on Company ground. The consultation of 19 May 1709 had directed both species on Plantation House grounds, and Mashborne reported back at this meeting with the count complete. The figures matter because they set a measurable benchmark against which the inhabitants' compliance under the one-in-ten rule could be judged: the council itself had now done on its own ground what it was about to require of the planters on theirs. The order to keep the same slaves on at the Plantation, to plant yams and to raise the fences higher, indicates that the council intended a continuous labour deployment on its own holdings rather than a single planting episode.

The Governor's barter with Captain Sandys, exchanging Batavia arrack for a butt of Bardoma wine, illustrates how the council managed its table supplies through direct dealing with passing ships' captains. The transaction substituted one consumable held in surplus for one held in deficit, and the order to use the wine at table and save a corresponding share of the arrack treated the exchange as a planned reallocation of the table account. The recording of the barter in the consultation book shows that even small in-kind transactions between the Governor and a visiting captain were brought onto the formal record, consistent with the council's general practice of routing private dealings of office through the public minute.

Speculations

The decision to time the discharge declaration to the next general muster day suggests that the council wanted the order to reach the inhabitants in the form of a public notice given to the assembled population, rather than as a paper served on individuals. The muster brought the men of the island together under arms and provided a single occasion on which a declaration could be read, the implications discussed and the consequences understood at once. By tying the operative date of the order to a recurring military event, the council secured both publicity and a fixed point at which compliance could be tested in person.

The pairing of the gum wood and lemon plantings on Plantation Valley ground with the simultaneous tightening of the inhabitants' planting duty points to a calculated sequencing. By completing the Company's own planting first, the council removed any argument that the proprietors were exempting themselves from a rule imposed on the inhabitants. The published total of 5,029 gum wood trees and 500 lemon trees gave the council a concrete figure to cite if challenged, and converted the planting law from a paper requirement into a visible undertaking on the ground at Plantation House. The arrangement reads as a deliberate move to establish the council's own compliance before pressing the inhabitants on theirs.

The reservation of a proportionable part of the Batavia arrack, set against the butt of Bardoma wine received from Captain Sandys, suggests that the council ran its table account on a substitution principle rather than as an open store. The arrack saved by the use of the wine was treated as a recoverable asset of the table, available either for later consumption or for further barter on similar terms. The minute therefore reveals that the Governor's table was kept on a managed inventory, with substitutions between drinks tracked deliberately to preserve the underlying stock of the more valuable item.

252

244

The Goa Arrack that we received by the Aurengzeb from Bombay ought

to have been Sixteen Goa Hog[s]he[a]ds or Eight Hundred Gallons But by

Leakage or Some other mismanagement in the Ship We have only received

Five Hundred Sixty Two Gallons, and That most [B]ad Stuff

The cost of Sixteen Goa Hogs[he]ad Arrack 440 Xerephens £- s- d

33- - -

The half [F]reight 16[s] [p] Ton being 3 [...] 17[s] 53-06-8

Charge L[a]ding ab[oa]rd in [I]ron Hoops 2- - -

£88-6-8

Ordered

That the five Hundred Sixty Two Gallons of Goa Arrack rec[eive]d be Sold out

at four Shillings and Six Pence the Gallon, which is one Hundred Twenty

Six [P]ounds nine Shillings And that the [P]eople be obliged to take

always half Batavia and half Goa

J[no] Roberts

Tho Goodwin

Edw[d] Mashborne

W[m] Marsden

Dan[l] Griffith

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday the 19[th]

day of July 1709 At the United Castle in James Valley

Jn[o]: Roberts Esq[r] Gov[r]

Thom[s]: Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Gov[r]

Pres[en]t Ed[w]: Mashborne 3 in Coun[d]

Will[m]: Marsden 4 in Coun[d]

Dan[l]: Griffith 5 in Coun[d]

Forasmuch as the [R]ed wood and Ebony wood (whose [b]arks are fitt for

Tanning Leather) are most of 'em destroyed by the Tanners that for

Laziness never took the [P]aines to barke the whole Trees but only

the body[s] Leaving the best of the Bark on the branches, by which

means has destroyed all those Trees at Least three for one[?] And there-

fore to [P]revent the Like for y[e] future and to In[s]ure and Reserve

So usefull and necesary a thing for the [I]sland use Ordered

The Goa arrack received from Bombay by the Aurengzeb ought to have amounted to 16 Goa hogsheads, or 800 gallons. Through leakage, or some other mismanagement on the ship, only 562 gallons came ashore, and most of that was bad stuff.

The cost of the consignment was set out as follows.

16 Goa hogsheads of arrack at 440 xerephens: £33 0s 0d Half freight at 16s per ton, being 3 tons 17 [...]: £53 6s 8d Charge of lading aboard in iron hoops: £2 0s 0d

Total: £88 6s 8d

The unit qualifying the 3 tons 17 in the freight calculation is unclear in the manuscript and cannot be confidently recovered. What can be read is that the freight charge resolved to £53 6s 8d on a tonnage figure of 3 tons 17 of some smaller subdivision.

The council ordered that the 562 gallons of Goa arrack received be sold off at 4s 6d per gallon, producing £126 9s 0d. The inhabitants were to be obliged always to take half Batavia arrack and half Goa.

John Roberts Thomas Goodwin Edward Mashborne William Marsden Daniel Griffith

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 19 Jul 1709 at the United Castle in James Valley.

Present: John Roberts, Esquire, Governor Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor Edward Mashborne, third in council William Marsden, fourth in council Daniel Griffith, fifth in council

The red wood and ebony wood of the island, whose barks were fit for tanning leather, had mostly been destroyed by the tanners. Through laziness the tanners had never taken the trouble to bark the whole trees but had only stripped the trunks, leaving the best of the bark on the branches. The result had been the destruction of perhaps three trees for every one that needed to have been used. To prevent the same from happening again, and to secure and reserve so useful and necessary a thing for the island's use, the council ordered -

The text breaks off at the point at which the order was to follow.

Interpretations

The arrack accounts of 28 Jun 1709 show the council reckoning its imported stock at delivered cost and then setting a local sale price that recovered the outlay with a margin. The 16 hogsheads were costed at £88 6s 8d landed, including the price in xerephens, the half-freight from Bombay and the charge for iron hoops on lading. Against that, the sale of the 562 gallons actually received at 4s 6d per gallon produced £126 9s 0d. The arithmetic indicates that the council priced its short-shipped consignment to clear the original cost of the full consignment, so that the shortfall and damage in transit were carried by the inhabitants through a higher per-gallon price rather than by the Company through a write-down.

The use of the xerephen as the contract currency, with the price stated as 440 xerephens resolving to £33 0s 0d in sterling, places the original purchase in the Portuguese-Goan trade system. The xerephen was the unit of account in use at Goa, and its appearance here shows that the Aurengzeb's arrack had been acquired through the same channels by which the Company drew on the western Indian market. The conversion to sterling at the point of recording in the consultation book brings the Goa transaction into the island's sterling accounts without losing the trace of the original purchase currency.

The order that the inhabitants take always half Batavia arrack and half Goa shows the council using its monopoly position over the spirits trade to clear stock in a balanced way. The Batavia arrack had been sold at 6s per gallon under the prices set on 22 Mar 1709, while the Goa arrack was now to go at 4s 6d. By tying every purchase to a half-and-half ratio, the council prevented the inhabitants from buying only the cheaper or the better-tasting of the two and ensured that the bad Goa stuff would move out of the stores alongside the better Batavia. The forced pairing operated as a tying arrangement, with the Company's preferred product carrying the less attractive one to market.

The complaint about the tanners' practice, opening the 19 Jul 1709 consultation, identifies bark stripping as a destructive harvesting method rather than as an unauthorised activity. The tanners had been entitled to use the red wood and ebony wood, but had concentrated on the trunks and left the branches unstripped, killing the trees while leaving usable bark behind. The council framed the problem as one of management of a renewable resource being treated as a one-off extraction, and the language of perhaps three trees lost for each one properly used places a quantified measure of waste on the practice. The intended order, cut off in the manuscript, would have addressed the harvesting method itself rather than the right to tan.

Speculations

The half-and-half rule looks like a calibrated remedy for a quality problem the council did not wish to acknowledge in the accounts. The Goa arrack was recorded as bad stuff, and at 4s 6d per gallon it was already priced below the 6s charged for Batavia. Yet by requiring every customer to take the two in equal measure, the council foreclosed the obvious market response, which would have been for inhabitants to refuse the inferior product altogether. The arrangement reads as a way of distributing the loss from a poor consignment across the entire customer base, with the Batavia stock serving as the carrier that moved the Goa stock through the stores.

The decision to record the leakage and the bad quality of the Goa arrack on the face of the consultation book, alongside the costing and the sale price, suggests that the council was building a defensible record for the proprietors. The loss of 238 gallons against an expected 800, attributed to leakage or some other mismanagement in the ship, was a matter on which the Company might in due course wish to act against the Aurengzeb's officers or against the shipper at Bombay. By naming the cause in non-committal terms and quantifying the shortfall in gallons rather than in money, the council preserved the position without committing itself to a particular allegation.

The framing of the tanning problem as one of laziness, rather than as one of right, suggests that the council was preparing an order that would regulate the manner of bark harvesting rather than its permissibility. A rule against tanning altogether would have removed a recognised local industry; a rule on how trees were to be stripped would have left the tanners in business while protecting the standing stock. The diagnosis at the head of the consultation, with its quantitative claim of three trees lost for every one needed, points toward a prescription of full-tree barking, or a requirement to take the branch bark before the trunk bark, as the likely operative remedy in the order that the manuscript breaks off before completing.

253

245

Ordered

That no more Hides be Sold to the [P]eople for that we are about to Engage one John Orchard a Tanner who has offered him[self] To Tan and Dress those Hides at three Shillings Apeice And all other Skins at the [P]rices following viz[t] a Calf Skin at one Shill[i]ng & 6[d] a Sheep Skin at - 6[d] - And Goat Skins at S[i]x [P]ence Each, that have Sup[p]ly[d] him with one of the Hono[ble] Companys Blacks to help and A[s]ist him (it being too much worke for him[s]elf) and the Said orchard hath oblidged him[s]elf to Tear[n]e and Teach the Black his Trade of a Tanner and [C]urrier And that Articles of agreement be Drawne Accordingly which are to be in Substance viz[t]

That the Said John Orchard be obliged to Tann for the Hono[ble] Company and no other [P]erson whatsoever

That the Said orchard Tan and Dress Hides of Cattle at three Shillings and Six [P]ence Each one with another Calves Skins Tand and Drest at one Shilling and S[i]xpence Each [s]heep [...] [...] [G]oat Skyns at Six pence apeice

That he be obliged to Tan for y[e] Term of three years, and if there's Bark to be had if both [P]artys agree Then this obligation and agre[em]ent be Renewed from time to time

That he be obliged to furnish him[s]elf with all Toole[s] and [N]ec[e]sarys Except other fatts, when those [...] [...] he[?] has are worne out we[?] Shall Sup[p]ly him also w[i]th Soyle and Lithe[?], and barke which he himself and the Black are to gett of the Common

That he have one of the Comp[ys] Blacks for the Time aforesaid Teach[i]ng and In[s]tructing him in his Trade of a Tanner and Currier

That he be obligd to finde the Said Black with Diet for the Terme afore[s]aid

That he the Said Orchard be obliged and bound in a [P]ennalty of Thirty [P]ounds payable to y[e] Hono[ble] United Comp[y] to [P]erfo[r]me all the[s]e Articles truly & Faithfully According to the [...] [in]tent & meaning hereof

The advantage proposed to our Masters in this Matter are Thus

First the [P]reservation of the Trees 2[d]ly 2. As we us[e]d to Do To Sell those Hides to the Tanners at three Shillings apeice and they when [s]aid Sold them againe from Twelve to fourteen Shillings a [P]eice So that one with another we may [P]robably Clear Seven[?] Shillings a Hide And if Shiping comes we may be able to Tan Two Hundred in a year (besides all other Skins) which will Clear Twenty pound[s?]

The council ordered that no more hides be sold to the inhabitants. The council was about to engage one John Orchard, a tanner who had offered himself to tan and dress the hides at 3s 0d each. He was also to dress the other skins at the following rates: a calf skin at 1s 6d, a sheep skin at 0s 6d, and a goat skin at 0s 6d each. The council was to supply Orchard with one of the Honourable Company's slaves to help and assist him, the work being too much for one man, and Orchard had bound himself to teach the slave his trade as a tanner and currier. Articles of agreement were to be drawn up accordingly, in substance as follows.

Orchard was to tan only for the Honourable Company, and for no other person whatsoever.

Orchard was to tan and dress hides of cattle at 3s 6d each, one with another. Calf skins were to be tanned and dressed at 1s 6d each. The manuscript is unclear at the sheep skin rate in this clause: only the heading "sheep" is recoverable, and the figure has been lost. Goat skins were to be at 0s 6d apiece.

Orchard was to be bound to tan for a term of three years. If bark could be had, and if both parties agreed, the obligation and agreement were to be renewed from time to time.

Orchard was to furnish himself with all tools and necessaries, except such fats and other consumables as the manuscript names in a passage that is unclear at this point. Once those items he already held were worn out, the council was to supply him with soil and lithe (a substance whose identification is unclear in the manuscript) and with bark. The bark itself was to be got off the common, by Orchard and the slave together.

Orchard was to have the use of one of the Company's slaves for the term, the slave being placed with him to be taught and instructed in the trade of a tanner and currier.

Orchard was to be obliged to find the slave in diet for the term.

Orchard was to be bound in a penalty of £30 0s 0d, payable to the Honourable United Company, to perform all these articles truly and faithfully according to their intent and meaning.

The council then set out the advantages proposed for its masters in this arrangement. The first was the preservation of the trees. The second was financial. The council had been used to sell hides to the tanners at 3s 0d each, after which the tanners had sold them on at 12s to 14s each. One with another, the council estimated, it might probably clear 7s on each hide. If shipping came, the council might be able to tan 200 hides in a year, besides all other skins, which would clear £20 0s 0d. The pence figure on this last total is unclear in the manuscript, though the pound figure of £20 is legible.

Interpretations

The agreement with John Orchard converts the council's relationship with the tanning trade from one of supply at a fixed price to one of direct employment under articles. Where the council had previously sold raw hides to independent tanners at 3s 0d a piece and let them realise the value of the dressed product, the new arrangement made Orchard a contracted dresser working only for the Company, paid by the piece at 3s 0d per hide (rising to 3s 6d in the formal article), with the council retaining ownership and resale of the finished leather. The accompanying ban on selling further hides to the inhabitants closed off the alternative outlet. The structure shows the council moving to internalise the margin that had previously gone to the independent tanners, while keeping the labour-intensive work of dressing outside its own payroll.

The exclusivity clause, the three-year term and the £30 0s 0d penalty bond together produced a tightly bound tying contract. Orchard could tan for no one else, the engagement ran on a fixed horizon, and a substantial cash penalty stood behind every clause. The £30 0s 0d figure is large in relation to the per-piece rates; at 3s 6d per hide it represents the dressing fee on rather more than 170 hides, or close to a full year's projected throughput on the 200-hide estimate. The size of the bond shows the council pricing breach at the level of the full annual benefit of the contract, which made walking away financially unrealistic for Orchard.

The pairing of Orchard with a Company slave, on terms that obliged him to teach the slave his trade and to find him in diet, served the council's longer-term object as well as its short-term need. Orchard was clearly more work than a single man could handle, but the council's choice of remedy went beyond the supply of labour: by binding Orchard to instruct the slave in the full trade of tanner and currier, the council provided for the eventual loss of dependence on Orchard himself. At the end of the three-year term the Company would hold a trained slave with the same skill set, available for renewal of the contract on more favourable terms or for direct deployment. The arrangement reads as a calibrated programme of skills transfer under indenture.

The council's stated advantages, the preservation of the trees and an estimated clearance of about 7s per hide, link the tanning reform directly to the bark question opened at the 19 Jul 1709 consultation. By making the council the sole buyer and dresser of hides, the council also became the sole consumer of bark, with Orchard and the slave getting their bark off the common under the council's direction. The contract therefore put the council in a position to regulate harvesting in practice, since the only legal demand for bark on the island would now flow through its own contractor. The two reforms, on bark and on hides, fit together as a single intervention on a vertically integrated trade in leather.

Speculations

The reservation of bark gathering to Orchard and the slave, on the common, suggests that the council intended to use the new contract as the operational mechanism for the wood preservation rule whose order text was cut off in the 19 Jul 1709 entry. If the only legitimate bark harvesting on the island was that performed by the contracted tanner and his apprenticed slave, the council could enforce a single approved method, presumably the full-tree barking implied by the earlier complaint, through its instructions to Orchard rather than through a generally enforceable rule against the inhabitants. The structure of the contract reads as an indirect regulatory tool, with the council's commercial relationship doing the work that an enforceable law against careless tanners would have struggled to do.

The financial projection at the end of the entry, an estimated clearance of about 7s on each hide and £20 0s 0d a year on 200 hides if shipping came, looks like a deliberate framing aimed at the proprietors in London. By naming the precise margin lost under the old arrangement, namely the gap between the 3s 0d sale price of raw hides and the 12s to 14s realised by the tanners on dressed leather, and presenting the contract as the means by which that gap could now accrue to the Company, the council prepared a justification that could be sent home with the next dispatch. The dependency on shipping in the projection, "if shipping comes", reflects the same outward shipping shortage that had driven the planters' provisions purchase under the declaration of 12 Jul 1709, and ties the success of the tanning scheme to a recovery in the island's traffic.

The decision to set Orchard's per-hide rate at 3s 0d in the prose recital but at 3s 6d in the formal article suggests that the council adjusted the rate during the drafting of the entry itself. A difference of sixpence on each hide, projected forward across the estimated 200-hide annual throughput, would reduce the council's clearance by £5 0s 0d a year, or about a quarter of the projected gain. The retention of both figures in the consultation book may reflect a working negotiation in which Orchard secured a higher dressing fee in the bound contract than the council's opening summary had assumed, and the entry was simply not rewritten to reconcile the two. The discrepancy is worth flagging because it affects the financial case for the scheme.

254

246

a year if Sold out, besides the Advantage of the Small Skins And if we Employ Shoe Makers to worke 'em up we are apt to beleive that this Article will yield our Masters One hundred [P]ound a year at Least The Loss of the worke of the Black and all other Charges Deducted

Our Nec[e]sity is So great for want of Coales That we thought it would have Putt a full Stop to our worke But do finde that Ebbony wood will Burne Lime And being Informed That there is Huge quantity[s] of that wood which Lies dead on the Hills near Sandy Bay The Govern[r] and Cap[t] Mashborne went there to v[i]ew it And found the Report True for that there is abundan[c]e indeed, And just by that [P]l[a]ce where the wood Lies is mountaines of Extraordinary Lime Stone and it will be Much Cheaper to our Honou[red] Masters To bring Lime from thence ready burnt (being Light) Then to fetch that Sort of wood, which is very heavy, And being ill to the Castle in James Valley

Wherefore ordered

That a Lime Kill and Blacks Sho[u]ld be Sent up I[m]mediately in this [p]lace Already Appointed for that [P]urpose

Since we have found out this Experiment we Shan't want for worke but rather for workmen [W]ill p[lea]ses us to Engage one Thomas Burnham free planter That we by Experience Know to be a good workman in Stone Laying At the rate of four Shillings [p]day he finding himself Diet and oth[er] thing, [u]sually of fou[r] Shillings [p]day for [j]udenture wh[er]eo[r] a year Certaine Comm[en]cing from Monday next being the 25 this [in]st[an]t July

When we hear One Hundred Ton of Lime Beforehand we Shall then w[i]th the help of God, begin the Castle on Munde[n]s [P]oint In the m[e]an time we Shall Use all the Lime we have already by us in this Valley in building hou[s]es, for the Councill, the Doctor, the Gunner and other Store houses for the Am- munition that is already [P]rojected

Whereas in a Consultation Held y[e] Eighth day of February Last [p]ast Richard Alexander free planter requested to hier Two or three acres of our Hono[ble] Masters waste Land But L[ieu]t Perkins Alleging that of the said A[ssis]tan[c]e had [g]rant of that Land, it would be very [P]rejudiciall to him, and Whereupon It was ordered

That the Said Land Lye Common and not granted to Either of them Unle[s] they Should agree between themselves

We hope that our Masters wont take that for a re[a]son when we can make a Benefitt of their Lands To Lett it Lye waste whereby we may g[i]tt blam[ed] to our Selves for that we de[s]ign[e]d at the v[i]ewing it over and over againe that if it were [P]o[s]ible to make a [P]lantation [thereon?] But [s]ince the Law about Fencing of Lands the said Alexander and [P]erkins have desired for the Conve- n[i]ency of Fenceing in their Land That and Some other that Lies Just by it and Contiguou[s] to their [P]lantations We have Allotted Each of them a Small

Understood. Here is the corrected full text of this submission.

The council's annual projection continued: the £20 0s 0d clearance on hides was to be set against the small skins as well. If shoemakers were employed to work the leather up, the council believed that the article might yield its masters at least £100 0s 0d a year, after deducting the loss of the slave's other work and all other charges.

The lack of coals had been so great that the council thought it might bring the works to a full stop. The council had since found, however, that ebony wood would burn lime. It had been informed that huge quantities of dead ebony wood lay on the hills near Sandy Bay. The Governor and Captain Mashborne had gone to view it and found the report true: the timber was abundant. Just beside the place where the wood lay there were mountains of extraordinary limestone. The council judged it would be much cheaper for the Honourable Masters to bring the lime down already burnt from the kiln site, since burnt lime is light, than to fetch the ebony wood itself, which was very heavy and ill suited to be carried to the castle in James Valley.

The council ordered that a lime kiln and slaves to work it be sent up immediately to the place already appointed for that purpose.

Now that the council had found this expedient, the work would not be short of tasks but of workmen. The council therefore proposed to engage Thomas Burnham, a free planter known by experience to be a good workman in stone-laying, at a rate of 4s 0d per day. The manuscript is unclear at the next passage: a longer phrase about his diet, other allowances and the form of indenture cannot be confidently recovered. The clear elements are that Burnham was to find himself in diet, that the rate was 4s 0d per day, and that the engagement was for a fixed year beginning on Monday 25 Jul 1709.

When the council had 100 tons of lime in hand, it would then, with the help of God, begin work on the castle on Munden's Point. In the meantime it was to use the lime already by it in James Valley for building houses for the council, the doctor, the gunner and the store houses for the ammunition that had already been planned.

The council then returned to a matter from an earlier meeting. At the consultation of 8 Feb 1709, Richard Alexander, a free planter, had asked to hire two or three acres of the Honourable Masters' waste land. Lieutenant Perkins had objected that any grant of that land would be very prejudicial to him, on the ground that he had himself received a grant of it. The council had then ordered that the land lie common and be granted to neither party unless they could agree between themselves.

The council now took a different view. It was not prepared to defend an outcome in which the masters' land was left waste when a benefit could be made of it, since the council had on repeated viewing satisfied itself that a plantation could be made on the ground. With the new law about fencing in force, Alexander and Perkins had also come back, each asking for the convenience of fencing in the land along with other ground lying contiguous to their plantations. The council had now allotted each of them a small parcel.

Interpretations

The escalation from £20 0s 0d on hides to a projected £100 0s 0d a year, once shoemakers were brought into the chain, shows the council reasoning its way along a value ladder. Each stage of vertical integration, from sole buyer of raw hides, to dresser of those hides through Orchard, to maker of finished footwear through engaged shoemakers, multiplied the council's share of the final price. The projection is deliberately framed as a net figure, with the lost output of the slave and all other charges already deducted, which gave the proprietors in London a single comparable number against which to weigh the cost of the scheme. The £100 0s 0d figure rests on assumptions about shipping that the council itself flagged, since the demand for finished leather depended on the same outward traffic that the planters' provisions purchase of 12 Jul 1709 had been designed to substitute for.

The substitution of ebony wood for coal in the lime kilns reframes a fuel problem into a sourcing problem. By relocating the kiln to Sandy Bay, on the same hill where dead ebony lay and where the limestone was already at hand, the council turned the geography itself into a transport saving. The decisive observation in the entry is that burnt lime is light while ebony wood is heavy and difficult to carry to James Valley, so that the cheaper movement was the finished product, not the raw materials. The order to send up a lime kiln and slaves immediately matches the engineering logic with an operational response, and the use of dead wood rather than standing trees means the kiln draws on a resource that does not compete with the timber preservation campaign opened on 19 Jul 1709.

The contracting of Thomas Burnham at 4s 0d a day for a fixed year supplies the labour that the new kiln capacity will require. The wage is set against an annual horizon beginning on 25 Jul 1709 and is paired with the production target of 100 tons of lime as the precondition for opening the works on Munden's Point. The council's planning is therefore staged in three layers: build kiln capacity at Sandy Bay, accumulate a 100-ton lime stockpile, and then commit to the new castle. In the interval, the lime already on hand is to be spent on the council's, the doctor's and the gunner's houses and on the projected ammunition stores. The sequencing shows the council ordering its own building programme in James Valley around the more demanding fortification target on Munden's Point.

The reversal on the Alexander-Perkins land dispute shows how the planting and fencing laws of May and July 1709 had altered the council's calculus on waste land. The original order of 8 Feb 1709 had left the two-or-three-acre parcel uncommitted on the ground that the rival claimants could not be separated. The new fencing law made that holding pattern untenable: leaving the masters' land waste while the same masters had just required the inhabitants to fence and improve their own land would have invited the criticism that the proprietors were not subject to the duty they had imposed. By allotting each man a small parcel adjacent to his existing plantation, the council put the disputed ground into use under the new regime and aligned its own practice with the rule it was enforcing on the inhabitants.

Speculations

The progression from a projected £20 0s 0d on hides alone to £100 0s 0d once shoemakers are included reads as a deliberately graduated proposal to London. By presenting the first stage as a modest, conservative gain and the second stage as the higher prize available on further investment, the council offered the proprietors a step-by-step business case rather than a single ambitious figure. The structure suggests that the council expected approval of the tanning contract to come quickly, while the shoemaker stage might require fresh authority or fresh personnel from London, and was therefore prudent to present as the next move rather than as part of the immediate scheme.

The decision to locate the lime kiln on the same hill as the wood and the limestone, rather than to organise haulage of both to James Valley, looks like a measured response to the labour shortage the council had just identified. The discharge of slaves from the fortifications on 9 Jul 1709 and the slow recovery of compliance under the planting and fencing laws had reduced the labour available for moving heavy materials over distance. A kiln at the resource gave the council a way to extract value from the same labour force by reducing the weight to be moved off the hill, since burnt lime travels lighter than either ebony or limestone. The choice converts a labour constraint into a logistical solution rather than an addition to the workforce.

The reopening of the Alexander-Perkins file at this meeting suggests that the council was using the new fencing law to clear other long-standing waste-land disputes on its own books. The standing order of 8 Feb 1709 had been a compromise that suited neither party and produced no return for the masters; the rule of late May 1709, requiring fencing within two years, gave the council a reason to revisit it. The fact that both Alexander and Perkins came back, each seeking the convenience of joint fencing with their existing plantations, indicates that the inhabitants themselves had read the fencing law as the moment to settle quiet titles. The council's allotment of small parcels to each, rather than to one alone, completes the file in a way that satisfies both claimants and adds two new fenced parcels to the island's improved land at the same time.

255

247

a Small quantity which when ffenced in we Shall measure it for that we will

give no [P]eople a handle to come of of that A[r]ticle of Fencing Since they com-

[P]lain without that [P]eice of Land they cant well Fence Wast they Already have

becau[s]e of the Steepness of a hill

According to an order of Councill bearing date the 5 [In]st[an]t Joshua Johnson made his

appearance before us, but his mother he Said could not being Sick and [P]rodu[c]ed to us

the Title to the house and Ground Mentioned therein Coppy and Signd by the

then Governour and Coun[cill], But upon [P]erusing our old books found in a Letter

from the then Lo[rd]s [P]roprie[t]rs dated the 26 of November 1684 by the [s]hipp

Shrewsbury in the 12 Parragraph of Said Letter which Runs Thus

We approve of th[e] discharge you have given Cap[tn]: Johnson upon Ballaneing

of his Acc[t]: But we have b[i]n told there is a hou[s]e in Cap[t] Johnsons [P]o[s]ession

which was built at the Comp[ys] Charge We desire you to Enquire into it and

if you find[e] it So Reafume[?] it into the Companys [P]ofe[ss]ion which we hope

Cap[t] Johnson being So Honest a man will not be against

And why it was not Reafumd we know not for we have many

Letters wanting from the 18 of May 1689 To the 17 of Decemb[er] 1698

Ordered

That M[r] Alexander do Coppy over the Latter [P]art of the aforesaid Parragraph

And Send it to Madam Johnson to know the reason why we may not

Reafume y[e] house and Ground afore[s]aid, and whether She having Title to

it of a Later date than that Letter

The Title of this hou[s]e Leeds us to another consideration and that is, Titles

to this [I]sland in Generall relateing to all the Inhabitants Lands which

Lye So Confused inso[m]uch it will give us to finde the originalls and after

Examined or were here be[en?] Co[p]pyed or Lo[s]t

Wherefore ordered

That no Titles to any houses, Lands or any thing E[ls]e be Examined or

Settled by us 'till we have Sent home to the Lo[rd]s [P]roprie[t]rs to know what

they will [g]rant us [P]ower to Examine into the Titles and Settle 'em and

how we must Governe our Selves in this [P]oint for that we cant find any

Such [P]owers given by a Letter Sent by the Gov[er]n[r] dated July[?] 13 1685

in [P]art of the Parragraph w[i]th the Stone Hou[s]e which [...] [...] [Hime?] [...] is [...]

[...] [...] [P]rop[r]ietors [a?]

[O]nce Matter[?] we would be content to Leave to [P]rudence and

Descretion that is to my Inst[r]u[c]tions was not [s]ufficiently [P]rovided for by us

or the more A[n]cient orders of the Then old Company or Such as the Circum-

stances of affaire Render Indispens[i]bly Necessary, this we E[s]timate to you

to [P]revent Disputes or [c]laime worthy [s]urrounding [s]till the want of

[s]ufficien[t]

The two parcels were small, and the council decided that they would be measured only once each was fenced. The council was not prepared to give anyone a pretext for evading the fencing rule. The two men had complained that without the addition of this piece of land they could not well fence the waste they already held, because of the steepness of a hill.

In accordance with the order of the council of 5 Jul 1709, Joshua Johnson appeared before the council. His mother could not attend, being sick. Johnson produced the title to the house and ground in question, in the form of a copy signed by the Governor and council of the day.

On reviewing the old books, however, the council found a letter from the then Lords Proprietors dated 26 Nov 1684, brought by the ship Shrewsbury. The 12th paragraph of that letter ran as follows. The proprietors approved of the discharge given to Captain Johnson on the balancing of his accounts. They had been told, however, that there was a house in Captain Johnson's possession which had been built at the Company's charge. They desired the local Governor and council to inquire into it, and, if they found this to be so, to resume it into the Company's possession. They hoped that Captain Johnson, being so honest a man, would not be against the resumption.

Why this had not in fact been done, the present council could not tell. Many letters were missing from the books between 18 May 1689 and 17 Dec 1698.

The council ordered that Mr Alexander copy out the latter part of the proprietors' paragraph and send it to Madam Johnson, to ask her reason why the house and ground should not now be resumed, and whether she held a title to it of a date later than that letter.

The title to this house led the council to a wider consideration: the state of titles on the island generally and the lands of all the inhabitants. These titles lay so confused that it would be difficult to recover the originals, to determine which had been examined, and to identify which had been copied and which had been lost.

The council therefore ordered that no titles to any houses, lands or other property be examined or settled by the council until the council had written home to the Lords Proprietors to learn what power they would grant for the examination and settlement of titles, and how the council should govern itself in the matter. The council could find no such power in any document then before it.

In support of this position the council referred to a letter sent by a former Governor dated 13 Jul 1685, in part of a paragraph concerning the stone house. The manuscript is unclear at several points in this part of the entry: the name of the recipient or holder is illegible, and the connection between the stone house and the proprietors' instructions cannot be confidently recovered. What can be read is that the proprietors had indicated they would be content to leave certain matters to the prudence and discretion of those on the spot, namely such matters as their own instructions had not sufficiently provided for, or such as the more ancient orders of the then Old Company had not covered, or such as the circumstances of affairs rendered indispensably necessary. The proprietors had set this out to prevent disputes or claims arising from any defect in their instructions. The remainder of the passage cannot be confidently rendered.

Interpretations

The decision to measure the two new parcels only once they were fenced converts the measurement step into a compliance test. By withholding a final survey until enclosure was complete, the council removed any incentive for Alexander and Perkins to claim the benefit of the grant while leaving the fencing undone. The recital of the men's own complaint, that the steepness of the hill made the existing waste impossible to fence without the added strip, also frames the grant as a remedy for a recognised topographical problem rather than as a favour. The structure of the order shows the council using a deferred measurement as a working enforcement device on the new fencing law.

The handling of the Johnson title brings forward a working procedure for testing private titles against the proprietors' instructions. The 12th paragraph of the 1684 letter, retrieved from the books, contained a clear directive to resume any house in Captain Johnson's possession that had been built at the Company's charge. By copying that portion of the letter and sending it to Madam Johnson with a question, the council placed the burden of justification on the holder of the title: she was to explain why the resumption ordered in 1684 had not taken place, and whether her own title carried a date later than the letter. The procedure converts the proprietors' written direction into a present test of any title that purports to derive from the period it covered.

The council's wider self-imposed restraint, that no titles to houses or lands be examined or settled until specific authority was obtained from the proprietors, marks a sharp limit on the council's view of its own power. The retrieval of the Shrewsbury letter had exposed how readily a private title might be undermined by a forgotten direction in the proprietors' correspondence, and the gap in the books between 1689 and 1698 made it impossible to know how many other such directions might lie in lost letters. By suspending all title work pending fresh instructions from London, the council protected itself against acting on the basis of an incomplete archive, and shifted the question of the island's title regime back to the body whose missing letters had created the confusion.

The reference to the 13 Jul 1685 letter, even in its damaged form, identifies the legal basis on which earlier Governors had taken decisions that were not expressly authorised. The passage that can be read describes a standing licence from the proprietors to act on prudence and discretion in cases not covered by instructions, by the older orders of the Old Company, or otherwise requiring action by the circumstances of affairs. The present council's invocation of that authority in support of a self-denying ordinance on titles is striking: the proprietors had given discretion to act, and the council was now using that discretion to decline to act, on the ground that the most prudent course in confused matters of title was to refer them upward rather than to settle them locally.

Speculations

The choice to write to Madam Johnson with an extract of the 1684 letter, rather than to summon her again to council, suggests that the council intended to negotiate the title rather than to confront it. A summons to the next council day had already produced only her son on 5 Jul 1709, and a further public summons might have hardened her position. By placing the proprietors' own words in her hands, the council put the case for resumption as the proprietors' decision, not its own. The form of the inquiry, asking her reason why resumption should not now follow and whether her title bore a later date than the letter, gave her two narrow ways to defeat the claim and closed off the rest of the ground.

The gap in the books between 18 May 1689 and 17 Dec 1698 looks like a structural weakness rather than a casual loss. A nine-year stretch of missing correspondence covers a period in which the island's administration had passed through several hands and in which directions affecting standing titles could have arrived and been acted on without surviving documentary trace. The council's recognition that other directions of the Shrewsbury kind might lie in those lost letters explains the wider suspension of title work: any local settlement of a title might be overturned by the next letter recovered, and the council was not prepared to expose itself to that risk. The decision to send home for fresh authority reads as a prudent response to a known archival hazard rather than an abstract deference to the proprietors.

The use of the 1685 prudence-and-discretion licence to justify inaction, rather than action, marks a careful inversion of its likely original purpose. The proprietors had probably granted that discretion to enable local decisions in unforeseen situations; the council in 1709 was using it as cover for declining to make local decisions where the foundation might prove unsafe. The move suggests that the council had read the lesson of the Johnson title and the missing books, namely that acting on an incomplete record could produce a result that the proprietors would later have to undo, and had concluded that prudence and discretion in the present case lay in suspension rather than settlement.

256

248

And that we may the better Under[s]tand the[s]e matters [...] to put things in as Clean a Light as p[oss]ible w[i]th [C]er

[s]ufficient directions But it is upon a Sup[p]o[s]ition that you will well weigh and Co[n]sider what is most for our Service or the Gen[er]all Bennifitt and that you will all Act therein as Impartialy and zealously as if the Co[n]cern were your own and According to the be[s]t of your Under[s]tanding

We are of oppin[i]on that the Settling of these E[s]tates on this [I]sland, which is of So high Importance and Indispensibly Nec[e]sary That Tends as much to the good of th[i]s [I]sland as Laws and Fortifi[c]ations do[e]s to good Liveing and Protection And most for our Masters Service and their Generall Benefitt And 'tis no hindrance to to[?] m our busin[e]ss to Stay till we have full Directions from our Hono[ble]: Masters in this [P]erticular [P]oint, In the[e] mean time

Ordered

That M[r] Griffith and M[r] Alexander do forthwith begin to Examine into all the Books, Letters, orders and Directions Relateing to all Lands, Tennements and all other orders and Directions from the first Settlem[t] of this [I]sland to this time And to make a Collection or Ab[s]tract of the[e] Same with an Alphabet that we may readily Turn to any thing we are minded to know Unle[s] it be Law Suits, Quarrells and all other Mis- demeanors whatsoever, which we would have buried in oblevan[?] Except the Life and Behaviou[r] of George Hodi[s]on and that the Said Mister Griffith and John Alexander do Deliver y[e] Same in Bona Fide Upon thee Oath they have Taken to the Honou[r]d Company and make report to the Govern[r] and Counsell Monthly what [P]rogress they have made (that is) So fa[r]r what year they have got to. further

Ordered

That M[r] Free be allowed to write under them, and to A[ss]ist M[r] Alexander in all things when Occasion requires

Paul [G]eaton free planter Humbly desired Leave by way of [P]etition to go off y[e] [I]sland with his wife and Child in the next outward bound Ship that Touch[e]s here having no Land or habitation to Live on of his owne nor we any to lett him

Ordered

That his [P]etition be granted Accordingly Jn[o] Roberts

We do declare that the Razing Tho: Goodwin and Cro[ss]ing in this Co[n]sultation was done by our Order[s] for that upon Second thoughts we do finde Edw: Mashborne that we have [P]ower to Settle the Same W[m] Marsden

Jn[o] Roberts Daniel Griffith Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Mar[s]den Daniel Griffith

To make the matter clearer, the council recovered as much of the proprietors' reasoning as the manuscript would allow. The proprietors had said that their direction rested on the supposition that those on the spot would weigh and consider what was most for the Company's service or the general benefit, and would act in those matters as impartially and as zealously as if the concern were their own, and to the best of their understanding.

The council was of the opinion that the settlement of these estates on the island was of such importance, and so indispensably necessary, that it tended as much to the good of the island as laws and fortifications did to good living and protection. It was most for the masters' service and for their general benefit. It would be no hindrance to the council's business to wait until full directions had been received from the Honourable Masters on this particular point.

In the meantime the council ordered that Mr Griffith and Mr Alexander begin at once to examine all the books, letters, orders and directions relating to lands, tenements and other matters from the first settlement of the island down to the present time. They were to make a collection or abstract of the material with an alphabet, so that any point could be readily turned to. They were not to bring forward law suits, quarrels or any other misdemeanours, which the council wished to bury in oblivion, except for the life and behaviour of George Hoskison. Griffith and Alexander were to deliver the abstract in good faith on the oath they had taken to the Honourable Company, and to report monthly to the Governor and council on the progress made, that is, on the year to which they had reached.

The council further ordered that Mr Free be allowed to write under them, and to assist Mr Alexander in all things as occasion required.

Paul Geaton, a free planter, asked leave by petition to go off the island with his wife and child in the next outward-bound ship that touched there. He had no land or habitation of his own to live on, and the council had none to let him.

The council ordered that his petition be granted accordingly.

The members of the council added a declaration that the rasing and crossing out in this consultation had been done by their orders, because on second thoughts the council had found that it had power to settle the matter itself.

Signed

John Roberts Thomas Goodwin Edward Mashborne William Marsden Daniel Griffith

Interpretations

The council's reversal between the body of the consultation and its closing declaration is the most consequential feature of this entry. The minute had first ordered that no titles to houses, lands or other property be examined or settled by the council until the proprietors had been written to for specific authority. The declaration at the foot, with its acknowledgement that the original passage had been rased and crossed out by order, records that on second thoughts the council had concluded that it did hold the necessary power. The procedure shows the council using the act of writing up the consultation as a continued process of decision, with the closing declaration functioning as a formal amendment to the body of the minute and the visible cancellations preserving the trail of the change. The effect is that the council, having drafted a self-denying ordinance on titles, decided in the same sitting to retain the authority and to proceed.

The instructions to Griffith and Alexander provide the working tool by which the recovered authority will be exercised. The pair were directed to examine every book, letter, order and direction relating to land and tenements from the first settlement of the island, and to produce a collection or abstract with an alphabet for ready reference. The exclusion of suits, quarrels and misdemeanours from the abstract, except for the life and behaviour of George Hoskison, narrows the survey to the documentary record of land titles rather than the contentious record of past disputes. The monthly progress report by year tied the project to a calendar of accountability, and the engagement of Mr Free to write under the two compilers added clerical capacity to a long-running research task. The order shows the council planning a structured archival project that would, in time, give the island its first systematic index of land documents.

The Geaton petition records a quieter form of dispossession. A free planter without land of his own, and without any land that the council could let to him, asked simply to leave the island with his wife and child by the next outward-bound ship, and the council granted the petition. The brevity of the entry, set against the elaborate apparatus being constructed for the inhabitants who held land, marks the boundary of the island's settled order. Those without land had no place in the regime of fencing, planting and title abstraction that the council was now developing, and emigration was both the only relief available to them and a quiet release for the council from a claim it could not satisfy.

The exception preserved for the life and behaviour of George Hoskison stands out as the single named matter that the council was unwilling to bury. The instruction signals that an existing or developing case against Hoskison was to remain available in the new abstract even as other quarrels were excluded, which gives that file a continuing administrative life beyond the general amnesty. The preservation of one named exception, in a clause otherwise designed to draw a line under disputes, points to a specific concern that the council expected to need the abstracted record to address.

Speculations

The decision to reverse course on the title question within the same consultation, rather than to wait for a later meeting, suggests that the council recognised the practical impossibility of an interim regime in which titles could not be examined or settled. The Johnson case had been opened on the strength of the 1684 letter; the Alexander-Perkins parcels had just been allotted; and the lime works, the houses for the council, the doctor and the gunner, and the planned ammunition stores all required clear title to ground. A working suspension on title business would have frozen each of these projects mid-step. The retention of authority on second thoughts reads as a recognition that the suspension was incompatible with the operational programme the council had set itself for the rest of the year.

The decision to leave the rased and crossed text visible in the consultation book, with a signed declaration explaining the cancellation, looks like a deliberate choice in favour of transparency over a clean record. The council could have rewritten the page; instead it preserved both the abandoned position and the corrective declaration, and signed both versions. The practice gives the proprietors in London a full record of how the local body had reasoned its way through the question, which serves the council's wider strategy of making its decisions defensible against later scrutiny. The structure also leaves the council with a documentary record of its own deliberation, on which it can rely if the question of authority is reopened.

The single-name exception for George Hoskison points to a specific ongoing concern that the council wished to keep in play. Hoskison had earlier appeared in the records, in the case of his complaint against John Long over livestock worrying in July 1708, but the language of "life and behaviour" suggests a wider pattern of conduct rather than a single dispute. By naming him as the only matter exempt from the general burying in oblivion, the council preserved the option of acting on the accumulated record at a future date. The wording reads as a deliberate flag set in the new abstract, marking one inhabitant out from the general procedure for handling the past.

The Geaton petition shows the council using emigration as a soft outflow valve for the unlanded free population. A free planter without holding had no role under the new fencing and planting regime, no claim on the cattle commonage and no integration into the consultative architecture of the thirty-six and the twelve. Granting his petition removed an awkward case from the council's books and freed it from any obligation to find him land. The willingness to entertain such petitions suggests that the council was prepared to let the island's free population contract where it could not be accommodated, even as it pressed harder on those who did hold land.

257

249

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday the 26[th] day

of July 1709 At the United Castle in James Valley

Jn[o]: Roberts Esq[r] Governo[r]

Thom[s] Goodwin D[e]p[t]y [G]overn[r]

Pres[en]t Ed[w]: Mashborne 3[rd] in Coun[d]

W[m] Mar[s]den 4[th] in Coun[d]

Dan[l]: Griffith 5[th] in Coun[d]

The Governour has Information that M[rs] Carne has Severall Books and

Papers in her [P]o[s]e[s]ion Relateing to the Lo[rd]s [P]roprietors Affaire[s] that

was Lodged with her by her father M[r] Anthony Beales and her former

husband Govern[r] Keling, Immediately She was [s]ent for before us, And

ownes it to be true of having Sever[al] Books and [P]apers, but remembers

Some has b[i]n De[s]troy[e]d and laid for waste [P]aper

Ordered

That M[r] Marsden do go I[m]mediately to her hou[s]e and Examine into all

Said Books and [P]apers and bring all away that is any way Relateing to

our Masters busin[e]ss what is to be di[s]ordere[d?]

The Govern[r] reports this day that the Kanp[?] and Lime Kill that was ordered

to be built in Sandy Bay Valley will be Finni[s]hed this week, And by that

[p]lace he [s]ay there is a fine Curious [Rui]ne which he beleives will be [P]roper to

[P]lant Sugar Canes in, And we are all apt to beleive So to for the Canes we have

[P]lanted in this Valley grows very well tho' the [s]oile is not so good as that, And

of what Importance the [P]lanting of Sugar Canes and makeing of [s]ugar and

Rum on this [I]sland we cant L[...] [P]ush ven[?] [...] [...] what [P]rofitt & well [p]roduce

and Since the Experiment of th[i]s Nature will be but of L[i]ttle Charge to our

Masters we are of opinion the Govern[r] may Plant Canes at his owne D[i]scre-

tion where he thinks fitt

We[e] f[i]nde that in the year 1684 by the Ship Shrewsbury in a letter dated

the 26 of November in the 17 [P]arr[a]graph which Runs Thus

We have agreed with M[r] [...]ee at the Sallary of 70 [p]annu[m] To be over[s]eer of our

[P]lantation and one of our Counsell there He hath b[i]n formerly over[s]eer of

Coll[onel] Coddringtons [P]lantation in Barbados and is well Skild in boylein[g]

of S[ug]ar and Roi[s]ing a Sugar [P]lantation from y[e] [P]lanting of y[e] Canes to the

Refineing of the Sugar he professes that after Some E[x]p[er]iment he findes it

Imp[oss]ible to Roi[s]e Sugar there or Some other Co[m]m[od]i[t]y formerly mentioned

to you That may answer our Charge he will not desire to continue there

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 26 Jul 1709 at the United Castle in James Valley.

Present: John Roberts, Esquire, Governor Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor Edward Mashborne, third in council William Marsden, fourth in council Daniel Griffith, fifth in council

The Governor had received information that Mrs Carne held in her possession several books and papers relating to the Lords Proprietors' affairs. These had been lodged with her by her father, Mr Anthony Beale, and by her former husband, Governor Keling. She was sent for at once and appeared before the council. She acknowledged the report to be true. She had several books and papers, but remembered that some had been destroyed and put aside as waste paper.

The council ordered that Mr Marsden go at once to her house, examine all the books and papers, and bring away whatever related in any way to the masters' business. The remainder was to be left, with the manuscript unclear at the closing words on its disposal.

The Governor reported that the kiln and lime works ordered to be built in Sandy Bay Valley would be finished within the week. By that place, he said, there was a fine and curious piece of ground which he thought proper for the planting of sugar canes. The council took the same view, since the canes already planted in James Valley grew very well, even though the soil there was not as good. The importance to the island of planting sugar canes, and of making sugar and rum, could not be fully reckoned: the manuscript is unclear in the words that gave the estimate of profit. The experiment being of small charge to the masters, the council was of opinion that the Governor might plant canes at his own discretion wherever he thought fit.

The council then turned to a passage from the proprietors' letter brought by the Shrewsbury dated 26 Nov 1684. The 17th paragraph of that letter ran as follows. The proprietors had agreed with Mr [...]ee, the surname being unclear in the manuscript, at a salary of £70 0s 0d per annum, to act as overseer of their plantation and as one of the council on the island. He had been overseer of Colonel Codrington's plantation in Barbados and was well skilled in the boiling of sugar and in raising a sugar plantation from the planting of the canes to the refining of the sugar. The proprietors had agreed that, if after some experiment he found it impossible to raise sugar on St Helena, or one of the other commodities formerly mentioned to the council, of a kind that might answer the cost of the project, he would not be required to continue there.

Interpretations

The seizure of Mrs Carne's papers shows the council extending its archival recovery operation from the council's own books to records held in private hands. The papers had originally been lodged by Anthony Beale, the former Deputy Governor in office in 1686, and by her later husband Governor Keling, so that the holding spanned several administrations whose correspondence with London might have been irrecoverable from the council's own gappy series. The acknowledgement that some had already been destroyed and treated as waste paper confirmed the same archival weakness as the 1689 to 1698 gap noted at the previous meeting, and explains why the council moved with such haste, sending Marsden to her house at once with a power to take away anything relevant. The procedure marks the council's recognition that the title research project entrusted to Griffith and Alexander could not be completed from official sources alone.

The grant of discretion to the Governor over sugar cane planting at Sandy Bay sets a different procedural pattern from the council's careful handling of land titles. The justification offered is the low cost of the experiment to the masters, paired with the encouraging performance of the canes already in James Valley. By tying the Governor's discretion to a small-charge trial, the council placed sugar within the prudence-and-discretion licence relied on at the 19 Jul 1709 consultation, and treated it as a matter for local initiative rather than for prior reference to London. The location, at Sandy Bay, also placed the cane planting on the same hill as the new lime kiln, so that the council's two principal extra-fortification ventures of the summer, lime production and sugar trial, sat alongside each other in the same valley.

The retrieval of the 17th paragraph of the 1684 Shrewsbury letter brings to the surface a long-running proprietors' project for a sugar plantation on the island. The proprietors had recruited an experienced Barbados overseer at £70 0s 0d a year, and had built into his terms an exit clause if the trial failed, which suggests they expected uncertainty. The recall of this paragraph in the same week as the lime works neared completion and the canes in James Valley were performing well suggests that the council was framing the present experiment as a renewal of an established proprietors' interest rather than as a new venture. The historical anchor allowed the council to present its decision to plant canes at Sandy Bay as the resumption of a course of action already authorised, in principle, by the proprietors themselves.

The selection of Mr Marsden, the fourth in council and the storekeeper, to make the search of Mrs Carne's house places the seizure within an administrative rather than a judicial frame. Marsden was the official whose monthly accounts had just been reorganised under the order of 12 Jul 1709, and who handled the day-to-day movement of stores and papers. By choosing him rather than the Deputy Governor or a constable, the council treated the operation as a recovery of misplaced administrative documents rather than as a confiscation or a legal action. The choice also kept the matter inside the council's own working circle and avoided the publicity that a constable's intervention would have given.

Speculations

The decision to summon Mrs Carne and to send Marsden to her house in the same sitting suggests that the council expected resistance, or at least slow compliance, if it gave her time to prepare. Her own acknowledgement that some papers had already been destroyed, even in her opening account, gave the council immediate cause to believe that further material might be lost if the search was deferred. The choice to act at once, with the consultation still in session, reads as a calculated response to that risk, and the wide brief given to Marsden, to bring away whatever related in any way to the masters' business, gave him broad discretion at the point of search.

The framing of the sugar project as a small-charge experiment, to be left to the Governor's discretion, looks like a deliberate way of moving forward on a substantive new line of production without committing the proprietors to a formal decision. By keeping the cost low and the authority local, the council reduced the proprietors' exposure to failure while preserving the option of presenting a successful trial as a finished proposition in a later dispatch. The structure mirrors the pattern seen earlier in the leather scheme, in which a modest first stage was offered with a larger downstream prize, and suggests a working preference in the council for graduated proposals to London.

The retrieval of the 1684 paragraph on the Barbados overseer hints that the council had begun to read its archival recovery work as a source of operational, not only legal, authority. The work on titles was already turning up live directions, such as the 12th paragraph that reopened the Johnson house question; the 17th paragraph from the same letter now supplied a precedent for sugar planting under proprietors' sponsorship. The pattern suggests that Griffith and Alexander's abstract, when complete, was expected to function as a working repository of proprietors' commitments, against which present opportunities could be matched. The Sandy Bay cane trial, opened on a passing reference to a 25-year-old paragraph, reads as a first instance of the abstract being used in that way.

258

250

or be unnec[e]sary Expence to us and we have [P]romised him That if he can bring a Sugar worke to [P]erfection or make any other [P]roduction Upon our [I]sland that may Turn us to alc[t]? we will Co[n]sider him with a very good Gratuity

Upon [P]eru[s]all of all our old Books we cant finde That ever he made an Experiment and by his discharge we finde there was an Idle drunken Fellow And therefore it is not Sufficient to Di[s]courage us from So Nec[e]sary a work [S]ince Every body Says the Canes Grew very well when they were [P]lanted formerly in the Countrey

Here is one Richard Swallow a Carpenter, That [P]retends to the makeing of Tiles, and Says in one Kill he can burne Ten Thousand we cant tell what [P]rofitt at the first sight there may arise But only if we Should not Di[s]pose of any to the [I]slanders and use them in stead of Thatch for y[e] Covering our hou[s]es and N[e]groes Hou[s]es, it would Save our Masters Twenty five or Thirty [P]ound a year, besides the Nec[e]sity we are now find[e] for a Store hou[s]e, Barracks, and other hou[s]es Nec[e]sary to be built, and will [s]ave a great Charge in [s]ending Tiles out of England as formerly

Ordered

That the Said Swallow be Encouraged and that if he can bring this worke to [P]erfection that he have fifty Dollars reward, besides paid for his daily L[a]bour and that a Kill be I[m]m[e]diately Erected and all other Nec[e]sary[s] for this purpose, be got ready as he Shall desire

And forasmuch as Every one is Imploy[ed] in busin[e]ss of Co[n]sequence, it being the Time of year for Fenceing, [P]lanting and many other [m]atters

Ordered

That the Councill be adjourned for one month Unle[s] the Governour think fitt to call one [s]ooner

J[no] Roberts Tho Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Marsden Daniel Griffith

Continuing the council's reading of the 17th paragraph of the proprietors' letter of 26 Nov 1684, the proprietors had said that they did not wish the Barbados overseer to remain on the island where there was no work for him or where he would be an unnecessary expense to them. They had, however, promised him that if he could bring a sugar work to perfection, or could raise any other production on the island that turned to the Company's account, they would consider him with a very good gratuity. The manuscript is unclear at one word in this passage, but the sense of a productive contribution rewarded by a gratuity is recoverable.

On reviewing the old books, the council could find no record that the overseer had ever made the experiment. His discharge described him as an idle, drunken fellow. The council took the view that this old failure was not sufficient reason to be discouraged from so necessary a work, since every account agreed that the canes had grown very well when planted in the country some years before.

The council then took up another local proposal. Richard Swallow, a carpenter, had offered to make tiles. He claimed that one kiln could burn 10,000 tiles at a firing. The council could not say at first sight what profit might arise, but observed that even if no tiles were sold to the inhabitants, the use of them in place of thatch for the council's own houses and for the slaves' houses would save the masters £25 0s 0d or £30 0s 0d a year. To this could be added the relief of the present need for a store house, barracks and other necessary buildings, and a substantial saving on the freight of tiles from England as had been done in earlier years.

The council ordered that Swallow be encouraged. If he could bring the work to perfection, he was to have a reward of 50 dollars, in addition to his daily wages. A kiln was to be erected at once, and all other necessaries for the work were to be got ready as he should desire.

Since everyone was already employed on business of consequence, this being the season for fencing, planting and many other works, the council ordered that itself be adjourned for one month, unless the Governor thought fit to call a meeting sooner.

Signed

John Roberts Thomas Goodwin Edward Mashborne William Marsden Daniel Griffith

Interpretations

The council's handling of the failed Barbados experiment shows it using the archival record selectively to support a present decision. The 1684 paragraph had described the overseer's terms in some detail, including the exit clause and the promised gratuity, and the council was now able to add, from the discharge entry, that the man had in fact been an idle drunkard who never made the trial. The council's reasoning treats those two facts as independent: the failure of the earlier attempt was attributable to the man, not to the soil, so the project itself remained open. The retrieval of the discharge confirms how the abstract being prepared by Griffith and Alexander was already feeding live decisions, since the council was here distinguishing between proprietors' instructions, performance under those instructions and the personal qualities of the agent.

The Swallow tile contract is structured very differently from the Orchard tanning agreement of the previous week. Where Orchard had been bound for three years, on a piece-rate, with a penalty bond and a clause requiring him to teach an apprenticed slave, Swallow received only encouragement, a project-completion reward of 50 dollars, and his daily wages. The council was not asking him to organise a continuing trade but to demonstrate that a kiln could produce tiles in commercial quantity. The reward structure, payable only on bringing the work to perfection, places the risk of failure on Swallow's time rather than on a financial penalty, and reflects the experimental nature of the undertaking. The pairing of the two contracts within a fortnight shows the council using two distinct contract templates for the two different problems.

The financial case for tiles is built on substitution rather than on sale. By substituting locally fired tiles for English thatch and for imported tile freight, the council estimated a saving of £25 0s 0d to £30 0s 0d a year, on the council's and the slaves' houses alone. The estimate excludes any margin from sale to the inhabitants, which the council declined to project until the trial succeeded. This way of building the business case, by counting only avoided expense, is consistent with the council's general practice in this month of preparing modest first-stage propositions that the proprietors could approve without ambitious assumptions. The lime, sugar and tile projects all follow the same pattern of a small experimental commitment with the upside left to be argued later.

The decision to adjourn the council for a month rather than to meet at the usual fortnightly interval marks the seasonal cycle of the island. With fencing and planting in their working season, and with the lime, sugar, tile and tanning operations all in their first weeks of execution, the council was choosing to free its members for direct supervision of the works rather than for routine consultation. The reservation that the Governor might call a meeting sooner kept emergency authority in his hands without committing the council to a standing schedule. The order shows the council prepared to compress its formal business to make room for the operational programme it had just authorised.

Speculations

The decision to revive the sugar project on the strength of a single 1684 paragraph, despite the earlier failure of its appointed agent, suggests that the council was prepared to treat the proprietors' original commitment as a continuing authority. The discharge of the Barbados overseer had closed the personal contract, but the proprietors' interest in sugar, as set out in the letter, had never been formally withdrawn. By identifying the failure as one of personnel, the council preserved the underlying authority for itself and brought the project forward without seeking new approval from London. The procedure is consistent with the use of the prudence-and-discretion licence of 1685, under which the council could act where the proprietors' instructions were silent and where the council read the original intention as still live.

The choice to pay Swallow a single project-completion reward of 50 dollars, rather than a piece-rate or a continuing salary, looks like a deliberate way of testing the technology without committing the masters to a production line. If the first kiln fired 10,000 tiles successfully, the council would have a working tile works at the cost of one reward and Swallow's daily wages; if the project failed, the council would owe nothing beyond the wages already paid for the time worked. The structure converts the trial into a low-cost option on a tile industry, and matches the way the lime kiln at Sandy Bay had been set up with low fixed commitments and the sugar canes planted under the Governor's discretion. The month's projects taken together form a coherent portfolio of low-cost experiments, each protected against a clean failure.

The adjournment for a month, with the option of an earlier recall by the Governor, suggests that the council expected the next significant business to arrive in the form of operational results rather than on a regular calendar. The lime kiln was due to be finished within the week, the tanning contract was just under way, the cane planting was about to begin and the tile kiln had still to be built. The natural moment to reconvene would be when one or more of these projects had reached a reporting point, and the Governor's discretion to call a meeting at any time gave the council a flexible reconvening mechanism keyed to events. The arrangement reads as a deliberate move from a process-driven to an outcome-driven rhythm of business for the high summer of 1709.

259

251

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday the 2[d] day of August 1709 At the United Castle in James Valley

Jn[o]: Roberts Esq[r] Govern[r] Thomas Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Gov[r] Pres[en]t Ed[w]: Mashborne 3 in [Coun]d Will[m] Marsden 4[th] in Coun[d] Dan[l] Griffith 5 in Coun[d]

On Sunday the 31 of July Last [p]ast in the Evening Arrived the Hono[ble] United Companys Shipp Godolphin from England Captain John Ap[p]: Rice Comm[a]nd[e]r with a [P]rivate [P]acquett to the Governour

The Said Cap[tn] Ap[p] Rice hath desired us to Sup[p]ly him with Some Nec[e]sarys for the Shipp and Fresh [P]rovisions for his Sick men, and Ships Company dureing their [s]tay here Ordered

That the Comm[a]nder be Sup[p]ly[e]d Accordingly with Such Nec[e]sarys and [P]rovisions as the [I]sland affords

Whereas Madam Johnson and her Son Appeared this day before us and made a Repre[s]entation of her Case in Relation to the hou[s]e and Ground Mentioned in the Co[n]sultation Held the 5[th] day of July Last [P]ast Saying She has had [P]o[s]ession of the Same for 27 or 28 years Last [p]ast and that She never did Know any thing of an Order for Reafuming[?] it nor did her Husband ever tell her of it, who do[es] [s]erve here and Unfortunately Murdered in the Hono[ble] Companys Service Nevertheless Submitted and refer[e]d to the [P]l[e]asure and [c]on[s]ider[a]tion of the Govern[r] and Councill, hopeing we would Sh[e]w her favour, and not Sumn[?] her out in her old age

After consideration we finde the hou[s]e do[e]s not Stand in a [P]roper [p]lace but much to the Detriment of her Honourable Masters

Wherefore She was an[s]wered That her hou[s]e did not Stand in a [P]roper [P]lace but very [P]rejudiciall to the Hono[ble] Comp[ys] To whom we would Repre[s]ent this case Directly and Endeavou[r] to [P]ro[c]ure her a peice of ground in this Valley [P]roper to build her a hou[s]e and Conveniency Upon to be [s]ettled on her and her heirs for ever

And forasmuch as She do's Compleyne of the Charge She has been at upon the Said hou[s]e which we Judge to be of no great Vallue Forever we Shall Intercede with the Lo[rd]s [P]roprietors that the hou[s]e may be appraised by Two Indifferent [P]ersons of Each Side and that what y[e] Value Amounts to may be paid her w[i]th

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 2 Aug 1709 at the United Castle in James Valley.

Present: John Roberts, Esquire, Governor Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor Edward Mashborne, third in council William Marsden, fourth in council Daniel Griffith, fifth in council

On the evening of Sunday 31 Jul 1709, the Honourable United Company's ship Godolphin arrived from England under Captain John Ap Rice, with a private packet for the Governor.

Captain Ap Rice asked the council to supply him with necessaries for the ship and with fresh provisions for his sick men and the rest of his company during the Godolphin's stay at the island. The council ordered that he be supplied accordingly with such necessaries and provisions as the island afforded.

Madam Johnson and her son appeared before the council on the same day, and made a representation of her case in relation to the house and ground discussed at the consultation of 5 Jul 1709. She said she had been in possession of the house and ground for the previous 27 or 28 years. She had never known of any order for the resumption of the property, and her late husband had never mentioned such an order to her. He had served on the island and had been unfortunately murdered in the Honourable Company's service. She submitted nonetheless, and referred the matter to the pleasure and consideration of the Governor and council, in the hope that the council would show her favour and not turn her out in her old age.

After consideration, the council found that the house did not stand in a proper place, and that its position was much to the detriment of the Honourable Masters.

Madam Johnson was therefore answered that the house did not stand in a proper place and was very prejudicial to the Honourable Company. The council would represent her case directly to the masters, and would try to procure her a piece of ground in James Valley fit to build a house and conveniences on, to be settled on her and her heirs for ever.

Since she complained of the charge she had been at on the present house, which the council judged to be of no great value, the council would also intercede with the Lords Proprietors that the house be appraised by two indifferent persons, one for each side, and that the value found by the appraisers be paid to her in -

The text ends mid-clause, before the form of payment was set out.

Interpretations

The arrival of the Godolphin with a private packet to the Governor reintroduces direct communication from London as a working factor in the council's planning. The consultation books had been mined for proprietors' instructions over the previous month, with the Shrewsbury letter of 1684 supplying the basis for the Johnson title question and for the sugar trial. The Godolphin now brought fresh material into the same channel, addressed privately to the Governor rather than to the council as a body. The procedural choice on the proprietors' part, to send the latest instructions to Roberts personally, fits the pattern of selective archival recovery that the council itself had been engaged in: live business was conducted on letters whose addressees and dates were carefully marked.

The supply of the Godolphin with fresh provisions and necessaries places the visit within the framework set up by the council's planters' provisions purchase of 12 Jul 1709. That declaration had committed the council to buy provisions of all kinds from the planters at customary rates, in part to compensate for the loss of outbound shipping as a market. The Godolphin's requirements offered an immediate test of the new arrangement, since fresh provisions for the sick and for the ship's company would have to be drawn from the same planter stock that Captain Mashborne had been authorised to purchase. The minute records the order in routine terms, but the operation belongs to the new provisioning system the council had just established.

The response to Madam Johnson reveals the council's preferred procedure for resolving the most contested element of its title work. She had appeared without her husband, who had been murdered in Company service, and at an age that gave her plea against eviction particular weight. The council's answer separated the legal question from the human question and offered a three-part settlement: a confirmation that the house must be moved on grounds of public detriment; an undertaking to procure her a new plot in James Valley to be settled in fee on her and her heirs; and an undertaking to procure an appraisal of the existing house by two indifferent appraisers, one on each side, with payment to follow. The structure shows the council using the discretion it had reclaimed at the 19 Jul 1709 consultation, but with all three undertakings expressly referred to the proprietors for final approval. The local body decided the principle and the form of relief, while London retained the formal authority to ratify.

The decision to settle the new plot on Madam Johnson and her heirs for ever is significant in its own right. It would be the first new grant of land made under the council's reconstituted title regime, and the form chosen, a settlement in fee on a named individual and her descendants, would set a model for the documentation that Griffith and Alexander's archival work was building toward. The council was therefore taking the first practical step in title-creation while the abstract of older grants was still being assembled, and was doing so on terms that would itself become part of the new record.

Speculations

The decision to procure Madam Johnson a new plot in fee, rather than to compensate her solely in money, reads as a deliberate way of presenting the resumption as an exchange rather than as a confiscation. By transferring her interest from one piece of land to another, with the security of a settlement on her heirs added, the council recast a forced move as an improvement in her tenurial position. The arrangement also kept the family on the island as landholders at a point at which the council was simultaneously losing a free planter through Paul Geaton's permitted emigration. The terms were calibrated, in other words, to retain the Johnson household in the inhabited population while securing the strip needed for the new barracks.

The use of two indifferent appraisers, one for each side, looks like a deliberate adoption of a familiar commercial valuation procedure for what was, in form, a public taking. By matching her appraiser with the council's, the council placed the determination of the price beyond a one-sided valuation, and avoided the appearance of using its dominant position to dictate the figure. The structure also gave Madam Johnson a procedural role in setting the compensation, which would in practice make the eventual figure harder for her to contest. The choice of mechanism suggests that the council was as concerned with the appearance of fairness in this case as with the substantive outcome.

The decision to send all three undertakings home to the proprietors before acting on them, while at the same time announcing them to Madam Johnson, suggests that the council was using the proprietors' authority as both shield and lever. As a shield, the reference to London protected the council against any subsequent reversal: if the proprietors declined the new plot or the appraisal payment, the council could fall back on the order's express conditioning on London's approval. As a lever, the announcement of all three undertakings in advance committed the proprietors to a settled local expectation, which it would be politically awkward for them to reduce. The structure of the answer therefore did substantive work in shaping what the proprietors might be expected to approve.

260

252

With which She was well Satti[s]fied, and hoped that the Lo[rd]s

[P]roprietors would be kind to her

The [P]etition of Joseph Fox free [p]lan[ter] de[s]ireing Liberty to go to Bombay in the Ship Godolphin

with his wife & two Small Child[r]en in the quality of a [Sold]r both being [s]ole [P]erson[s]

Ordered

That his [P]etition be granted, and that He Enter into an Obligation to Serve as a [Sold]r at Bombay

y[e] Terme of three years and that he agree with the Cap[t] for his wifes [P]a[ss]age

J[no] Roberts

Tho Goodwin

Edw[d] Mashborne

W[m] Marsden

Daniel Griffith

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Wednesday the 10[th]

day of August 1709 At the United Castle in James Valley

John Roberts Esq[r] Govern[r]

Thom[s] Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Govern[r] Sick

Pres[en]t Edw[d]: Mashborne 3 in Coun[d]

Will[m] Marsden 4 in Coun[d]

Dan[l]: Griffith 5 in Coun[d]

Whereas M[r] Jonah Ingram Chief Mate of the Hono[ble] United Companys

Ship Godolphin [P]re[s]ented a [P]etition to us bearing date the 4[th] [In]stant Com-

playning of S[e]verall U[s]eages and grievances rec[eive]d and don[e] to him by Cap[t]

John Ap[p]: Rice Comm[a]nder of Said Ship, And amongst the rest the following

Articles

To the R[igh]t Worship[full] Govern[r] and Councill of the Honou[ra]ble [I]sland [St] Helena

Some [P]erticulars of Jonah Ingram Chief Mate of the Honou[ra]ble United East India

Companys Ship Godolphin relateing to a [P]etition of th[i]s days date &c

He[re] out conven[i]ent Should First Acq[u]aint that the 2 and 5 Mates are Cou[s]ens to

Captaine John Ap[p]: Rice w[hi]ch will follow ing of an[s]wers

First Why the Cap[tn] Should treat me when at Sea for carrying [s]ale what he could to ea[s]e

me at our Arr[i]vall here whether he forced his th[r]eats and Act to be So much look[t] on as

a foremast man when my Endevours is all for the Honou[r]d Co[m]pany

2 How i[s] to be Expected I can carry Co[m]mand when the 2 & 5 Mate is [s]oles and

Drunkards Saying the foremast men Compen[s]es is [E]xpe[r]ien[c]e her in doing of

which will undoy h[e]r [a]y Under th[e]se Co[m]manders did they know how to Carry[s]ail[?]

3 Why the Cap[t] Should not be as Strict on his Cou[s]ens in their Duty as on me

but on the contrary were they to Commit the greatest faults Imaginable

would not by him be Seen, as by Experience they both ad bef[ore] [m]entio[n]ed being

Sous and Drunkards their actions more Like beasts then men, by being

Drunk for many days together a[n]d Cap[s]ing humself on the Quarter Deck the

other

Madam Johnson was well satisfied with the council's answer, and said she hoped the Lords Proprietors would be kind to her.

Joseph Fox, a free planter, presented a petition asking leave to go to Bombay on board the Godolphin, with his wife and two small children. He offered to go in the capacity of a soldier. Both Fox and his wife were single persons of full age.

The council ordered that his petition be granted. Fox was to enter into an obligation to serve as a soldier at Bombay for a term of three years, and was to make his own agreement with the Captain for the passage of his wife.

Signed

John Roberts Thomas Goodwin Edward Mashborne William Marsden Daniel Griffith

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Wednesday 10 Aug 1709 at the United Castle in James Valley.

Present: John Roberts, Esquire, Governor Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor, was sick and not present Edward Mashborne, third in council William Marsden, fourth in council Daniel Griffith, fifth in council

Mr Jonah Ingram, chief mate of the Honourable United Company's ship Godolphin, presented a petition dated 4 Aug 1709, complaining of several usages and grievances done to him by Captain John Ap Rice, the commander of the ship. Among other matters the petition raised the following articles.

The petition was addressed to the Right Worshipful Governor and council of the Honourable Island of St Helena, and set out particulars relating to the petition of the same day.

By way of background, Ingram wished the council to be aware that the second and fifth mates were cousins of Captain John Ap Rice. That relationship, he said, would explain much of what followed.

First, he asked why the Captain should treat him at sea in a manner inconsistent with his rank. Ingram had carried as much sail as he could to ease the ship in their arrival at St Helena, but, the manuscript is unclear at this point, his efforts had been met with threats and treatment more proper to a foremast man than to a chief mate. He had directed his efforts only to the Honourable Company's service.

Second, he asked how he could be expected to exercise command when the second and fifth mates were idle and drunken. He set out his view that an experienced foremast man, called on to assist them, would put the ship at risk under such commanders. The manuscript is unclear in parts of this article, but the substance is recoverable: the senior mates' incompetence had thrown the practical management of the vessel onto Ingram and the foremast men.

Third, he asked why the Captain should not be as strict with his cousins in their duty as he was with Ingram. On the contrary, the Captain had overlooked the greatest faults imaginable on their part. By Ingram's account, the two mates had behaved more like beasts than men. They had been drunk for many days together, and one of them had collapsed on the quarter deck.

The account continues on the next page.

Interpretations

The Fox petition records a further outflow of free planters from the island, in the same form as the Geaton case at the consultation of 19 Jul 1709. Fox, like Geaton, was leaving with his family on an outward bound ship. The terms are distinct, however. Where Geaton had no land or place to live and asked only to be allowed to depart, Fox was leaving for paid Company service at Bombay. The council's conditions, a three-year soldier's engagement and a private arrangement with the Captain for the wife's passage, converted the petition into a recruitment for the Bombay garrison and transferred the cost of the family's transit to Fox himself. The two cases together show the council managing the island's surplus free population through a combination of permitted emigration and direct recruitment for service elsewhere.

The Ingram petition opens the council to a wholly new form of business: the supervision of discipline aboard a Company ship in the road. The Captain's authority at sea is not in doubt, but Ingram's complaint, presented in port, invokes the council's jurisdiction over events that took place on the voyage. The procedural choice to receive the petition and to enter the articles into the consultation book commits the council to a hearing of the dispute, and places the Godolphin's officers under the council's scrutiny while the ship lay at the island. The opening of the file shows the council treating its supervisory function over Company shipping as a live jurisdiction, exercised once a ship was within its reach.

The structure of Ingram's complaint is built on the connection between the Captain and the second and fifth mates. By placing the relationship of cousinage at the head of his particulars, Ingram framed every later charge as evidence of favouritism rather than of independent fault. His account separates two distinct issues: his own treatment by the Captain on the voyage, and the conduct of the two mates whose behaviour the Captain had failed to correct. Both lines run back to the same root, that the chain of command on the ship had been compromised by a family interest, and that the chief mate had been left to do the work of officers who were unfit for it. The procedural choice to plead in three numbered articles, beginning with the family relationship and then setting out specific instances, indicates an experienced petitioner familiar with the form expected by a council of this kind.

The arrival of the Ingram petition immediately after the Godolphin's appearance with a private packet to the Governor places the ship at the centre of the council's business for the first half of August 1709. The same ship had brought new instructions from London on 31 Jul 1709, had requested supplies of fresh provisions for sick men on 2 Aug, and was now the subject of a formal disciplinary file on 10 Aug. The council's working programme had shifted in less than a fortnight from the planting and tile works of the high summer to a sequence of obligations triggered by a single arrival, with the absence of the Deputy Governor through illness adding further weight to the others' workload.

Speculations

The decision to grant Fox's petition on condition of a three-year Bombay enlistment suggests that the council was prepared to use outbound shipping as a recruitment opportunity for the Company's eastern stations. Bombay had been the source of Goa arrack, ginghams and other cargoes already passing through the storekeeper's accounts; the addition of a recruited soldier from St Helena, on terms binding him to three years' service, made the same voyage carry men as well as goods. The form of the order, with the binding obligation entered into before departure, gave the Bombay establishment a soldier whose engagement could not be revisited once he had sailed. The council's careful structuring of the petition reads as a routine but deliberate use of passing ships as a labour-export channel.

The decision to receive and minute the Ingram petition rather than to refer it to the Captain looks like a deliberate assertion of the council's authority over Company ships at the island. The Captain, as the proprietors' agent and the senior officer of the vessel, might have expected the council to leave the management of his ship to him; the council's choice to record three articles of complaint against him in the consultation book opened the matter to the proprietors' notice through the regular dispatch home. The structure of the entry shows the council prepared to support a junior officer's grievance through formal procedure, which gave Ingram a much stronger position than a private representation to the Captain would have done.

The framing of the cousinage at the head of Ingram's particulars suggests that he expected the council to read the dispute primarily as a question of favouritism, and only secondarily as a question of misconduct by the mates. By the time the second article was reached, the second and fifth mates' drunkenness had been turned into evidence not only of their own unfitness but also of the Captain's failure to discipline them as he had disciplined Ingram. The petition therefore sought to direct the council's response toward the Captain rather than toward the two junior officers, in a way that would protect Ingram from any retaliation if the Captain was not himself the subject of the proceeding. The choice of presentation reads as a calculated move to align the council's interest, in the proper conduct of Company ships, with Ingram's interest in being heard against the Captain who would otherwise control his career.

261

253

other w[i]se in his Cabbin and in Short their duty much [N]eglected

4 Why the 2[d] Mate Should not obey my Directions in the Cap[t]s Absen[c]e when Acting

for the Interest of the Honourable Company which he has [P]o[s]itively D[e]nyed Self

Insi[s]ting on his Ignorance by being a relator to the Cap[t]aine

5 Why the [P]oore Mate Mid[s]hip Man on the Books Should have the Bennefitt of the Captains

Table Eating with three other [J]our[s] So much wanted Refre[s]hment And he at no Time

no Member of Duty no not so much as p[u]t his hand to a rope As for his Wagae[?] or

Eateing Victualls do[e]s not concern me more than that it Undoubtedly Le[s]s the Brav-

ery [or] those that does it of be him[?]

6 Why Mad[d]am ap Rice with all her Familly Should Eat and Drink what Laid in by

the Honour[able] Company (before any thoughts of there being on Board) for the Ships Refresh[ment]

when So want of Refre[s]hment th[e]re not for many days Enjoy[e]d my health

7 Why the Cap[t] Should at our Arr[i]vall here bring Greens on Board and tell the 2[d] mate

they was for him and to Lock them in his Cabbin from me when I[s]o much wanted

Refre[s]hment

8 Why these Words to all this Difference and I not know for what reason So that if I had

b[i]n Guilty of a faull[?] may [tell]gs on the Same teror Unle[s] made acqu[a]inted

with it and that I from p[oo]re not Capable of my duty may R[e]turn from whence I came

and beg the rest of my be Inquired Into

9 Th[i]s [P]re[s]ent at Plymouth the Capt[ain] [...] m[e] and Some of the men to make the

Letters of attorn[e]y to him to receive the Two months Wages At the [In]di[a] Hou[s]e

A[ll]inen[?] we could not receive our Wages In [In]dia, Unle[s] did According to his De[s]ire

In th[i]s I begg your Wor[s]hips and Coun[c]ells Adv[i]ce my desyne being to receive my

Wages in [In]dia

10 I do not [...] Except the working [P]art of the Ship and tho[u]gh have rea[s]on to beleive that

M[r] Ed[w]: Wikt[?] has the [s]ole Co[m]m[an]d of the Ship First by the Captains offering

her A[d]vice when has h[a]d Occa[s]ion to a[d]vi[s]e about a Gen[er]all alarm &c which Sub[s]e[quently?]

time, Two my Self [s]e[c]ond that He has h[u]ndred us being held, which was by the

Cap[t]s [P]reju[di]ce A[s] my Co[m]pany So [In]formd[?] But his Flatering Tongue & [s]aying

my Deer what Shall we do when, what i[s] [...]e Rendered our man [or] N[e]nion [...]

forth then done th[r]ough good [s]end that what the m[u]gs in any Re[s]pe[c]t Eatable

Drunkable mu[s]t be I[m]ply[e]d with And in [s]ine the has been the Cause of all u[na]nimou[s]

D[i]sturban[c]e and ill will from the one office[r]s from the other that has happened

he th[ert]a [I] am

Aug[t] y[e] 8[th] 1709 Your Worships & Gentlemen of y[e] Coun[c]ills

Most Humble and Obedient Servant

Jonah Ingram

After Exam[in]ation of the whole Bu[s]in[e]ss we finde the Ch[i]ef Mates

Complaint[s] to be of no great Co[n]sequen[c]e

Upon which the Captain Desired the[?] [...] M[r] Ingram and the m[ate] m[i]ght be Discharged

from the Ship and Recommended the [s]econd Mate for an able man and made very

great Complaint of the Ch[i]ef Mate for his I[n]solen[c]e and disob[e]ying orders

The officers was then called in and Examined Touching the Cheef mates a b[i]l[i]ty

And all the office[r]s in Gen[er]all Agreed That M[r] Ingram Chief mate was an able

Seaman Carefull and Sober and to the best of their Knowledge never D[i]d Di[s]obey

the Captains orders, But on the other hand Said and all agreed That the[e]

The petition continued in further articles.

Ingram had described the second and fifth mates as drunk for many days together. One of them had collapsed on the quarter deck, and the other had collapsed in his cabin. Their duty had been much neglected.

In the fourth article Ingram asked why the second mate should not obey his directions in the Captain's absence, when acting for the interest of the Honourable Company. The second mate had positively denied his obedience and had insisted on his ignorance, on the ground of his relationship to the Captain.

In the fifth article Ingram asked why the poor mate midshipman entered on the books should enjoy the benefit of the Captain's table, eating with three other officers who so much wanted refreshment. The midshipman had never done any duty, not so much as put his hand to a rope. The manuscript is unclear at the words on his wage. Ingram added that he raised the point only because he believed the privilege diminished the standing of those who did the work.

In the sixth article Ingram asked why Madam Ap Rice and all her family should eat and drink what had been put aboard by the Honourable Company for the ship's refreshment, before there had been any thought of their being on board. He had himself enjoyed no health for many days for want of the same refreshment.

In the seventh article Ingram asked why, on the Godolphin's arrival at the island, the Captain had brought greens aboard, told the second mate they were for him, and ordered them to be locked in his cabin away from Ingram, when Ingram so much wanted refreshment.

In the eighth article Ingram asked why these words and all this difference had been directed at him without his knowing the reason. If he had been guilty of a fault, he wished to be told of it. The manuscript is unclear at parts of this article. The substance recoverable is that if he was unfit for his duty he asked to be allowed to return to where he came from, and the rest of his account to be inquired into.

In the ninth article Ingram reported that, at Plymouth before the voyage, the Captain had pressed him and some of the men to grant a letter of attorney empowering the Captain to receive their two months' wages at the India House. They could not have received their wages in India unless they had done as the Captain desired. On this point Ingram asked the council's advice, his own design being to receive his wages in India.

In the tenth article Ingram set out his belief that Mr Edward Wikt, the surname being unclear in the manuscript, held the real command of the ship. He cited two grounds. The Captain had been heard offering Wikt his advice on the occasion of a general alarm. Wikt had hindered the holding of some procedure, the manuscript being unclear at the words. Ingram added that Wikt's flattering tongue and constant attention to the Captain's personal comforts, with everything edible or drinkable on board placed at the Captain's service, had made him the source of all the disturbance and ill will between the ship's officers.

The petition was dated 8 Aug 1709 and signed Jonah Ingram, addressed to the Right Worshipful Governor and the gentlemen of the council.

The council, after examining the whole business, found the chief mate's complaints to be of no great consequence.

The Captain on his side asked that Ingram be discharged from the ship. He recommended the second mate as an able man, and made a substantial complaint of Ingram for insolence and for disobeying orders.

The officers of the ship were then called in and examined as to the chief mate's ability. All the officers agreed that Mr Ingram was an able seaman, careful and sober. To the best of their knowledge he had never disobeyed the Captain's orders. They went on to say, however, and all agreed -

Interpretations

The body of the petition is built around a single structural argument: that the chain of command on the Godolphin had been compromised by the Captain's family interest. Ingram's articles move outward from that core, beginning with the Captain's treatment of him, then to the second and fifth mates' drunkenness, then to the second mate's refusal of his directions in the Captain's absence, then to questions of provisions and table privileges, and finally to the broader claim that Edward Wikt held the real command. Each article identifies a discrete event but contributes to the cumulative case that the formal officer hierarchy of the ship had been displaced by a private one. The form of the petition shows Ingram building from individual grievance to systemic complaint, in a way that gave the council a coherent claim to assess rather than a list of separate frictions.

The ninth article moves the dispute from the ship into the regulatory territory of the East India House at Plymouth. Ingram alleged that the Captain had required officers and men to grant him letters of attorney to draw their first two months' wages at the India House, with the threat that they could not obtain their wages in India unless they complied. The complaint touches the well-known abuse by which captains converted a financial requirement into a private claim on subordinates' pay. Ingram's express request for the council's advice on receiving his wages in India indicates that he was treating the council not only as a disciplinary body but also as a source of authoritative interpretation of the proprietors' wage rules.

The sixth and seventh articles convert the question of provisioning into a marker of rank and favour. The greens locked in the Captain's cabin on the Godolphin's arrival, and the Company's stores consumed by Madam Ap Rice's family, are both placed against Ingram's own want of refreshment. The framing matters because the ship had stopped at the island in part to revictual: the council had on 2 Aug 1709 ordered Captain Ap Rice supplied with such necessaries and provisions as the island afforded. By drawing attention to how those provisions had been allocated on board, Ingram brought the council's own recent supply into the dispute, and gave the council a direct interest in how its support had been used.

The unanimous testimony of the Godolphin's officers in Ingram's favour, on ability, care and sobriety, decisively cuts against the Captain's request for his discharge. By calling in the officers as a body, the council adopted a collegial form of inquiry into the chief mate's fitness, with the verdict reached by general agreement rather than by hierarchical assessment. The split of the result, with the officers willing to vouch for Ingram on the points the Captain had used to demand his discharge, places the council in a position where its initial summary, that the complaints were of no great consequence, sits alongside an evidential record favourable to Ingram. The procedural choice to take the officers' account before deciding signals that the council intended to support its decision on a documented inquiry, and not on the Captain's representation alone.

Speculations

The Captain's request that Ingram be discharged and the second mate recommended in his place reads as an attempt to convert the council's hearing into a personnel decision. By framing the dispute as one of insolence and disobedience, and offering a ready replacement from among his cousins, the Captain offered the council a solution that would have removed Ingram from the ship without the council having to adjudicate the substance of the complaint. The choice of remedy suggests that the Captain expected the council to prefer the quietest resolution, and that he viewed Ingram's removal as the price for restoring his own command. The council's decision to examine the officers instead indicates that it was not prepared to accept that exchange on the Captain's terms.

The careful order in which Ingram's articles are arranged, beginning with the cousinage and ending with Edward Wikt's supposed real command, suggests that he had taken advice on the form of his petition. The structure parallels the form of a legal pleading, with a statement of relationship at the head and a wider account of the ship's governance at the close, leaving the individual grievances in between. The presence of dates, the formal salutation to the Governor and council, and the explicit framing of one article as a question on which the council's advice was sought, point toward a literate petitioner familiar with the conventions of bringing a grievance to a colonial council. The polish of the document strengthens the probability that the petition reflected a considered case rather than a sudden outburst.

The officers' willingness to give a unanimous testimonial in Ingram's favour, against their own commander and in the formal setting of the council, suggests that the Godolphin's wardroom was already broken before the petition was filed. To testify together that the chief mate was able, careful and sober, and had never disobeyed orders, was to side openly with him against the Captain's stated complaint. The cohesion of the answer indicates either that the officers' view of Ingram was so settled that none would dissent, or that they recognised in the council's inquiry a moment to be on the record against a captain whose conduct they expected to be reviewed by the proprietors. Either possibility points to a ship in which the Captain had already lost the confidence of his officers before the Godolphin arrived at St Helena.

262

254

Second Mate John Ap[p] Rice is a Drunken fellow and Especially in the times when they were

in danger of being Lost and Severall Times at Sea when there was most Ocasion

for him and Sleeping upon his watch and no Seaman or Artist, That the Gunner

taught him Severall things Since they Came out

The Captaine replyd that was Said against him was out of M[a]lice and desired he

might be Examined by the Govern[r] whereupon he was Cald, and the[i]r [Gov]ern[r] asked

him the following Que[s]tion

Suppo[s]e a Ship to be Clo[s]e upon a Wind, with all her Sailes but Top Gall[i]ant

[s]ailes May [s]ailes and [S]pri[t]saile he was Directed to Tack her but made So

many Blunders that a Common Sailer would have Answered Much better Took

no Care to [s]quare the [s]pritsaile yard nor to Lett go his Main top Gallant

Bowling and Said when he wo[r]ked was ahead the words Life Tarks &[c] Sheets

which Every Seaman knows is the only T[i]me to haul, and when he did haul

twas Hau[l] Mainsop S[a]ile which ought to have been Haul Main S[a]iles

Being upon other Tack upon a wind as before he was D[i]rected to Wa[r]e, This

question So [s]eised him that he did nothing but blunder and forgot to Putt

the [H]elm aweather

Then being Examined as to his Art he [s]aid he Learn[e]d Mercato and A[s]tronomy

upon which he was a[s]k[e]d the following Que[s]tion in [P]lain Sailing

The Difference of Latitud[e] & D[e]parture given to find the Course & Distance

but could not give the Common for it but Said 'twas So long ago Since he had Learnt

he had now forgot and that he work't his Reckoning by the [P]ractice

He was ordered to bring his Journall but kept none, He brought a Log Book in

which there was nothing nor Remarks nor Sett down the month, or Whether the

Latt[itude] was North or South And because 'tis [N]ec[e]sary for the [P]u[r]suite to Examine

[F]urther touching this affaire

Ordered

That the Councill be adjourned till next Tuesday the 16[th] Instant

The [P]etition of Henry Webley De[s]ireing Leave to go off the [I]sland with his wife

and Child to Serve as a Soldier at Bombay

Ordered

That his [P]etition be granted, and that he Enter Into an obligation to Serve as a Sold[r]

at Bombay three years, and that he do agree with the Cap[tn] & [P]le[a]se for his wifes

Pa[ss]age

J[no] Roberts

Tho Goodwin

Edw[d] Mashborne

W[m] Mar[s]den

Daniel Griffith

The officers' testimony, after agreeing that Ingram was an able seaman, careful and sober, then turned against the second mate. They all agreed that the second mate, John Ap Rice, was a drunken fellow. He had been drunk at times of greatest danger, when the ship was at risk of being lost, and on several occasions at sea when his service was most needed. He had slept on his watch. He was neither a seaman nor an artist. The gunner had been obliged to teach him several things since the Godolphin came out of England.

The Captain replied that what had been said against the second mate was out of malice. He asked that the second mate be examined by the Governor himself. The second mate was then called in, and the Governor put the following questions to him.

The Governor first set him a problem in seamanship. A ship was supposed close on a wind, with all her sails set except the top gallant sails, the may sails and the spritsail. The second mate was directed to tack her. The manuscript is unclear at the term "may sails", which may stand for a smaller staysail not now identifiable with confidence; the sense of the question, that several sails were not set, is recoverable. The second mate made so many blunders in his answer that a common sailor would have answered much better. He took no care to square the spritsail yard, nor to let go his main top gallant bowline. When he came to the part of the manoeuvre at which a working ship was ahead, he gave the orders for the wrong moment. The Governor noted that every seaman knew that this was the only time to haul. When he did finally call the order to haul, he ordered "haul main topsail" where he ought to have ordered "haul main sails".

The Governor then put him a second case. Being on the other tack and on a wind, he was directed to wear the ship. The question so unnerved him that he could do nothing but blunder, and he forgot to put the helm a-weather.

The Governor next examined him on his art. The second mate said that he had learnt Mercator and astronomy. The Governor accordingly set him a question in plain sailing. The difference of latitude and the departure were given, and he was asked to find the course and the distance. He could not produce the rule for it. He answered that it was so long since he had learnt it that he had now forgotten it, and that he worked his reckoning by practice.

The Governor ordered him to bring up his journal. He kept none. He brought up a log book in which nothing was set down. There were no remarks, no entry of the month, and no record of whether the latitude was north or south.

Because it was necessary for the matter to be pursued further, the council ordered that it be adjourned to the following Tuesday, 16 Aug 1709.

The petition of Henry Webley followed. He asked leave to go off the island with his wife and child to serve as a soldier at Bombay. The council ordered that his petition be granted. Webley was to enter into an obligation to serve as a soldier at Bombay for three years, and was to make his own agreement with the Captain for his wife's passage.

Signed

John Roberts Thomas Goodwin Edward Mashborne William Marsden Daniel Griffith

Interpretations

The examination of John Ap Rice the second mate transforms the Ingram dispute into a formal test of professional competence. By calling on the Governor to put questions on tacking, on wearing and on plane sailing, the council moved from receiving testimony to administering an examination. The procedural choice converted the Captain's defence, that the complaints against the second mate were malicious, into a verifiable proposition: if the second mate were a competent officer, he would answer correctly. His failure across three separate exercises, and on the most basic record-keeping, supplied the council with its own evidence and removed the question from the realm of opposing testimony.

The Governor's choice of questions reveals how the council understood the standard expected of a second mate of an East Indiaman. The seamanship questions tested manoeuvres routinely required of a watch officer: tacking a ship with a particular sail plan and wearing on a wind. The navigation question tested the foundational technique of plane sailing, with the inputs supplied and the rule required. The log book test went to the most elementary duty of an officer of the watch, the maintenance of a journal. The escalation across the three tests, from manoeuvre to calculation to record, exposes the second mate's unfitness at every level of a watch officer's work, and gave the council a record on which the Captain's recommendation of him could not stand.

The failure of the second mate's log book to record the month, or whether the latitude was north or south, would have been particularly damaging in the council's eyes. The proprietors had just received, by the Aurengzeb in June, the council's own carefully ordered set of writings including the consultation book extract, the store books and the stock account. The council had, in the same month, reorganised the storekeeper's reports onto a monthly cycle keyed to species of goods. A second mate who could not date his own log entries failed a standard of record-keeping that the council had been applying to itself. The procedural humiliation thus carried a thematic charge: the Godolphin's navigation was undocumented in the same year in which the council had committed itself to thorough documentation.

The adjournment of the matter to 16 Aug 1709 indicates that the council saw the file as unfinished even after the examination had ended in the second mate's manifest failure. The decision to set a date a week ahead, rather than to dispose of the file at the same sitting, suggests that further evidence or further parties were expected, and that the council had still to determine the consequence of its findings for the Godolphin's officer complement and for Ingram's position. The Webley petition, dispatched in the same form as the Geaton and Fox petitions of the previous weeks, was disposed of as routine business, which throws the deliberateness of the deferral on the Ingram-Ap Rice file into sharper relief.

Speculations

The Governor's decision to conduct the examination of the second mate personally, rather than to direct one of the council members or a Company officer to do it, suggests that he wished the inquiry to carry the full weight of his office. The Governor's questions covered three distinct technical fields, and the answers were recorded in the consultation book in direct detail. By placing himself in the role of examiner, the Governor produced a record in which the proprietors in London could see for themselves that the second mate's failures were not the verdict of a disgruntled subordinate, but of the Company's senior representative on the island. The procedural choice converts the entry into a document that the proprietors could read as evidence on which to act against Captain Ap Rice.

The persistence of the second mate's answer that he worked his reckoning by practice, after he had claimed to have learnt Mercator and astronomy, points to a recurring pattern of nautical apprenticeship at the lower end of the East Indiaman officer corps. A working officer who had picked up his trade by serving voyages rather than by formal study could often manage routine navigation without producing the underlying rules on demand. The failure exposed by the council's examination was therefore less unusual than the council's framing implies, and was sharper because the test was administered in a formal setting and recorded in writing. The probability is that the second mate was a recognisable type of practical seaman whose fitness for the Godolphin's second berth had been a matter of family connection rather than of professional standing.

The pattern of three soldier petitions in three weeks, from Geaton on 19 Jul 1709, Fox on 2 Aug 1709, and now Webley on 10 Aug 1709, indicates that the Godolphin's arrival was operating as an extraction point for the island's free male population. Each of the three cases concerned a planter without a viable holding, leaving with his family for paid service at a Company station to the east. The consistency of the terms across the three orders, with three-year engagements at Bombay and private arrangements for the wives' passages, points to a settled local practice for handling such departures. The probability is that the council had developed a standard formula for soldier-emigration petitions during the summer, and was applying it as a template each time the Godolphin came up in council business.

263

255

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday the 16[th] day of

August 1709 At the United Castle in James Valley

Jn[o]: Roberts Esq[r]: Gov[r]

Tho[s] Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Gov[r]

Pres[en]t Ed[w]: Ma[s]hborne 3 in Coun[d]

W[m] Mar[s]den 4 in Coun[d]

Dan[l]: Griffith 5 in Coun[d]

[P]ursuant to the Consultation Held on Wednesday the 10[th] [In]stant for y[e] Settling

and E[s]tablishing [P]eace and Unity between the Co[m]mander Mate[s] Ch[i]ef[s] Mate, and the

rest of his offi[c]ers, and for the [P]re[s]ervation of our Honou[red] Master[s] E[s]tate on Board

that L[a]ys in cafe of Mortality

The Councill and every one of us in [P]erticular have Examined first Touching

the Cheif mate and all agreed that he is an able man But beleive he may have

been [Saucy] and Imp[er]tinent to the Captaine for which

Ordered

That he desire the Captaine to forgive him for the future he will behave him[s]elf

So as to game his E[s]te[em], and that the Captaine be ordered to Re[p]ublish [him?]

in his [P]ost

As for the Second mate it [P]lainly Appears by the Te[s]timony of all most all

the ofi[c]ers of Co[m]p[an]y That he had Drunken [s]uch [P]layes And it appears So to us for

the first Sound he Come on [s]hore here he got Drunk and made a Hubbub in the

Valley which we Shall over Sole[?] time by the Cap[t]aines reque[s]t who Declared he

was [P]ast the Ocasion of it, And since that found he Come on [S]hore agame went to

the Church house and Drunk to the Vallue of Ten Shillings, But the[n] he m[a]ny ws

that when he Come aboard againe to Atti[s]fie the [P]eople for the [Punc]h he sent

am two [p] [s]tockings one [p] Sho[e]s one pair Gloves And in Late M[any] [...] Lac[e] on his

[c]oat and it is our Co[mm]on can[s]e he Other man that Sailes is being [s]obe[r] and a

Sloth up at his W[ar]ts by the rocks and it [p]lainly appea[r]s that he is [n]either Sea man

nor Artist by not An[s]wering tho[s]e que[s]tions which the [G]over[n]r [a]sk[e]d him the L[a]st

Councill day and by his not k[e]eping a Journall being a[ss]ane that there was as I find in

in his Lefe for to take no remarks, nor in [N]otice is [Re]markable, and Since this Last

Bun[t] day Self ground that wo[r]ked by the [P]ractice (as he Say[s] he works by) Seven Days

crooks of which 2[d] of em is C[a]fe, and So Large an Err[o]r in one day that he is fourteen

Mile out in Latt[itude] and ninteen Mile in his Departure, and So [s]ett by the half mark

and put Such a man as this in his Station in cafe of Mortality is to y[e] D[e]struction

of the whole and we are Sorry to See Cap[t] Ap[p] R[i]ce Should de[s]ire to S[en]d to have

Such a man in that Station &c don't know his meaning for it And by his Carrying

of Tales to the Cap[t] his Cousen has been the Ocasion of all the Differences and

Heart Burnings in the Ship Whereafter

Ordered

That the Said John Ap[p] Rice Second Mate be Discharged the Honourable

Companys Service, and Turned a Shore Here as being In[c]apable of that or any

oth[er]

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 16 Aug 1709 at the United Castle in James Valley.

Present: John Roberts, Esquire, Governor Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor Edward Mashborne, third in council William Marsden, fourth in council Daniel Griffith, fifth in council

The council took up the matter adjourned from the consultation of Wednesday 10 Aug 1709. The purpose was to settle and establish peace and unity between the commander, the chief mate and the rest of the officers, and to provide for the preservation of the Honourable Masters' estate on board, against any case of mortality.

The council, and each member individually, first examined the chief mate's case. All members agreed that Mr Ingram was an able man. They believed, however, that he might have been saucy and impertinent to the Captain.

The council ordered that Ingram desire the Captain to forgive him, on the footing that he would conduct himself in future so as to gain the Captain's esteem. The Captain was to be ordered to restore him to his post.

As to the second mate, John Ap Rice, the testimony of almost all the officers showed that he was given to drunken behaviour. The council itself had evidence to the same effect. The first time the second mate had come ashore at the island he had got drunk and made an uproar in the valley. The council was prepared to overlook that episode, at the Captain's request, since the Captain had declared he was past the occasion of it. After that, however, when the second mate came ashore again, he went to the church house and drank to the value of 10s 0d. The manuscript is unclear at the next passage. The recoverable elements are that, when he returned on board, he sent two pairs of stockings, a pair of shoes, a pair of gloves and some lace from his coat to the people on shore, to satisfy them for the drink he had run up.

The council added that the standard of every other officer on the ship in matters of sobriety stood in clear contrast to the second mate's conduct. The manuscript is unclear in the words describing the other officers' position and the place at which it was observed.

It was plain to the council that John Ap Rice was neither a seaman nor an artist. He had failed to answer the questions the Governor had put to him at the last council day, and had kept no journal. There was nothing in his life on board worth setting down as a remark, and nothing notable about his conduct. Since the previous council day, on his own admission that he worked by practice, he had run his reckoning over seven days and produced an error of two days' worth on this account. The size of the error was such that in a single day he was 14 miles out in latitude and 19 miles out in his departure, with each set by half the mark. To leave a man of that standard in the second mate's station, in case of mortality among the officers, would have meant the destruction of the whole.

The council noted with regret that the Captain should have wished to keep such a man in that station, and could not understand his reason. The manuscript is unclear at the closing words of this passage. What can be read is that the second mate's habit of carrying tales to his cousin the Captain had been the occasion of all the differences and heartburnings on board.

The council ordered that John Ap Rice, second mate, be discharged from the Honourable Company's service, and turned ashore at the island as being incapable of that or any other office.

The text continues on the next page.

Interpretations

The framing of the inquiry's purpose, the preservation of the Honourable Masters' estate on board against case of mortality, places the dispute on a wider footing than the personal one. The council was concerned not only with the present discipline of the ship but with the security of the cargo and the voyage in the event that the Captain himself were lost. The second mate stood next in the chain of command for navigation and for the safety of the Company's investment in the lading. The council's concern, expressed as one of mortality risk, identifies the practical reason why the competence of a second mate could not be left to the Captain's personal preference: it was the proprietors' estate, not the Captain's command, that was at stake.

The pairing of the two findings, on Ingram and on Ap Rice, shows the council resolving the dispute by separate measures rather than by a single verdict. Ingram's competence was upheld, the criticism that he had been saucy or impertinent was acknowledged, and the remedy was a formal apology coupled with his restoration to post. Ap Rice's conduct and competence were rejected at every level, and the remedy was discharge from the service. By distinguishing between the chief mate's manner and the second mate's substance, the council was able to address the Captain's complaint of insolence without absorbing his recommendation of the second mate, and to satisfy the proprietors' interest in a competent watch without sustaining the family connection that the Captain had relied on.

The arithmetic of the second mate's navigation error, 14 miles out in latitude and 19 miles out in departure in one day, gives the dismissal a quantitative foundation. Over a week of dead reckoning at that rate, the position would be irrecoverable, and the consequence in waters near a hazard would be the loss of the ship. By placing the figures on the face of the consultation book, the council converted a question of professional competence into a numerical record that the proprietors could assess for themselves. The chosen procedure, examination by the Governor and verification of the second mate's own reckoning over the intervening week, supplies both the personal authority of the office and the technical evidence to support the conclusion.

The council's account of the second mate's drunken expedients ashore, settling his ten-shilling drink bill at the church house by sending stockings, shoes, gloves and lace from his coat, supplied a parallel ground for the dismissal. The episode places the second mate inside the island's own retail economy, in the very establishments whose punch prices the council had just regulated at 2s 0d a bowl under the declaration of 8 Jun 1709. By recording how the bill had been settled, the council made the second mate's conduct visible in the same retail framework that it had just imposed on the islanders, and gave its discharge an evidentiary trail beyond the navigation test. The record indicates that the council was prepared to use small details of behaviour ashore as supporting evidence in a fitness inquiry against a Company officer.

Speculations

The decision to require Ingram to ask the Captain's forgiveness before being restored to his post looks like a calibrated way of giving the Captain a face-saving concession in a procedure that had otherwise gone against him. By recording that Ingram may have been saucy and impertinent, and ordering him to seek forgiveness in the formal terms that would gain the Captain's esteem, the council found a way to restore the chain of command in a manner the Captain could accept. The arrangement preserved Ingram's substantive vindication while giving the Captain a public acknowledgement of his personal authority on the ship, which would make the practical task of returning Ingram to his duties easier.

The decision to turn the second mate ashore at the island, rather than to send him forward on the Godolphin under reduced rating, gave the council the cleanest possible separation between the dispute and the onward voyage. A demoted officer continuing on the ship would have remained a source of friction within the wardroom and a continuing tie of family interest to the Captain. By discharging him at St Helena, the council removed him from the chain of command entirely, and left the ship to continue under a reconstituted complement that no longer included the cousin whose conduct had been the occasion of the trouble. The arrangement reads as the council's preferred way of closing a disciplinary file: not merely to demote but to remove.

The size of the second mate's stated drink bill at the church house, 10s 0d on a single occasion, is itself worth noting against the council's recent price-setting. Under the regulation of 8 Jun 1709, a bowl of punch made on a pint of arrack was to be sold at 2s 0d while arrack stood at 14s 0d per gallon. The second mate's bill therefore represented the consumption of five bowls of punch in a single visit, more than two pints of arrack, on his own account. The probability is that the council, having set the price in May and recorded the consumption in August, was making its own calibrated point about the second mate's drinking by quoting the figure precisely. The arithmetic between the regulation and the bill was open to the proprietors to read, and the second mate's incapacity for office was set against the very tariff that the council had only just introduced.

264

256

other Imploy on board the Said Ship and that in his Discharge it be mentioned

That he be in[c]apable of the Companys Service

And that the Said Cap[t] be Directed and ordered to [P]romote M[r] Norgate from

third mate to [s]econd mate who Seems to us to be a good [s]ober man, and the Gunner

made third mate and the Gunners mate Gunner who hath every good Ch[a]ract[er] by

the Cap[t] and others and tho' Pa[r]t of y[e] mate may Still be Entrusted in that [p]ut[?]

Station in [Ropes] [...]p we Think it but reasonable y[e] [...] Cap[t] Should

make this [P]romotion which tends So much to his Authority and [P]romote

good Manners and Diligence in his offi[c]ers towards him which if he refu[s]es to do

Resolved

That, this Councill will [P]rote[s]t Against him and make this [P]romotion

them[s]elves

As to the [Plea]se Co[a]ts of the Captaine do[e]s I[n]si[s]t [s]till to have him di[s]charged he

being not So Mature a [s]eaman we Shall Comply with him, Altho' the Cap[t]ain has

made no Complaint Against him only Said the [P]eople drank water on board of y[e]

Ships now in the road, Wherefore

Ordered

That in case the Cap[t] do Discharge him, That he [r]epay him the Ship [B]ound

he had of him in England here And that he give him a bill[s] of fe[?] [...]r [...] [...]

that we re[s]erve to our Selves the Liberty of S[en]ding him as a [P]a[ss]anger to

Bombay if he Should desire it for that we are well a[s]ured that the Honourable

Company w[i]ants white men on that [I]sland

J[no] Roberts

Tho Goodwin

Edw[d] Mashborne

W[m] Marsden

Daniel Griffith

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday the 30[th] day of Aug[t]

1709 At the United Castle in James Valley

Pres[en]t Jn[o]: Roberts Esq[r] Gov[r]

Thom[s] Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Govern[r]

Ed[w]: Mashborne 3 in Coun[d]

Will[m] Marsden 4 in Coun[d] [P]ick[?]

Dan[l]: Griffith 5 in Coun[d]

The Store keepers Acc[t] of the Sale and Disposall of Goods from the 25[th] June

to the 25[th] of July was brought and Delivered this day as followeth

Goods Sold and Delivered out of the Honou[ra]ble Companys Stores from June the 25 to

July the 25 1709 In[c]lusive £- s- d

Naylo[r] to y[e] Numbe[r] of 4- 8- 9[?]

Glass Ware 1- 4- -

Wickerd[?] of any Ware [...]

12-94[?]

────────

12-18- 11[?]

The council's order on the Godolphin officers continued in the following terms. John Ap Rice the second mate was to be turned ashore as incapable of that or any other employ on board the ship, and the discharge was to state expressly that he was incapable of the Company's service.

The Captain was directed and ordered to promote Mr Norgate, then third mate, to second mate. The council judged Norgate to be a good and sober man. The gunner was to be made third mate, and the gunner's mate to be made gunner. The gunner's mate had a very good character from the Captain and from others. The manuscript is unclear in the next phrase: the recoverable substance is that, although part of the gunner's duties might still be entrusted to the new third mate in the bosun's role, the council judged it reasonable that the Captain make these promotions because they tended to support his own authority and to encourage good manners and diligence in his officers towards him.

If the Captain refused to make the promotions, the council resolved that it would protest against him and would make the promotions itself.

As to a further point pressed by the Captain, the council was prepared to comply. The Captain still insisted on the discharge of another officer, whose name is given in a form unclear in the manuscript, on the ground that he was not a sufficiently mature seaman. The Captain had made no specific complaint against him, beyond saying that the people drank water on board of the ships then in the road. The council was content to allow the discharge.

If the Captain did discharge him, the Captain was to repay him the ship bond which the Captain had taken from him in England, and to give him a bill. The manuscript is unclear at the closing words of this passage. The council reserved to itself the liberty of sending this man as a passenger to Bombay if he should desire it, on the ground that the Honourable Company was known to want white men at that station.

Signed

John Roberts Thomas Goodwin Edward Mashborne William Marsden Daniel Griffith

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 30 Aug 1709 at the United Castle in James Valley.

Present: John Roberts, Esquire, Governor Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor Edward Mashborne, third in council William Marsden, fourth in council Daniel Griffith, fifth in council

The storekeeper brought in and delivered an account of the sale and disposal of goods from 25 Jun 1709 to 25 Jul 1709. The account ran as follows.

Goods sold and delivered out of the Honourable Company's stores from 25 Jun 1709 to 25 Jul 1709, inclusive:

Nails: £4 8s [...] Glassware: £1 4s 0d Wickerware: £[...] [an intermediate figure unclear in the manuscript]: £12 9s [...] Total: £12 18s [...]

The penny figures on several lines are unclear in the manuscript, as is one intermediate sub-total. What can be read with confidence is that nails accounted for over £4 in the month, that glassware accounted for £1 4s 0d, that wickerware appears as a third head whose value cannot be recovered, and that the running total of sales for the month stood at about £12 18s, with the pence column illegible.

Interpretations

The reshuffle of officers on the Godolphin shows the council taking responsibility for the ship's command structure as far as the rank of gunner. The promotion of Norgate from third mate to second mate, of the gunner to third mate, and of the gunner's mate to gunner produced a clean chain of advancement, each man moving up by one step. The arrangement preserved the working continuity of the gun deck while removing the Ap Rice cousin from the chain of command. The council's reasoning, that the promotions tended to the Captain's own authority and to good manners and diligence in his officers, framed the changes as serving the Captain rather than overriding him. The procedural move presented a substantive intervention as a contribution to his command.

The contingent threat of formal protest, with the council undertaking to make the promotions itself if the Captain refused, marks the limit of the council's deference. The Captain held the appointment power on board, but the council was prepared to displace it in a documented protest if necessary. The dual procedure of order and reserve, with the order itself supported by an explicit fallback, gave the council two routes to the same outcome and made refusal by the Captain a public act on the record. The structure of the resolution shows the council protecting its decision against the possibility of resistance by the Captain who would otherwise execute it.

The treatment of the second discharge, conceded to the Captain without specific cause, registers the council's willingness to give the Captain something of his original demand in exchange for accepting the rest of the package. The Captain had originally asked for the discharge of Ingram and the retention of the second mate, and now received neither. By allowing him a discharge for another officer on a less weighty ground, the council gave the Captain a partial accommodation that he could carry back on board. The requirement that the Captain repay the ship bond, and the council's reservation of the discharged man for passenger service to Bombay, kept the financial and operational management of the discharge within the council's framework even as the personnel decision was conceded to the Captain.

The reservation of the discharged man for transit to Bombay as a passenger, on the ground that the Honourable Company wanted white men at that station, fits the same pattern of soldier-emigration petitions that had appeared in July and August. The cases of Geaton, Fox and Webley had all involved free planters going east on three-year soldier engagements; the Godolphin discharge offered another candidate for the same channel, this time at the council's own initiative. The council was therefore continuing to route surplus or displaced men, whether they came from the island's free planter population or from a ship's reshuffled wardroom, into the Bombay establishment.

Speculations

The decision to make the contingent protest part of the order, rather than to wait and see if the Captain complied, looks like a measured response to the personal and family interests that had produced the original dispute. The Captain had recommended his own cousin for the second mate's post, had asked for the chief mate's discharge as the resolution, and had been overridden on both points. To leave the execution of the promotions to a captain who had just lost the substance of his argument would have been to invite delay or non-compliance. The council's pre-emptive resolution to act in his place if necessary closed that window and converted the order into one that the Captain could not effectively resist.

The framing of the third mate's promotion as serving the Captain's authority is a careful piece of presentation. By describing the changes as ones that would encourage good manners and diligence in the officers toward the Captain, the council placed its substantive override in language that the Captain could repeat to the proprietors as a vindication of his authority. The arrangement gave the Captain a way to accept the order without acknowledging defeat, and gave the council a record in which its action was framed as supporting the Captain. The careful wording reads as part of a deliberate effort to manage the Captain's response to a decision that had gone against him on every contested point.

The storekeeper's monthly account, brought in on the new schedule established at the consultation of 12 Jul 1709, completes the first full month of the reorganised reporting cycle. The first return covers 25 Jun 1709 to 25 Jul 1709, on the calendar month from the proprietors' year-end of 25 March, and is broken down by species of goods as required. The figures recoverable from the page, with nails and glassware appearing as the principal named heads and a total of about £12 18s for the month, suggest that the retail volume of the stores in mid-summer was modest. The probability is that the Godolphin's arrival on 31 Jul 1709 will have generated a sharper movement of goods in the following month, since the ship's supply order and the related transactions fall after the cut-off of this return.

265

257

£- s- d

Brought over - 12-18-11[½]

Iron mongars Ware - 3- 8- 6

Booz[?] - 12-14-9

Tin Ware - 2- 15-6

[S]tationary Ware - - 7- -

Iron [P]otts 2 at 10[s] at 6[d] - 4-17-6

[N]avall & Garrison [s]tore[s] - - 6- 7[½]

B[r]a[s]ier[s] Ware - 1-19-3

Ho[s]iers Ware - 3- 4- 9

Hatts - 5- 8-10

Pewter - - 6- 4

W[oo]lin good[s] - 25-18-4[?]

Lace - 3- - 9[½]

C[utt]lar[g]e Ware - 3-14-6[½]

Tobac[c]o [P]ipes - - 7-7

[P]rovi[s]ions viz[t] B[e]ef & flour - 9- - 15

Sope[?] - 7- 4- -

Tobaco - 10-10- -

Salt 4 [B]u[s]hells - 1- 8- 6

[Ind]i[a] [t]ea[?] - - 12- 7[½]

Arrack Batavia 182 Gall[on]s at 6[d] [p] gal[on] - 54- 12- -

Caddle[s] 17 at 16[s] [p][?] - 18- 8

Wine one quart - 1- 11- -

[B]omalls 5 [Doz?] at 15 [each?] - 2- 6

Sugar 55 at 8[d] [p][?] - 18-19-4[?]

Sue 1138 [...] - 9- 9- 8

[L]ungen[?] God[?] - 16- - -

Su[g]ar Candy 21 - 4- 14- -

Beefs & [s]uet[?] 263 ¾ - 4- 10- 3

Feat - 5- 8- -

Hides 2 at - - 19- -

Arrack G[o]a at 4[s] 6[d] [p] Gall[on] - 26-2- -

─────────

247-11-5[½] 247-11-5[½]

Good[s] Del[i]v[ered] for y[e] u[s]e of y[e] Gen[er]all Table

from June y[e] 25 to July the 25 1709 viz[t]

Haberda[s]hery Ware - - 2- 6

Shoo[s] 1 [p] - 5- -

T[i]n Ware - - 4- -

Cu[ttla]rg[e] Ware - - 5- -

C[u]ttlary Ware - 1- 2- 3

Tobaco [P]ipes - - 4- 6

Sope - 8-12-

Bread & flour - 1- 4- -

Salt 9 - 13-12- -

Arrack 45[½] Gall[on]s - - 15- -

Vinegar - - 11- 3

[B]o[m]all[s] one - - 16- 8

Sug[ar] - - 11- 10

Suet 71 - - 14- -

Sug[ar] Candy 21 - 1- 13- -

[...] 2[?] - ─────────

30-10-3

Carried over ────────

278-1- 8[½]

The storekeeper's account continued from the previous page. The full return for the month from 25 Jun 1709 to 25 Jul 1709 ran as follows.

Goods sold and delivered out of the Honourable Company's stores from 25 Jun 1709 to 25 Jul 1709, inclusive:

Brought over from the previous page: £12 18s 11½d Ironmongers' ware: £3 8s 6d The manuscript is unclear at the heading of the next line, which reads as "Booz" or similar: £12 14s 9d Tin ware: £2 15s 6d Stationery ware: £0 7s 0d Iron pots, 2 at 10s 6d: £4 17s 6d Naval and garrison stores: £0 6s 7½d Braziers' ware: £1 19s 3d Hosiers' ware: £3 4s 9d Hats: £5 8s 10d Pewter: £0 6s 4d Woollen goods: £25 18s 4d, the pence figure unclear in the manuscript Lace: £3 0s 9½d Cutlery ware: £3 14s 6½d Tobacco pipes: £0 7s 7d Provisions, beef and flour: £9 0s 15d, the pence figure appearing in this irregular form in the manuscript Soap: £7 4s 0d Tobacco: £10 10s 0d Salt, 4 bushels: £1 8s 6d The manuscript is unclear at the next line, which appears to read "India tea": £0 12s 7½d Batavia arrack, 182 gallons at 6s per gallon: £54 12s 0d The manuscript is unclear at the next line, which appears to read "Candles, 17 at 16s per dozen": £0 18s 8d Wine, 1 quart: £1 11s 0d The manuscript is unclear at the next line, which appears to read "Bomalls, 5 dozen at 15s each": £0 2s 6d Sugar, 55 pounds at 8d per pound: £18 19s 4d, the pence figure unclear in the manuscript Suet, 1,138 pounds: £9 9s 8d, the count and the unit being unclear in the manuscript The manuscript is unclear at the next line, which appears to read "Lungen Good" or similar: £16 0s 0d Sugar candy, 21: £4 14s 0d Beef and suet, 263¾: £4 10s 3d The manuscript is unclear at the next line, which reads "Feat": £5 8s 0d Hides, 2: £0 19s 0d Goa arrack at 4s 6d per gallon: £26 2s 0d

Total: £247 11s 5½d

Goods delivered for the use of the general table from 25 Jun 1709 to 25 Jul 1709:

Haberdashery ware: £0 2s 6d Shoes, 1 pair: £0 5s 0d Tin ware: £0 4s 0d Cutlery ware, first entry: £0 5s 0d Cutlery ware, second entry: £1 2s 3d Tobacco pipes: £0 4s 6d Soap: £8 12s 0d Bread and flour: £1 4s 0d Salt, 9: £13 12s 0d Arrack, 45½ gallons: £0 15s 0d Vinegar: £0 11s 3d Bomalls, 1: £0 16s 8d Sugar: £0 11s 10d Suet, 71: £0 14s 0d Sugar candy, 21: £1 13s 0d The manuscript is unclear at one final entry of two units in the table account, both the description and the value being illegible.

Total for the table account: £30 10s 3d

Running total carried over to the next page: £278 1s 8½d

Interpretations

The full account produced under the new monthly schedule sets out the storekeeper's business in two clear streams. The first lists sales to the island, totalling £247 11s 5½d, and the second lists supplies to the general table, totalling £30 10s 3d. The combined running total of £278 1s 8½d is the figure to be carried over to the next page of the consultation book. By separating the two streams within the same return, the storekeeper has implemented the council's order of 12 Jul 1709 in operational form: the inhabitants' purchases and the garrison's consumption appear on the same paper, under the same heads, but in distinguishable columns. The structure shows the council's reporting reform delivering exactly what was specified.

The composition of the sales side reflects the dominance of a small number of high-value lines within a long list of small items. Batavia arrack at £54 12s 0d, woollen goods at £25 18s, Goa arrack at £26 2s, sugar at £18 19s and the unclear "Booz" line at £12 14s 9d together account for well over half of the month's sales. The remainder is spread across more than 20 smaller heads, many of them under £1 in value. The shape of the return shows the stores functioning as a general country trader for the island, with imported liquor and cloth carrying most of the revenue, and the long tail of ironmongers' ware, brass, pewter, hosiery and stationery filling out the rest. The Batavia and Goa arrack figures together account for £80 14s, almost a third of the sales, which reflects the working out of the 22 Mar 1709 and 28 Jun 1709 pricing orders on the two stocks of spirits.

The general table account shows the cost structure of the council's own establishment in the same month. Salt and soap together account for £22 4s, which is more than two thirds of the table total of £30 10s 3d. The remaining lines are uniformly small, with most items under £1. The size of the salt and soap entries suggests the laying in of stores for an extended period rather than month-by-month consumption, which would be consistent with the council's general practice of preparing for shipping seasons. The figure of £30 10s 3d also stands in clear proportion to the £24 3s 3d weekly cost of the lower table for 28 people recorded at the consultation of 27 Apr 1709: a single week of the lower table cost almost as much as a full month of the general table, which marks the difference in scale between the institution being supplied here and the soldiers' table that the council had restructured in April.

The presence of two distinct grades of arrack in the sales column, Batavia at 6s per gallon and Goa at 4s 6d, confirms the pricing policy of 28 Jun 1709. The 182 gallons of Batavia and the volume of Goa arrack moved out at 4s 6d are entered as separate lines, which makes the half-and-half rule visible in the monthly accounts. The total of £80 14s for the two grades together suggests that the rule was working in practice: customers were taking both stocks, and the lower-priced Goa was not languishing in the stores. The structure of the entries shows the council's pricing intervention recorded in operational terms within a fortnight of its introduction.

Speculations

The size of the soap entry in the general table account, at £8 12s 0d for the month, looks like a deliberate purchase against the Godolphin's requirements rather than an ordinary month's consumption. The Godolphin had arrived on 31 Jul 1709 with sick men aboard and had asked on 2 Aug for fresh provisions and necessaries; soap is among the items most usually drawn from the stores for a ship's company in those circumstances. The probability is that the storekeeper had begun preparing for the ship's needs in the closing days of July, with the soap drawn from the general table account because the council's table maintained a working stock of such items. The presence of the figure at this level in this particular month suggests the seamlessness of the new monthly cycle with the operational demands of the harbour.

The unclear quantity for suet at 1,138, set against a price of £9 9s 8d, suggests a misreading either of the figure or of the unit in the manuscript. At the small per-pound rate that would result, the number is implausibly large for a month's sales on an island of this size. The probability is that the underlying figure is much smaller, perhaps a doubled or trebled number that the manuscript renders unclearly, or that the entry concerns a portion of a single bulk delivery rather than individual pound transactions. The discrepancy is worth flagging in the storekeeper's accounts going forward, since the running total depends on the legibility of these subordinate counts.

The decision to send a return to the consultation book in such detail, with every species and subdivision shown separately, suggests that the storekeeper was preparing his accounts in a form that would survive in the proprietors' archive. The detail allows the proprietors to read the structure of demand on the island, the relative weight of each line in revenue, and the working of the two-arrack pricing rule. The form of the document points to an awareness in the storekeeper's office that the monthly return was now serving a wider audience than the local council. The probability is that the level of itemisation reflects a deliberate alignment of the local stores' record-keeping with the form of accounts that the masters in London were expected to use.

266

258

£- s- d £-s- d

B[r]o[ught] over 278-1- 8[½]

Fortifications viz[t]

[N]ayles - 1- 15- 10

Haberda[s]hery Ware - - 2- 6

Iron Mongars Ware - 3- 19- -

[Sho]es 21 [p]o[r] B[l]a[c]ks - 4- 10- -

Iron [P]ott one of 98 - 2- 7- -

Iron Barrs 10 [...]on Bundle - 6- 8- 6

Steel German - 1- 15- -

[N]avall & Garri[s]on [s]toors - - 6- 1[½]

Arrack [B]atavia 9 Gall[on] - 2- 14- -

Sugar - - 12- 8

Beef English - 10-18-10

31- 9- 2[½]

Garrison viz[t]

Haberda[s]hery Ware - - 1- 9

Iron Mongars Ware - - 18-8

Iron Sole oare - 1- 1- 6

Navall & Garri[s]on [F]or[c]e[?] - - 6- 1[½]

2- 8- 4[½]

[P]lantation viz[t]

[N]ayles - - 1- 11[½]

Iron Mongars Ware - - 9- 11

[S]tat[i]onary Ware - - 2- 6

Flour - - 2- 6

Salt - - 6- -

Rice 54 - - 9- -

[Lin]nen Goods of y[e] Hoo[s]h[?] - - 8- 6

Tin Ward - - 1- 1[?]

2- 1- 9

Sume Totall £ 313-19-8[¾]

[P]ersuant to an order of Councill bearing date y[e] 26 of July Last [P]ast M[r] Daniell

Griffith and M[r] Alexander brought an Acc[t] of their [P]rogress in the abstract of Laws

Orders & I[n]stru[c]tions [...]ny from the Hono[ble] Company [Co]mm[e]ncing from King Carles

the Second Charter dated the 5 of Aprill in the 13 year of his Reigne to y[e] 26 of

Novemb[r] 1684 in the In[s]tru[c]tion Books

This was never desired to be Entred in

Whereas the Stopen Time drawing nigh for y[e] mending and Repaireing the High

way as usuall

This consultation Book ordered, its not [p]roper

That a warrant be Drawn out and Delivered to y[e] Surveyors for this [P]resent

year as followeth

The storekeeper's account continued from the previous page, with the further heads of expenditure and the totals as follows.

Brought over from the previous page: £278 1s 8½d

Goods delivered for the fortifications from 25 Jun 1709 to 25 Jul 1709:

Nails: £1 15s 10d Haberdashery ware: £0 2s 6d Ironmongers' ware: £3 19s 0d Shoes, 21 pairs for blacks: £4 10s 0d Iron pot, one of 98 pounds: £2 7s 0d Iron bars, 10 in a bundle: £6 8s 6d German steel: £1 15s 0d Naval and garrison stores: £0 6s 1½d Batavia arrack, 9 gallons: £2 14s 0d Sugar: £0 12s 8d English beef: £10 18s 10d

Total for the fortifications: £31 9s 2½d

Goods delivered for the garrison from 25 Jun 1709 to 25 Jul 1709:

Haberdashery ware: £0 1s 9d Ironmongers' ware: £0 18s 8d Iron sole ore: £1 1s 6d The manuscript is unclear at the next line, which appears to read "naval and garrison force" or similar: £0 6s 1½d

Total for the garrison: £2 8s 4½d

Goods delivered for the Plantation from 25 Jun 1709 to 25 Jul 1709:

Nails: £0 1s 11½d Ironmongers' ware: £0 9s 11d Stationery ware: £0 2s 6d Flour: £0 2s 6d Salt: £0 6s 0d Rice, 54: £0 9s 0d The manuscript is unclear at the next line, which appears to read "linen goods of the house" or similar: £0 8s 6d Tin ware: £0 1s 1d, the pence figure unclear in the manuscript

Total for the Plantation: £2 1s 9d

Sum total of all heads for the month: £313 19s 8¾d

The Plantation total of £2 1s 9d as stated in the manuscript does not match the sum of its component lines, which fall short. The manuscript appears to be unclear at the pence column of more than one entry, and the discrepancy is therefore left as it stands in the original.

The council then turned to the work of Mr Daniel Griffith and Mr Alexander. In accordance with the order of 26 Jul 1709, the two had brought in an account of their progress in the abstract of laws, orders and instructions received from the Honourable Company. They had begun with the charter granted by King Charles II, dated 5 Apr in the 13th year of his reign, and had brought their work down to the entries of 26 Nov 1684 in the instruction books. A marginal note on the consultation book recorded that the present return had not been intended for entry in this book.

The council then took up the approach of the season for repairing the highways, as was customary at that time of year. A second marginal note recorded that this matter, too, had not been intended for entry in the consultation book.

The council ordered that a warrant be drawn out and delivered to the surveyors for the present year, in the form that followed.

The text breaks off at the point at which the form of the warrant was to begin.

Interpretations

The full sum total of £313 19s 8¾d, reached by adding the four streams of the storekeeper's return, completes the first monthly account produced under the reform of 12 Jul 1709 in its final aggregated form. The streams divide as follows: the sales to the inhabitants at £247 11s 5½d, the general table at £30 10s 3d, the fortifications at £31 9s 2½d, the garrison at £2 8s 4½d, and the Plantation at £2 1s 9d. The structure shows the council reviewing in one document the entire flow of stores out of its stocks in a single month, allocated by destination. The largest single allocation outside private sales is to the fortifications, at over £31, which reflects the continuing weight of the building programme on the Company's accounts even after the suspension of slave labour at the fortifications on 9 Jul 1709.

The line for 21 pairs of shoes for blacks at £4 10s, charged to the fortifications, gives an unusually direct view of the slave workforce supported by the Company on its building programme. The other fortification lines, English beef at £10 18s 10d, German steel at £1 15s, 9 gallons of Batavia arrack at £2 14s and iron bars at £6 8s 6d, supply the same workforce and its operations. The fortification account is therefore both a materials account and a labour account, with footwear, food and spirits for the blacks set alongside the iron and steel for the works. The recoverable detail allows the proprietors to read the cost structure of the fortification programme in some depth.

The marginal notes on Griffith and Alexander's progress report, and on the highway warrant, that neither had been intended for entry in the consultation book, show the working distinction between the council's deliberative record and its operational papers. The progress report belonged to the abstract project itself rather than to the council's minute, and the highway warrant belonged in the surveyors' file. The decision to record both within this consultation, with notes flagging the misallocation, indicates that the clerk was aware of the distinction even while writing the entry. The notes preserve the procedural integrity of the council book by marking the inserted material as out of place, and provide a working record of how the council handled documents that crossed the boundary between deliberation and execution.

The chronological coverage achieved by Griffith and Alexander, from the charter of 5 Apr 1672 down to the Shrewsbury letter of 26 Nov 1684, places the abstract project at a productive stage by the end of July 1709. The 1684 letter has been the source of two operational decisions in recent weeks, the Johnson title inquiry from the 12th paragraph and the sugar trial at Sandy Bay from the 17th paragraph. The progress report shows that the compilers have now reached this critical letter on the index, which means that earlier references retrieved from it have been working against an incomplete document set. The next stages of the abstract, into the gappy 1689 to 1698 period, will test the value of the recovered materials from Mrs Carne's house in supplying continuity to the record.

Speculations

The clean sum total of £313 19s 8¾d in the storekeeper's account, achieved across four streams and many small entries, suggests that the storekeeper had set himself to produce a return that would balance to the penny on the face of the consultation book. The slight internal discrepancies that survive in the recoverable figures, particularly in the unclear pence columns and the Plantation sub-total, indicate that the working accounts behind the entry were carefully checked, but that the transcription into the council book has lost some of the precision of the original. The probability is that the storekeeper kept his own separate ledger to a higher standard than appears in the consultation book copy, and that the figures recoverable from this transcript should not be relied on for arithmetic verification of the underlying records.

The decision to enter Griffith and Alexander's progress report in the consultation book, despite the marginal note saying it was not proper there, suggests that the council wished the proprietors to see the pace of the abstract work as well as its substance. By placing the report in the same volume that would be copied home in the next dispatch, the council ensured that the proprietors would see exactly how far the compilation had advanced. The marginal note disclaims the placement but preserves the substantive recording, which gives the proprietors the information without committing the council to the procedural irregularity. The arrangement reads as a practical compromise between the working clerk's sense of order and the council's interest in keeping London informed.

The pairing of the storekeeper's first full monthly return with the surveyors' annual highway warrant in the same consultation marks the contrast between two different reporting cycles. The storekeeper now operates on a monthly schedule from the 25th of each month, keyed to the proprietors' year-end of 25 March. The surveyors operate on an annual cycle, with the warrant drawn at the same season each year. The presence of both in this entry shows the council coordinating its administrative work across different periodicities within a single consultation, and converting the routine seasonal task of highway maintenance into a documented warrant of authority for the year. The probability is that the next consultation will record the form of the warrant itself, since the present text breaks off at the point at which the warrant was to begin.

267

259

Island St Helena

You Robert Marsh and Walter Morris free [P]lanters are Nomina-

ted and appointed o[v]erseers of the high ways for this [P]resent year 1709, which

office you are hereby required [P]arefully[?] and Dilegently to Execute and that you

may the better and more Im[P]artially [P]erforme hereunto is a List Annexed of

all the Names of all those white men Inhabitants Except [s]uches are in the Hono[ble]

United Companys Service and of Negroes and Blackmen That any [P]erson hath, Except

the Said Honbu[r]eable United Compa[n]ys

The[s]e are therefore in her Majes[ty] Name to will and require You Robert Marsh and

Walter Morris to cause all [P]ersons both whites and Blacks To work one day and no

more in the makeing mending & repaireing all Such high ways as are [N]ed[ed]full and

Nec[e]sary to be done, as to Bridges &[c] As all and Every the white Inhabi-

tants too aforesaid and their men Blacks do work at y[e] Said High ways, one

Day and no more this [p]resent year[s]

And if any [P]erson or [P]ersons a[fter] due warneing by you or Either of you Shall absent

him[s]elf could doth not Come or [s]end his Black or Blacks on the days and Times by you

appointed then and there to Labour as afor[esa]id Then you are to [P]ut in Bond Other

Man or men (Black or Blacks) in the absent [P]ersons roome to work one day

afor[e]said which [P]erson So put in you are to [P]ay According to the Said Hono[ble]

United Co[m]p[any]s orders viz[t] 18 [p] a white mans days work, and 18 also for a Black

man[s] days work

And Such [P]erson or [P]ersons So abf[en]ting Refu[s]eing or Not [s]ending as afores[ai]d

are forthwith To [p]ay you which if they D[e]ny[se] to do You are hereby Impow[er]ed

to Take and Distress any Goods from [s]uch [P]erson or [P]ersons and Sell the Same at

a [P]ubl[i]que Out cry Delivering the overplus (if any) to the owner after you are r[e]paid

[r]easonable Expences Deducted

For which this Shall be your Sufficient Warrant

Given under our hand[s] and the Hono[ble] United

Companys [s]ealc this 30 day of August 1709

To Robert Marsh and

Walter Morris [s]urvey[ors]

The[s]e

A List of all [P]ersons both Whites and Blacks That are to work at the Said

High ways one day and no more this [P]resent year 1709

[P]ersons Names White Blacks

Thom[s] Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Gov[r] & man Serv[t] 1 3

Edw[d] Mashborne 3 in Councill 1 -

Will[m] Marsden 4[th] in Councill 1 2

Dan[l] Griffith 5[th] in Councill 1 4

John Alexander Enigne 1 1

Thomas Cason ditto 1 2

M[att]hew Bazett 1 -

Thom[s] Perkins 1 -

James Vesey 1 -

W[m] Hague dec[ease]d 1 -

Thom[s] Ellis free [p]lant[er] 1 1

Robert Addis 1 1

Rich[d] Alexander 1 3

Carried over 4 26

[P]ersons Names White Blacks

Brought over 4 26

Thom[s] Ellis Jun[r] 1 -

Orl[an]do Bagley & a[p]prentice 2 1

Hugh Bodley [Sen]r 1 -

Walter Belb[a]rd 1 1

Jn[o]: Bagley & ap[p]rentice 2 1

Will[m] Beale 1 1

Robert Bell 1 2

Thom[s] Burnham 1 1

Arthur Bradley 1 -

Thomas Bagley 1 1

Henry Coates 1 3

John Coles 1 1

Carried over 18 38

Understood. Here is the corrected full text of this submission.

Island of St Helena

The council's warrant to the surveyors of the highways for the year 1709 ran as follows.

Robert Marsh and Walter Morris, free planters, were nominated and appointed surveyors of the highways for the present year 1709. They were required to execute the office carefully and diligently. To enable them to perform the work the more fairly and impartially, a list was annexed of all the white men inhabitants, except those in the Honourable United Company's service, and of the negroes and black men held by each, except those belonging to the Company itself.

By the warrant, in Her Majesty's name, the surveyors were directed to require Marsh and Morris to cause every person, both white and black, to work one day, and no more, in the making, mending and repairing of all the highways, bridges and other such works as were needful and necessary, during the present year.

If any person, after due warning from either of the surveyors, absented himself, or failed to send his slave or slaves on the day appointed for the work, the surveyors were to put another man or slaves in the absent person's place to perform the day's labour. The substitute was to be paid by the surveyors at the rate set by the Honourable United Company's orders, namely 1s 6d per day for a white man's work, and 1s 6d per day for a black man's work.

Anyone who absented himself, refused to come or failed to send his slaves, was bound to repay the surveyors. If he refused to pay, the surveyors were authorised to take and distrain goods from him, and to sell those goods at a public outcry. After deducting their reasonable expenses, they were to deliver any overplus to the owner.

The warrant served as their sufficient authority. It was given under the council's hands and the seal of the Honourable United Company, on 30 Aug 1709, to Robert Marsh and Walter Morris, surveyors.

A list followed of all persons, white and black, required to work at the highways for one day, and no more, in the year 1709.

Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor, and a man servant: 1 white, 3 blacks Edward Mashborne, third in council: 1 white, 0 blacks William Marsden, fourth in council: 1 white, 2 blacks Daniel Griffith, fifth in council: 1 white, 4 blacks John Alexander, Ensign: 1 white, 1 black Thomas Cason, Ensign: 1 white, 2 blacks Matthew Bazett: 1 white, 0 blacks Thomas Perkins: 1 white, 0 blacks James Vesey: 1 white, 0 blacks William Hague, deceased: 1 white, 0 blacks Thomas Ellis, free planter: 1 white, 1 black Robert Addis: 1 white, 1 black Richard Alexander: 1 white, 3 blacks

Carried forward: 4 whites and 26 blacks. The carried-over figure for whites of 4 does not match the running count of the line entries above; the manuscript appears to be unclear at this carried total for whites.

Brought over: 4 whites and 26 blacks Thomas Ellis junior: 1 white, 0 blacks Orlando Bagley and apprentice: 2 whites, 1 black Hugh Bodley senior: 1 white, 0 blacks Walter Belvard: 1 white, 1 black John Bagley and apprentice: 2 whites, 1 black William Beale: 1 white, 1 black Robert Bell: 1 white, 2 blacks Thomas Burnham: 1 white, 1 black Arthur Bradley: 1 white, 0 blacks Thomas Bagley: 1 white, 1 black Henry Coates: 1 white, 3 blacks John Coles: 1 white, 1 black

Carried forward: 18 whites and 38 blacks.

Interpretations

The form of the warrant shows the council preserving the legal structure of the highway levy from earlier years, while updating it to the current administrative framework. The warrant runs in Her Majesty's name and under the Honourable United Company's seal, identifying the Crown as the source of the obligation to repair the highways and the Company as the local body of administration. The recovery of 18 pence per day for substitution, applied uniformly to white and black labour, is presented as the established rate under the Company's own orders. The procedural authority to distrain and sell goods at a public outcry, with the overplus to be returned to the owner after expenses, completes a standard distress procedure transplanted into the local highways law. The warrant therefore reads as a working instrument that the council can issue every year on the same terms, varying only the names and counts in the annexed list.

The uniform charge of one day, and no more, on every inhabitant and every slave produces a levy that is calibrated to a single afternoon's collective work rather than to a continuing labour obligation. By limiting the duty to a single day per head, the council avoided creating an indefinite call on private labour while still securing a measurable annual contribution to the public road network. The arithmetic of the levy is straightforward: the total person-days available is the sum of the whites and the blacks on the list, and the surveyors have a year in which to apply that labour to the highways at need. The structure shows the council balancing a need for public works against the protection of private operations, and using a fixed annual share of labour as the unit of contribution.

The treatment of the substitution rule is significant in itself. The surveyors are not authorised to fine an absentee; they are authorised to procure substitute labour and then to recover the cost from the defaulter. The mechanism keeps the focus of the system on the actual completion of the work, with the financial penalty serving as a recovery of substitution costs rather than as a deterrent fine. The same procedure applies uniformly to white and black absences, and the rate of 18 pence per day matches the rate paid to substitute labourers under the planting and slave-hire orders earlier in the year. The structure shows the council coordinating its labour pricing across multiple regulatory contexts, with the same daily rate serving in the highway, planting and fortification schemes.

The list of obligated persons begins with the Deputy Governor and proceeds through the council, the ensigns and the principal free planters in alphabetical order by surname. The opening entries show the council placing itself at the head of its own levy, with Thomas Goodwin entered for 1 white and 3 blacks, and the third, fourth and fifth members of the council each entered for at least one white and varying numbers of blacks. The council's own slaves and servants are returned on the same basis as the inhabitants' slaves, which signals that the leadership is bound by the levy as a matter of equal duty. The structure of the list reinforces the council's framing of the highway work as a shared obligation rather than as a tax imposed on those outside the administration. The procedural choice to begin the list with the council itself fits the pattern seen earlier in the year on the planting and fencing laws, where the council had completed its own gum wood and lemon plantings before pressing the inhabitants to plant on their land.

Speculations

The arrangement of the labour rate at 18 pence per day for both whites and blacks looks like a deliberate equalisation of the levy's monetary terms across the two groups. The wages actually paid to slaves at the fortifications under the consultation of 12 Oct 1708, recently reduced from 2s 0d to 1s 6d per day, are reflected in the same per-day figure for substitution under the highway scheme. The uniform rate keeps the highway system in line with the labour market that the council itself has been setting through its other orders, and avoids any administrative complication that would arise from a differential rate. The probability is that the rate of 18 pence is a structural reference point in the council's labour pricing for 1709, against which other day-rate decisions can be calibrated.

The entry for William Hague as deceased, but still listed on the levy, suggests that the surveyors' annual list has been carried forward from a prior year's roll rather than constructed afresh from the latest population return. The continuing entry for a deceased man would otherwise serve no purpose, since his estate could not be required to send a labourer to the highways. The probability is that the levy list reflects a settled administrative roll that the council updates incrementally rather than rebuilds each year, and that the inclusion of Hague reflects the persistence of an old entry pending settlement of his estate. The detail is worth noting as a small marker of the underlying administrative practice in producing the list.

The carry-over figure for whites at 4, set against a manual count of 13 line entries each apparently contributing 1, suggests either a manuscript transcription error or a working concept of "whites" different from the line count. The probability is that the carried total reflects something other than the simple sum of individuals named, perhaps a count of male heads of household excluding ensigns and council members already returned in another capacity, or a count adjusted for known absences. The discrepancy is worth flagging because the carry-over figures function as the working ledger of the surveyors' obligations through the year, and any uncertainty in those totals affects the operation of the substitution system that the warrant establishes.

268

260

[P]ersons Names White Blacks

Brought over 18 38

Gilbert Cotgrave 1 -

William Coales 1 -

George Carne white Servant 1 6

John Coulson 1 1

Rich[d] Cleave & a[p]prentice 2 -

Grace Coulson - 2

Mary Conaway - 1

Cotgraves orphans - 1

John C[a]vering - 1

John Crosbey 1 -

James Draper 1 3

Sarah Dwight - 1

Ruth De Fountaine - 3

Humphrey Edwards 1 -

Mary Easthope Son James 1 1

Henry Francis 1 3

Frenchies Children - 1

Ruth Gurling 1 4

James Greentree & a[p]prent[ice] 2 5

Thomas Gargen 1 1

Robert Gurling 1 1

Robert Goodwin - 2

Thomas Harper 1 -

Leon[ar]d Hunt 1 1

William Hayse 1 -

Jona[than] Higham 1 1

George Hoskison - 6

Sutton Isaack [Sen]r 1 -

Sutton Isaack Jun[r] 1 1

Joshua Johnson 1 2

M[rs] Eliz[abe]th Johnson - 3

Mary Jewster - 1

John Knipe 1 -

Robert Leech 1 1

Francis Leech 1 -

James Leech 1 -

Steph[en] Lufkin 1 1

Will[m] Marsh & Son John 2 2

Edward Marsh 1 -

Robert Marsh & J[n]o Long 2 1

Walter Morris 1 1

Jane Mudge - 2

Eliz[abe]th Mudge - 1

Maxwells orphans - 2

Jn[o] Nichols [Sen]r & Son Edmond 2 1

Hance George Newman 1 -

John Orchard 1 -

Gab[ie]l Powill 1 1

Carr[ied] over 57 103

[P]ersons Names White Blacks

Brought over 57 103

M[r]s Sarah [P]oirier - 1

John Robinson 1 2

Tho[s]: Swallow Sen[r] & Son Rich[d] 2 2

Rich[d] Swallow [Sen]r 1 2

Thomas Swallow Jun[r] 1 -

Robert Swallow 1 -

William [s]laughter 1 1

William Seale 1 0

Charles Steward 1 3

Marg[t] Sich & Son Benj[ami]n 1 4

Elizabeth Sand[er]son - 2

Joseph Trapp 1 -

John Twaites 1 3

Ripin Wells & Son 2 3

Francis Wrangham 1 1

Simon Whaley 1 -

Wranghams orphans - 2

Totall 73 129

A true List According to the yearly

Acco[unt]s rec[eive]d [by] me

Jn[o]: Alexander

Brought over: 57 whites and 103 blacks

Mrs Sarah Poirier: 0 whites, 1 black John Robinson: 1 white, 2 blacks Thomas Swallow senior and son Richard: 2 whites, 2 blacks Richard Swallow senior: 1 white, 2 blacks Thomas Swallow junior: 1 white, 0 blacks Robert Swallow: 1 white, 0 blacks William Slaughter: 1 white, 1 black William Seale: 1 white, 0 blacks Charles Steward: 1 white, 3 blacks Margaret Sich and son Benjamin: 1 white, 4 blacks. The manuscript shows 1 white for an entry naming two persons; the figure as recorded reflects the count taken by the clerk and is reproduced as such. Elizabeth Sanderson: 0 whites, 2 blacks Joseph Trapp: 1 white, 0 blacks John Twaites: 1 white, 3 blacks Ripin Wells and son: 2 whites, 3 blacks Francis Wrangham: 1 white, 1 black Simon Whaley: 1 white, 0 blacks Wrangham's orphans: 0 whites, 2 blacks

Total: 73 whites and 129 blacks

The list is certified as a true return according to the yearly accounts received by John Alexander.

Continuing the earlier portion of the list, the entries brought to 57 whites and 103 blacks ran as follows.

Gilbert Cotgrave: 1 white, 0 blacks William Coales: 1 white, 0 blacks George Carne, with a white servant: 1 white, 6 blacks. The manuscript records the count for whites as 1, although the entry names two persons; the figure is reproduced as it appears. John Coulson: 1 white, 1 black Richard Cleave and apprentice: 2 whites, 0 blacks Grace Coulson: 0 whites, 2 blacks Mary Conaway: 0 whites, 1 black Cotgrave's orphans: 0 whites, 1 black John Clavering: 0 whites, 1 black John Crosbey: 1 white, 0 blacks James Draper: 1 white, 3 blacks Sarah Dwight: 0 whites, 1 black Ruth De Fountaine: 0 whites, 3 blacks Humphrey Edwards: 1 white, 0 blacks Mary Easthope and son James: 1 white, 1 black Henry Francis: 1 white, 3 blacks Frenchies' children: 0 whites, 1 black Ruth Gurling: 1 white, 4 blacks James Greentree and apprentice: 2 whites, 5 blacks Thomas Gargen: 1 white, 1 black Robert Gurling: 1 white, 1 black Robert Goodwin: 0 whites, 2 blacks Thomas Harper: 1 white, 0 blacks Leonard Hunt: 1 white, 1 black William Hayse: 1 white, 0 blacks Jonathan Higham: 1 white, 1 black George Hoskison: 0 whites, 6 blacks Sutton Isaack senior: 1 white, 0 blacks Sutton Isaack junior: 1 white, 1 black Joshua Johnson: 1 white, 2 blacks Mrs Elizabeth Johnson: 0 whites, 3 blacks Mary Jewster: 0 whites, 1 black John Knipe: 1 white, 0 blacks Robert Leech: 1 white, 1 black Francis Leech: 1 white, 0 blacks James Leech: 1 white, 0 blacks Stephen Lufkin: 1 white, 1 black William Marsh and son John: 2 whites, 2 blacks Edward Marsh: 1 white, 0 blacks Robert Marsh and John Long: 2 whites, 1 black Walter Morris: 1 white, 1 black Jane Mudge: 0 whites, 2 blacks Elizabeth Mudge: 0 whites, 1 black Maxwell's orphans: 0 whites, 2 blacks John Nichols senior and son Edmond: 2 whites, 1 black Hance George Newman: 1 white, 0 blacks John Orchard: 1 white, 0 blacks Gabriel Powell: 1 white, 1 black

Interpretations

The completed list, with its totals of 73 whites and 129 blacks, supplies the first systematic count of the obligated population of the island for 1709 to appear in the consultation books of this sequence. The ratio of nearly one and three quarters slaves to every white, taken across the listed households, marks the demographic shape of the island's settled population outside the Company's own holdings. The list represents only the inhabitants subject to the highway levy and excludes those in the Company's service and the Company's own slaves, so the wider total population on the island will have been larger. Even so, the figures recoverable from the warrant give a defined denominator against which the council's various levies, the planting levy of 25 May 1708, the slave tax under grievance 16, and the cattle commonage scheme of 17 May 1709, can be measured.

The structure of the entries reveals the working units of obligation as the council understood them. Households are returned by named head, sometimes with a son, an apprentice or a servant added; widows and orphans appear as separate entries; and partnerships such as Robert Marsh and John Long are returned as a single unit. The presence of women's names as heads of obligated entries, including Mrs Sarah Poirier, Mrs Elizabeth Johnson, Ruth Gurling, Ruth De Fountaine and Margaret Sich, shows that widowhood did not remove a holding from the levy: the slave count, rather than the gender of the head, determined the contribution. The structure of the list shows the council operating on the unit of the household rather than on the unit of the adult male, which has implications for how the wider levies it has been imposing should be read.

The certification by John Alexander, that the list represents a true return according to the yearly accounts received by him, anchors the document in the standing revenue settlement opened by the advertisement of 23 Feb 1709. Under that advertisement, all inhabitants had been required to return their property and family between 7 and 14 Mar 1709, with the returns delivered under their own hands. The highway list of 30 Aug 1709 is therefore traceable, by Alexander's certification, to the formal returns made by the inhabitants themselves in March, with the slave counts apparently transferred from those returns into the present roll. The continuity between the two operations shows the annual returns now functioning as the working data source for the year's administrative actions.

The distribution of slave-holding across the list is uneven and instructive. Several households return no slaves at all (Cotgrave, Coales, Crosbey, Edwards, Harper, Hayse, Sutton Isaack senior, the Leeches other than Robert, Knipe, Edward Marsh, Hance George Newman, Orchard, Thomas Swallow junior, Robert Swallow, William Seale, Joseph Trapp, Simon Whaley), while a small number hold six or more (George Carne, George Hoskison). The list therefore documents a gradient from landed but slaveless inhabitants, through small slaveholders of one or two, to a handful of larger holdings of three to six. The size of the largest holdings on the list is modest by the standards of the other Company stations, which confirms St Helena's character as an island of smallholders rather than of plantation slavery, even within the framework of slave-holding common to the early eighteenth century empire.

Speculations

The appearance of George Carne in the list with one white and six blacks, and with a separately noted white servant, signals the household that the council had just opened to inspection on 26 Jul 1709 when it ordered Marsden to remove the books and papers held by Mrs Carne. The placement of the family in the slave register, with one of the larger holdings on the list, suggests that the Carne household was a substantial unit in its own right, holding more slaves than any of the named council members. The probability is that the council's interest in the household's papers extended beyond a documentary recovery into a working awareness of the family's continuing presence in the island's economy and the consequent need to manage its position carefully.

The list contains the names of several free planters who have appeared in earlier consultations under contentious heads. George Hoskison, who returns the largest slave-holding on the list at six blacks, is the same person whose life and behaviour the council had excepted from the general burying-in-oblivion clause in the abstract project of 19 Jul 1709. The probability is that the size of Hoskison's slave-holding, and the labour and reputational issues that go with it, supply at least part of the reason for the council's continuing interest in his conduct. The list thus serves not only as the basis of the highway levy but also as a working roll against which the council's selective concerns can be read.

The very modest figures returned by some of the principal council members on the highway list, with Edward Mashborne entered for one white and no blacks, and Matthew Bazett and Thomas Perkins each returned for one white and no blacks, suggests that the personal slave-holdings of senior administrators on the island were not necessarily large. The relatively limited returns of these figures, when set against the substantial holdings of George Carne, George Hoskison and James Greentree, indicate that political authority on the island was not closely correlated with slave-holding wealth. The probability is that the council's senior membership rested on a combination of Company office, military rank, mercantile activity and recognised standing rather than on the scale of personal slave-holdings; and that the planters who held the larger slave numbers exercised influence through the consultative architecture, particularly through the twelve, rather than through the council itself.

269

261

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday the

6 day of September 1709 At the United Castle in James

Valley

Jn[o]: Roberts Esq[r] Gov[r]

Thom[s]: Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Gov[r]

Pres[en]t Ed[w]: Mashborne 3 in [Coun]d

Will[m]: Marsden 4 in Coun[d]

Dan[l]: Griffith 5 in Coun[d]

Ruth De[s]fountaine made Complaint That we had Built a Tile House

in the Great wood on Some Land belonging to her, James Draper Simon Whaley

(her brothers in Law) and Examining into the Title of that Land we don't finde

any at all But brought a Title to Ten Acres Lying in the hangings of y[e] Hills

below the great wood, and for which Govern[r] [P]oirier they Say at the request

of Samuell Desfountaine d[e]c[ease]d Let 'em have in Leiu of that Land 3¾ Acres a Long

[s]lip of Land to Run into the said Great wood, And a Squar[e] [P]eice in the Midest of

it Containing 6¼ Acres, which Captaine Goodwin Understand-

ing when he was Governo[r] forbid them from Cutting any

of the Trees there or Doing any more Damage, and Examining

further Into this matter found that M[r] Bafett had a Warrant

from Governour [P]oirier for the Measureing of [s]aid Land

which she did According[ly] a [P]lan whereof is in the Marg[en]t

N

And Since the Land that was Exchanged was never of any

use to the Company or ever will be and for any of the Inha-

bitants to have Land in the great wood is De[s]tructive and

Ruinous to it in the Highest Degree Wherefore

Ordered

That they take their owne Land againe According to the first

Treasure for the Intent of that Exchange was because they have

Cutt the wood off their owne Land, and would also Cutt more in the

W S E great wood

The Governour Says that the burning of Lime in Sandy Bay Valley Destroys the wood

apace, and that we have not as yet, above a Thousand, or Twelve Hundred Bushells

of Lime burnt, and that to build the Castle on Munde[n]s [P]oint, he beleives will

take up, Eight or Ten Thousand Bushells and before we Shall come to that Quantity

most or all the dead wood will be burnt up, and having [P]lanted the Claime Mentioned

In the Co[n]sultation Held the 26 July Last with Sugar Canes which [P]ro[d]uctra-

[c]ondinary will, for Cap[t] Mashborne was there yesterday and Say So[m]e are above a

foot high and there is in that Valley a great Deale of Ground fit for [P]lanting

of [s]ugar Canes, and dead wood will be very u[s]efull and Serv[i]cable for y[e] makeing

[s]ug[ar] and Rum

After due consideration of this Matter

We think it for our Masters Intrest to Lay a[s]ide the thoughts of building

Munde[n]s Point Castle till we have Coales from England, and not destroy the[e]

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 6 Sep 1709 at the United Castle in James Valley.

Present: John Roberts, Esquire, Governor Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor Edward Mashborne, third in council William Marsden, fourth in council Daniel Griffith, fifth in council

Ruth Desfountaine made a complaint to the council that a tile house had been built in the Great Wood on land belonging to her, to James Draper and to Simon Whaley, her brothers-in-law. On examining the title to the land, the council could find no title at all. The complainants produced a title to ten acres lying in the hangings of the hills below the Great Wood. They added that Governor Poirier, at the request of Samuel Desfountaine, since deceased, had allowed them to have, in lieu of that land, 3¾ acres in the form of a long slip running into the Great Wood and a square piece in the midst of the wood containing 6¼ acres. Captain Goodwin, learning of this arrangement when he was Governor, had forbidden them from cutting any of the trees or doing further damage.

On further inquiry, the council found that Mr Bazett had held a warrant from Governor Poirier for the measuring of this land, which he had carried out accordingly. A plan of the parcels was set out in the margin of the consultation book, indicating the layout of the long slip and the square piece, with the points of the compass marked.

The land originally exchanged had never been of any use to the Company and never would be. For any inhabitants to hold land in the Great Wood was destructive and ruinous to the wood in the highest degree.

The council ordered that Desfountaine, Draper and Whaley take their own land again, according to the original measure. The intent of the earlier exchange had been to evade the requirement to plant on their own land, since they had cut the wood off it and wished also to cut more in the Great Wood.

The Governor reported that the burning of lime in Sandy Bay Valley was destroying the wood at a great rate. The council had so far burnt only 1,000 or 1,200 bushels of lime. To build the castle on Munden's Point, the Governor estimated, would require 8,000 or 10,000 bushels. Before that quantity could be reached, most or all of the dead wood would be burnt up.

The Governor reported further that the piece of ground at Sandy Bay Valley, mentioned in the consultation of 26 Jul 1709, had been planted with sugar canes which were producing extraordinarily well. Captain Mashborne had been there the previous day and reported that some of the canes were over a foot high. The Sandy Bay Valley held a great deal of ground fit for the planting of sugar canes. The dead wood would be very useful and serviceable in the making of sugar and rum.

After due consideration the council concluded that it was in the masters' interest to lay aside the thoughts of building Munden's Point Castle until coals could be brought from England, and not to destroy -

Interpretations

The Desfountaine complaint provides a working example of the title problems that the council had identified in the wider terms set out at the consultation of 19 Jul 1709. The complainants held a clear title to ten acres in the hangings of the hills, but the land actually in dispute was a separate parcel inside the Great Wood, taken in lieu of the ten acres at the direction of Governor Poirier. The exchange had been measured by Bazett under a warrant from Poirier and recorded in a plan that the consultation book now reproduces in the margin. The council's order, that the three complainants take their original ten acres back according to the first measure, returns the parties to the position before the exchange. The procedure shows the council using its retained discretion over titles to undo a previous Governor's grant, on the ground that the exchange itself was contrary to the Company's interest. The retrieval of the Bazett plan and its inclusion in the margin of the present consultation marks the first appearance in this sequence of a graphic record alongside the textual one, and indicates that the council's title work was acquiring a visual archive as well as a narrative one.

The reasoning given for the order, that inhabitants holding land in the Great Wood would destroy it in the highest degree, ties the title decision back to the planting and fencing campaign of the summer. The council's earlier diagnosis, set out at the consultation of 12 Jul 1709, had identified the cutting down of trees as the cause of the island's agricultural decline. The Desfountaine case shows that the principle was now being applied to the reversal of historic land grants where a private title threatened the surviving wood. The recital that the complainants had cut the wood off their own land and wished to cut more in the Great Wood converts the title proceeding into a piece of forest preservation policy, executed through the council's discretion over land. The structure of the order shows how individual titles, the wider planting law and the Great Wood common were now operating as parts of a single policy.

The Sandy Bay sugar trial, opened under the Governor's discretion at the consultation of 26 Jul 1709, has produced canes more than a foot high within six weeks. The success of the trial provides the council with a working alternative to the masonry-intensive Munden's Point Castle project, since the dead wood that would otherwise be consumed by the lime kilns can be redirected to the boiling and refining processes of sugar and rum production. The council's reasoning compares two competing claims on the same dead-wood resource: lime burning for the castle, requiring 8,000 to 10,000 bushels, against the supply of fuel to a working sugar and rum trade. By reaching for the sugar project rather than the castle as the more productive use of the available wood, the council is making a strategic resource allocation across its own programmes. The decision shows the working interconnection between the fortification, the lime, the sugar and the timber preservation projects that the summer's consultations have been setting up.

The proposed suspension of work on Munden's Point Castle, pending the arrival of coals from England, signals a significant shift in the council's fortification strategy since the early summer. The order of 26 Jul 1709 had paired Thomas Burnham's engagement at 4s 0d per day for stone-laying with the production target of 100 tons of lime as the precondition for opening work at Munden's Point. The Governor's report now shows that the lime production at Sandy Bay was destroying the wood faster than it could supply the castle's stone, with only about 1,200 bushels secured against a need of 8,000 to 10,000. The council's response is to suspend the castle project rather than to accelerate the lime works. The decision to defer the fortification programme in favour of preserving the wood and developing the sugar trade points to a council recalibrating its priorities under the constraints of the island's resource base.

Speculations

The decision to order the Desfountaine, Draper and Whaley parties to take their original land back, rather than to negotiate a new exchange on different terms, suggests that the council had identified the parcel inside the Great Wood as a strategic asset rather than as a private holding. By restoring the parties to ground in the hangings of the hills, where the wood had already been cut, the council removed them from the surviving forest and concentrated the policy on the recovery of the Great Wood as a single resource. The probability is that other similar exchanges may exist in the books, and that the council's procedure on the Desfountaine case will serve as the working model for unwinding those grants under the title abstract being prepared by Griffith and Alexander.

The decision to incorporate the marginal plan of the Bazett measure into the consultation book represents a deliberate choice in favour of a graphic record at a moment when the council's title work was rapidly expanding. A plan in the margin allows the proprietors in London to see the geometry of the disputed parcels and to verify the council's reasoning without recourse to a separate map. The probability is that this is the first of a series of marginal plans that the council will use to support its title decisions, and that the practice was developed in response to the limits of textual description for parcels of irregular shape inside larger common holdings.

The decision to lay aside Munden's Point Castle until coals could be brought from England suggests that the council was prepared to defer a major fortification project on environmental grounds, with the proprietors' express approval anticipated as the eventual condition of resuming the work. The conditional form of the suspension, pending the arrival of coals, leaves open the possibility of restoring the project from England as a fully supplied operation rather than as a local consumption of the island's timber. The probability is that the council's general letter to the proprietors by the next outward shipping will include a careful representation of the trade-off between fortification, sugar and timber preservation, with a request for coals as part of the response. The structure of the decision reads as a deliberate move to enlist the proprietors' material support for a strategy the council has been developing through the summer.

270

262

[I]sland of wood on that Account

Resolved

That the [P]eice of ground already [P]lanted with [s]ugar [c]anes be forthwith Fenced

in, and all others that Shall be planted hereafter

Captain Mashborne Complains that the [P]lantation House and Blacks Hou[s]e

are Tumbling Downe, So that they cant Lie Warme nor dry, and have h[a]d Severall

Blacks d[ea]d, and more Sick And are af[r]aid this is the Occa[s]ion of their Sickness

which we are Very Sensible of

The Govern[r] has offered a [P]lan and Draught of a new [P]lantation house and a

Blacks Hou[s]e and beleive that y[e] Lime already Burnt will be Sufficient to do it Which

[P]lan and Draught was approve[d] of, and we cant think there can be any thing more for

the I[n]trest of our Honou[red] Masters, and [P]reservation of their E[s]tate in y[e] Countrey

then the makeing a new [P]lantation hou[s]e, and Blacks hou[s]e And that the Blacks

be Employed at the Dis[c]re[ti]on of the Governour According[ly]

And we think it also very [P]roper that the Blacks be Employed about breakeing

of Lime Stone in Ruports Valley Sufficient to do our busin[e]ss here till Coales doos

Came from England

The Governour is of opinion That the Guns wont stockwell upon the Rampart

Unless the [P]latfor[ms] be made with cutt Stone, and here's one William [...] a Dutch

Stone Cuter whom we have Constantly Employed at 5[?] a day According to an order of

Councill bearing date the 28 day of July 1708 for those days he was not on the Guard

and when 'twas his Turne to be on duty three days in Nine he was to have onely his

[P]ay of nine pence a day, w[i]ch with his work & [s]allary Came to, one day with another

about fifty five [P]ound a year

And being a good Stone Cutter, The Govern[r] Treated with him Yesterday about a

new Bargaine and at Last brought him to the [P]rice that our other two Stone Cutters

have According to their agreement made in England that is Thirty [P]ound a year[?]

and his diet[?] and Discharged from being a Sold[r] Dureing the Rem[a]neing Time he has

Co[nt]racted for in Said E[s]tipulation, We take it to be a very good Agreement and

therefore

Ordered

That his Sallary of 30 [P]ound to Commence from yesterday

The Govern[r] Sent a Letter Yesterday to Cap[t] Ap[p] Rice and having an Answer ordered

That 4 [...] [...] they be both Entered in the Letter Book and Coppy [s]ent home, and [s]i[n]ce he [P]leads

he has not Bread & [P]rovi[s]ions Sufficient to Last him to Bombay

Ordered

That he be Supplyd with what [P]rovi[s]ions he wants, that the [I]sland affords

The Store Keeper brought his Acc[t] of the Sale of Goods From the 25[th] July

1709 To the 25[th] August following amounting to as followeth

An Acc[t] of Goods Sold and Delivered to the Inhabitants out of the Honour[able] Comp[ys]

Stores from July the 25[th] To August the 25[th] In[c]lusive 1709 viz[t]

£ s d

[N]ayles to y[e] Summ of - 1- 5- 5

Haberda[s]hery Ware 12-10-11[½]

Iron Mongars Ware 2-16- 2

Carried ov[er] [...] 6[½?]

Understood. Here is the corrected full text of this submission.

The wood of the island was not to be destroyed on that account.

The council resolved that the piece of ground already planted with sugar canes be forthwith fenced in, and that any other plot planted with canes in future be fenced in the same way.

Captain Mashborne complained that the Plantation house and the slaves' house at the Plantation were falling down, so that the occupants could not lie warm or dry. Several blacks had died, and more were sick. Mashborne and the council were afraid that the state of the buildings was the occasion of the sickness. The council was very sensible of the problem.

The Governor had prepared a plan and draught of a new Plantation house and a new slaves' house. He believed that the lime already burnt would be sufficient to build them. The council approved the plan and the draught. The council judged that nothing was more for the interest of the Honourable Masters and for the preservation of their estate in the country than the building of a new Plantation house and a new slaves' house. The slaves were to be employed on the work at the discretion of the Governor.

The council also thought it proper that the slaves be employed in breaking limestone at Ruperts Valley, sufficient to carry on the council's business until coals could be brought from England.

The Governor was of opinion that the guns would not sit firm upon the rampart unless the platforms were made of cut stone. There was on the island one William, the surname being unclear in the manuscript, a Dutch stone-cutter, whom the council had constantly employed since the order of 28 Jul 1708 at a rate per day for those days when he was not on the guard. The day rate as recorded in the present consultation is unclear in the manuscript. On his three days in nine of guard duty he received only his soldier's pay of 9d per day. Taken together, his wages and salary came to about £55 0s 0d a year.

Being a good stone-cutter, the Dutchman had been spoken to by the Governor the previous day on a new bargain. The Governor had brought him to the same rate as the other two stone-cutters whom the council employed under their agreements made in England, namely £30 0s 0d a year, with his diet, and discharge from soldier's duty for the remaining time of his original engagement. The council took this to be a very good agreement.

The council ordered that his salary of £30 0s 0d a year commence from 5 Sep 1709.

The Governor had sent a letter the previous day to Captain Ap Rice and had received an answer. The council ordered that both letters be entered in the letter book and that copies be sent home. Since the Captain pleaded that he had not bread and provisions sufficient to last him to Bombay, the council ordered that he be supplied with whatever provisions he wanted from the island's stock.

The storekeeper brought in his account of the sale of goods from 25 Jul 1709 to 25 Aug 1709, as follows.

Goods sold and delivered to the inhabitants out of the Honourable Company's stores from 25 Jul 1709 to 25 Aug 1709, inclusive.

Nails: £1 5s 5d Haberdashery ware: £12 10s 11½d Ironmongers' ware: £2 16s 2d

Carried over: the manuscript is unclear at the running sub-total, which the clerk has set at a figure containing a half-penny.

Interpretations

The decision to fence in every piece of ground planted with sugar canes, both the existing plot at Sandy Bay and any future plots, applies the principle of the planting and fencing laws to the council's own experimental crop. The order shows the council holding itself to the same standard it has been pressing on the inhabitants since the planting law of late May 1709 and the discharge declaration of 5 Jul 1709. The procedural choice strengthens the council's position against any later challenge from the inhabitants that the masters were not subject to the duty they had imposed. By placing the sugar cane plots inside fences, the council also signals that the trial is being managed as a producing enterprise rather than as a casual experiment.

The condition of the Plantation house and the slaves' house at the Plantation reveals the human cost of the council's recent reallocation of labour. With the slaves discharged from the fortifications under the declaration of 5 Jul 1709, and with the planting, lime burning and barracks works requiring intensive labour through the summer, the maintenance of the Company's own residential buildings had been allowed to lapse. The deaths and sickness at the Plantation, attributed to the failing state of the buildings, supplied the council with a direct human and economic reason to redirect labour to the rebuilding programme. The decision to use the lime already burnt for the new houses rather than for any further work on the castle reinforces the same calibration that the Munden's Point suspension reflects: lime is the limiting input, and the council is allocating it to its most urgent uses.

The new contract with the Dutch stone-cutter, raising his earnings from £55 0s 0d a year to £30 0s 0d a year with diet, marks a significant change in his terms. The Dutchman is being moved from a soldier-with-occasional-cutting arrangement to a stone-cutter-with-diet arrangement. The lower cash figure is offset by the supply of diet and by his discharge from guard duty for the remaining time of his original engagement. The council is therefore converting a hybrid post into a specialist post on the same terms as the council's other professional stone-cutters who came out under London agreements. The structure of the new arrangement shows the council standardising the labour terms of its skilled craftsmen across whatever origin they came from.

The supply of provisions to Captain Ap Rice, on his plea that he had not enough to last him to Bombay, marks the final accommodation made to the Godolphin before her departure. The Captain has now received the council's order on the Ingram dispute, the contingent threat of protest on the promotions, the discharge of his cousin as second mate, the discharge of the further officer he had requested, and the requirement to repay the ship bond. Against that background, the council's willingness to supply him with provisions for the onward voyage reads as a parting gesture that keeps the ship's commander on a working footing with the island. The order to enter both letters in the letter book and to send copies home shows the council preserving the documentary record of the entire exchange for the proprietors' review.

Speculations

The decision to send the slaves to break limestone at Ruperts Valley, sufficient for the council's business until coals arrive from England, suggests a deliberate operational pause on the lime supply chain. With the Sandy Bay kiln consuming the wood faster than the project warranted, and the castle on Munden's Point laid aside pending coals, the council is shifting its lime production back to the older Ruperts Valley source. The probability is that the council expects coals to arrive within a foreseeable shipping cycle, and is sequencing its building programme so that the heavy stone-cutting and lime-burning work can resume on the coal supply rather than on the timber. The choice converts a short-term constraint into a medium-term plan that depends on a specific supply from London.

The treatment of the Dutch stone-cutter, with discharge from soldier's duty for the remainder of his original engagement, suggests that the council was prepared to relieve him of an obligation that had been binding him to dual service. By recognising his stone-cutting work as the more valuable contribution, and converting his engagement to a craftsman's post on the standard London terms, the council aligned his personal interest with its operational priorities. The probability is that the discharge from soldier's duty was not a routine concession but a deliberate inducement to secure his full attention to the stone-cutting work at a time when the Plantation house, the slaves' house and the rampart platforms all required cut stone.

The pattern of provisioning the Godolphin against the Captain's plea, after a hearing in which the council found against him on every contested point, suggests that the council was distinguishing carefully between the Captain personally and his command. The ship's company and the onward voyage were a Company interest; the Captain's personal conduct was the subject of a documented finding that would go to London. By supplying the provisions and recording the letters in the letter book, the council kept the ship moving while leaving the file on the Captain's conduct open. The probability is that the Captain's later dealings with the proprietors will reveal whether the council's careful documentary record was effective in framing the proprietors' subsequent response.

271

263

£- s- d £- s- d

Brought over 15-12-6[½]

Tin Ware 1-14- 5

Shoes 6-13- 3

Stationary Ware 1-18- 4

Navall & Garrison [s]tores - 3- 6

Bra[s]ier[s] Ware 1-14- 5

Ho[s]iers Ware -11-10[½]

Hatts old [s]toore 1-13- -

[P]ewterers Ware - 4- 8

W[oo]len Goods 22- 4- 8

Lace 4- 4- 6

Cu[ttlary] Ware 5- 4- 5

Tobacco [P]ipes - 5- -

Sope 1- - -

Tobaco 4-12- -

[P]rovisions 309 [...] [F]lour at 2[d] [...] 3- 4- 4[½]

Salt 3[¾] Bu[s]hells 1- 2- 6

India Silk 8[¾] [...] 4 [...] oz at 2[s] 6[d] [...] 1- 1-10[½]

Arrack Batavia 302[¾] Gall[ons] at 6[s] [p] Gall[on] 90-16- 6

Candles 16 at 16[d] [...] 1- 1- 4

B[o]malls 11 - 13- 9

Sugar 720 at 8[d] [...] 24- - -

Rice 614 at 2[d] [...] 5- 2- 4

[Lin]nen Goods viz[t] 11[p] Chints & 1[p] [s]tripes 5-16- 6

Sugar Candy 36 1-16- -

Beef & [s]uet 56 [s]uet at 6[d] [p] 1- 8- -

Hatts bought of Cap[tn] [s]andys viz[t]

14 ditto at 9[s] 6[d] Each 6-13- -

2 ditto at 5[s] Each - 10- -

─────────

7- 3- -

Arrack Goa 213[½] Gall[ons] at 4[s] 6[d] [p] Gall[on] 48- - 9

────────── 259-2-10

Gen[er]all Table D[r] viz[t]

[s]ugar 80 at 8[d] [p] 2-13- 4

Arrack 43[¾] Gallons at 6[s] 13- 2- 6

Vinegar 1[¼] Gall[on] -5[?]- -

Rice 48 - 8- -

- 12- -

[s]ugar Candy 12 [...] 70 at 2[d] [...] 3-17- 1[½?]

one Ca[s]k Flour of 370 at 2[d] [p][...] - 4- -

Sope 4 -3- -

Salt ½ a Bu[s]hell 1-10- -

Tin Ware 2-10-11

Cu[ttla]ry Ware 2- 1- -

[Lin]nen Goods 3- 3- -

────────── 28-19-10

Tea 5[½] [...]

Fortifications D[r]: viz[t] 1-14- 8

Sugar 5[½] at 8[d] [p]

[N]ayles viz[t]

4 [...] Wat. Nayles 0-2- 0

14 ditto 6 [...] 0-10- 6

30 [...] 10 [...] 0-18-11

Carried over 1-11- 5 1-14-8 288- 2[-?]

The storekeeper's account continued from the previous page.

Brought over: £15 12s 6½d

Goods sold and delivered to the inhabitants out of the Honourable Company's stores from 25 Jul 1709 to 25 Aug 1709, inclusive, continued.

Tin ware: £1 14s 5d Shoes: £6 13s 3d Stationery ware: £1 18s 4d Naval and garrison stores: £0 3s 6d Braziers' ware: £1 14s 5d Hosiers' ware: £0 11s 10½d Hats from the old store: £1 13s 0d Pewterers' ware: £0 4s 8d Woollen goods: £22 4s 8d Lace: £4 4s 6d Cutlery ware: £5 4s 5d Tobacco pipes: £0 5s 0d Soap: £1 0s 0d Tobacco: £4 12s 0d Provisions, 309 pounds of flour at 2d, with the unit unclear in the manuscript: £3 4s 4½d Salt, 3¾ bushels: £1 2s 6d India silk, 8¾ pieces and 4 ounces at 2s 6d, with one element of the description unclear in the manuscript: £1 1s 10½d Batavia arrack, 302¾ gallons at 6s per gallon: £90 16s 6d Candles, 16 at 16d, with the unit unclear in the manuscript: £1 1s 4d Bomalls, 11: £0 13s 9d Sugar, 720 pounds at 8d per pound: £24 0s 0d Rice, 614 pounds at 2d per pound: £5 2s 4d Linen goods, namely 11 pieces of chintz and 1 piece of stripes: £5 16s 6d Sugar candy, 36: £1 16s 0d Beef and suet, 56 pounds of suet at 6d per pound: £1 8s 0d Hats bought of Captain Sandys, namely 14 at 9s 6d each and 2 at 5s each, sub-total £7 3s 0d. Goa arrack, 213½ gallons at 4s 6d per gallon: £48 0s 9d

Total for the sales to the inhabitants on this page: £259 2s 10d

Goods debited to the general table from 25 Jul 1709 to 25 Aug 1709.

Sugar, 80 pounds at 8d per pound: £2 13s 4d Arrack, 43¾ gallons at 6s per gallon: £13 2s 6d Vinegar, 1¼ gallons: a figure containing 5 shillings, with the pence column unclear in the manuscript Rice, 48: £0 8s 0d A further line whose description is unclear in the manuscript: £0 12s 0d Sugar candy, 12, and a further item of 70 at 2d per unit: £3 17s 1½d, the half-penny appearing in the manuscript One cask of flour, 370 pounds at 2d per pound: £0 4s 0d The pound figure on this line appears too low against the rate stated; the manuscript appears to be unclear at this entry. Soap, 4: £0 3s 0d Salt, half a bushel: £1 10s 0d The half-bushel figure of £1 10s sits well above the rate at which 3¾ bushels were sold to the inhabitants on the same page for £1 2s 6d; the manuscript appears to be unclear at this entry, since the table line is materially out of proportion with the equivalent sale. Tin ware: £2 10s 11d Cutlery ware: £2 1s 0d Linen goods: £3 3s 0d

Total for the general table: £28 19s 10d

A further entry was placed after the general table total. Tea, 5½ units of measure unclear in the manuscript: a figure recorded as £1 14s 8d.

Goods debited to the fortifications from 25 Jul 1709 to 25 Aug 1709.

Sugar, 5½ pounds at 8d per pound: this line has been entered against the fortifications head and is included in the running of the fortification account.

Nails for the fortifications.

4 pounds of waterproof nails: £0 2s 0d 14 pounds at 6d the pound, the unit being unclear in the manuscript: £0 10s 6d 30 pounds at 10d the pound, the unit being unclear in the manuscript: £0 18s 11d

Sub-total of nails for the fortifications: £1 11s 5d

Carried over: the fortifications running total stands at £1 11s 5d for nails, with £1 14s 8d for the tea entry just preceding it; the page running total is given in the manuscript as £288 2s, with the pence column unclear.

Interpretations

The August storekeeper's return is significantly larger than the July return, with the sales to the inhabitants alone reaching £259 2s 10d on this page, against £247 11s 5½d for the whole previous month. The increase reflects the Godolphin's presence at the island for most of August: the ship's officers, men and supplies will have drawn against the stores, and the inhabitants' own demand for cloth, hats and small wares will have grown in response to the ship's call. The figure for Batavia arrack alone, at 302¾ gallons producing £90 16s 6d, is two thirds higher than the equivalent figure in July, and the Goa arrack at 213½ gallons producing £48 0s 9d also shows a clear increase on the previous month. The half-and-half rule established on 28 Jun 1709 appears to be holding in practice, with the two arracks moving together in roughly the proportions the council intended.

The presence of a line for hats bought of Captain Sandys, sold on at 9s 6d and 5s for total takings of £7 3s 0d, marks a different kind of transaction within the same monthly account. The council had bartered Batavia arrack with Captain Sandys for a butt of Bardoma wine at the consultation of 28 Jun 1709; the present entry shows the council now selling hats acquired from the same captain, presumably through a parallel barter or purchase, to the inhabitants at a margin. The structure of the entry suggests that the council was using the visits of passing ships' captains as opportunities for ad hoc purchases of goods that the stores did not otherwise carry, and was incorporating the proceeds of resale into the regular storekeeper's account. The hats account is a small example of the way the stores acted as both a Company outlet and a local trading house.

The general table account at £28 19s 10d is broadly comparable to the July figure of £30 10s 3d, although the composition has shifted. The August table account shows a larger arrack consumption at £13 2s 6d, against the much smaller arrack figure in the July table account, and includes tin ware and cutlery at significant figures. The probability is that the council was entertaining or supplying the Godolphin's senior officers, since the table account at the United Castle would have absorbed any hospitality offered to a visiting commander. The increase in arrack on the table account, against a parallel increase in arrack sales to the inhabitants, suggests that the Godolphin's presence raised both the official and the unofficial consumption of spirits on the island for the month.

The fortifications head opens with a sugar line and an extended nails sub-total. The sugar of 5½ pounds appears here as a small but recorded supply to the fortifications, in addition to the sugar accounted for on the inhabitants' side. The nails sub-total of £1 11s 5d in three different sizes shows the granularity of the fortification account: the storekeeper is now recording materials drawn for the works at the level of individual nail sizes, which gives the proprietors a detailed view of the materials consumption at the castle. The new monthly reporting cycle is therefore continuing to produce the kind of detailed itemisation that the council had specified at the consultation of 12 Jul 1709.

Speculations

The half-bushel of salt on the general table account, returned at £1 10s 0d, looks like a transcription error in the manuscript rather than an actual price. The same return shows 3¾ bushels of salt sold to the inhabitants for £1 2s 6d, which yields a rate of about 6s the bushel. At that rate, a half-bushel for the table should have cost about 3s, not £1 10s. The probability is that the entry conflates two separate purchases on the table account, or that the description and the value belong to different lines of the original ledger. The discrepancy is worth flagging in the storekeeper's accounts going forward, since it affects the integrity of the table total of £28 19s 10d.

The presence of one cask of flour of 370 pounds at 2d the pound, returned for £0 4s 0d on the table account, is similarly out of proportion with the stated rate. At 2d the pound, 370 pounds should produce a figure approaching £3 1s 8d, not 4 shillings. The probability is that the manuscript has lost a leading digit in this entry, or that the rate and the unit have been misread. The same caution that applies to the half-bushel of salt applies here: the table total has been built on figures that do not all reconcile on the face of the manuscript, and the running total should be treated as the storekeeper's reckoning rather than as a verified arithmetic sum.

The shift in retail volume between July and August suggests that the council's fixed-cost retail operation was unusually sensitive to the presence of a single large ship. The increase in arrack sales, hat sales and woollen goods all point to the Godolphin's call as the principal driver of the change. The probability is that the council's monthly accounts are now functioning as a working measure of the island's economic activity, with the visits of Company ships showing up as clear movements in the storekeeper's totals. The proprietors in London will be able to read the trade cycle of the island from these returns in a way that the older annual reports did not permit.

272

264

£- s- d £- s- d

Brought over 1-11-5 - - 1-14- 8 288- 2- 8

10 [...] 20 [N]agles 0- 5-10

1 [...] 12 d[itt]o 0- 0-11

5 [...] 4 d[itt]o 0- 4- 4[½]

4 [...] 3 d[itt]o 0- 3- -

─────────

2- 5- 6[½]

Iron Mongars Ware 2-13- 9

Cu[ttla]ry Ware - 4-10

Iron [P]otts 2 of 12[w] 3- 1- 3

Haberda[s]hery Ware - - 4[½]

Beef one Ca[s]ke No 58 of 117[c?] 4- 4- -

Old Companys Goods & Masons axes 1- 4- -

Iron 4 Barrs of 174[¼] 2- 3- 7[½]

Arrack 20[¾] Gall[ons] at 6[s] 6- 4- 6

1 Suite Blacks Cloth[i]ng - 14- -

31-10- 6[½]

Garrison D[r]: viz[t]

Cu[ttla]ry Ware - 1- 3

Haberda[s]hery Ware - 2- 3

China S[il]k - 1-10[½]

Navall & Garrison Stores - - 4-10[½]

Stationary Ware - 16- 9

Arrack Bat[avia] 1 Gall[on] 0- 6- -

D[itt]o Goa 1 d[itt]o 0- 4- 6

──────

- 10- 6

[s]ugar 7 - 2- 8

1-16-2

[P]lantation viz[t]

[N]ailes viz[t]

12 [...] 20 d[itt]o 0- 7- -

6 [...] 10 d[itt]o 0- 3- 9

6 [...] 6 d[itt]o 0- 4- 6

4 [...] W[oo]d d[itt]o 0- 2- -

─────────

-17-3

Salt 2[½] Bu[s]hells -15- -

Stationary Ware - 4- -

Tin Ware - 3- 4

Arrack ½ Gall[on] - 3- -

2- 2-7

─────────

£ 323-11-11[½]

The Store Keeper Complaines that the Arrack in the Store is very Short notwith-

standing having restrained the [P]eople for Some Time [P]ast from having the Quantity

they would, and not Sufficient to Last one month

Ordered

That two Legars of Arrack be Re[s]erved to Support y[e] [s]perits of the [P]eople in Case

of an Attack, or on any other Occasion, And what little is Left to be as Equally

Divided as can be and think that 4[s] 6[d] a Gallon for the Goa Arrack is Sufficient

without raising the [P]rice, And cant But Lament our Condition for want of a-

nother Sup[p]ly of all manner of Stores whatever

The storekeeper's account continued from the previous page.

Brought over: the running totals from the previous page stood at £1 11s 5d for the fortifications nails sub-total, £1 14s 8d for the tea entry, and £288 2s 8d as the overall page total.

Goods debited to the fortifications from 25 Jul 1709 to 25 Aug 1709, continued.

Further nails entries.

10 pounds of 20-penny nails: £0 5s 10d 1 pound of 12-penny nails: £0 0s 11d 5 pounds of 4-penny nails: £0 4s 4½d 4 pounds of 3-penny nails: £0 3s 0d

Sub-total of further nails: £2 5s 6½d, the manuscript carrying the running of the nails account into a second sub-total at this point.

Ironmongers' ware: £2 13s 9d Cutlery ware: £0 4s 10d Iron pots, 2 of 12 hundreDwight: £3 1s 3d Haberdashery ware: £0 0s 4½d Beef, one cask numbered 58 of 117 in weight or count, with the unit unclear in the manuscript: £4 4s 0d Old Company's goods and masons' axes: £1 4s 0d Iron, 4 bars of 174¼ pounds: £2 3s 7½d Arrack, 20¾ gallons at 6s per gallon: £6 4s 6d One suit of blacks' clothing: £0 14s 0d

Total for the fortifications: £31 10s 6½d

Goods debited to the garrison from 25 Jul 1709 to 25 Aug 1709.

Cutlery ware: £0 1s 3d Haberdashery ware: £0 2s 3d China silk: £0 1s 10½d Naval and garrison stores: £0 4s 10½d, the placement of the shillings column being slightly unclear in the manuscript Stationery ware: £0 16s 9d Batavia arrack, 1 gallon: £0 6s 0d Goa arrack, 1 gallon: £0 4s 6d Sub-total for the two arracks on this head: £0 10s 6d Sugar, 7: £0 2s 8d

Total for the garrison: £1 16s 2d

Goods debited to the Plantation from 25 Jul 1709 to 25 Aug 1709.

Nails for the Plantation.

12 pounds of 20-penny nails: £0 7s 0d 6 pounds of 10-penny nails: £0 3s 9d 6 pounds of 6-penny nails: £0 4s 6d 4 pounds of wood nails, the description being unclear in the manuscript: £0 2s 0d

Sub-total of nails for the Plantation: £0 17s 3d

Salt, 2½ bushels: £0 15s 0d Stationery ware: £0 4s 0d Tin ware: £0 3s 4d Arrack, half a gallon: £0 3s 0d

Total for the Plantation: £2 2s 7d

Sum total of all heads for the month: £323 11s 11½d

The storekeeper complained that the arrack in the store was now very short, even though he had for some time past restrained the inhabitants from drawing the quantity they would have taken. There was not enough to last another month.

The council ordered that two leaguers of arrack be reserved to support the spirits of the people in case of an attack or on any other occasion. What little remained was to be divided as evenly as possible. The council judged that 4s 6d per gallon for the Goa arrack was sufficient and there was no need to raise the price. The council could not but lament the island's condition for want of a further supply of all manner of stores.

Interpretations

The August storekeeper's return closes at a sum total of £323 11s 11½d, against £313 19s 8¾d for July. The increase of nearly £10 on the month is concentrated in the inhabitants' sales rather than in the Company heads. The fortifications head at £31 10s 6½d is close to the July figure of £31 9s 2½d, the garrison head has fallen from £2 8s 4½d to £1 16s 2d, and the Plantation head has risen marginally from £2 1s 9d to £2 2s 7d. The general table has fallen from £30 10s 3d to £28 19s 10d, with shifts in composition rather than in scale. The stability of the four institutional heads, against an increase in the inhabitants' sales, confirms that the Godolphin's presence at the island affected the retail trade more than the council's own operations.

The detailed nails account, run twice in this month's return, illustrates the granularity that the new monthly reporting cycle has produced. The nails are now itemised by the size of the nail, with separate entries for 3-penny, 4-penny, 6-penny, 10-penny, 12-penny and 20-penny nails, as well as for the unclear wood nails on the Plantation head. The structure shows the storekeeper recording materials by the standard nail sizes used in shipbuilding and carpentry. The proprietors in London, on receiving the consultation book, will be able to see exactly which sizes of nail are being consumed at which Company facility, which provides a working tool for the proprietors' own restocking decisions on outgoing ships.

The arrack shortage opens a new constraint on the council's operations. Until this consultation, the council had been managing the two arracks through the half-and-half rule of 28 Jun 1709 and the price discipline of 22 Mar 1709, with the August sales showing both stocks moving in roughly the intended proportions. The storekeeper's report now reveals that the rate of sale has outrun the stock, despite his having restrained the inhabitants below their demand. The order to reserve two leaguers of arrack against attack or other emergency removes a fixed portion of the remaining stock from the retail trade, and the requirement to divide what little remains as evenly as possible converts the regular retail operation into a rationing operation. The structure of the order shows the council prepared to suspend its normal retail pricing in favour of a rationing scheme once stocks fall below a working minimum.

The decision to hold the Goa arrack at 4s 6d per gallon, rather than to raise the price in response to the shortage, reflects a deliberate price-stability choice on the council's part. A scarcity-driven price increase would have moved Goa arrack closer to the Batavia rate of 6s per gallon and would have signalled to the inhabitants that the council was prepared to use the stock-out as an opportunity to lift prices. By holding the rate, the council preserved both the half-and-half rule and the price structure established earlier in the year. The structure shows the council using rationing rather than price as the instrument for managing the shortage, which is consistent with its general preference for fixed prices and structured access over market mechanisms.

Speculations

The reservation of two leaguers of arrack against attack or other emergency reads as a deliberate equation of spirits with a defensive resource. A leaguer was the large cask used for spirits in the East India trade and held approximately 150 gallons; two leaguers would therefore amount to roughly 300 gallons. The probability is that the council was setting aside this stock not only for use in an actual attack but as a working reserve against the possibility that no further Company ship might call within the regular shipping cycle. The choice of language, supporting the spirits of the people, is itself revealing: the council understood the arrack supply as an instrument of morale as well as of trade.

The closing lament for want of a further supply of all manner of stores reads as an opening of the council's case to the proprietors. The council has been preparing its dispatch home through the careful monthly accounts of the storekeeper, the abstract project of Griffith and Alexander, and the documented record of the Godolphin dispute. The lament, placed at the end of the consultation, supplies the rhetorical frame within which the proprietors will be asked to send out a fresh and substantial cargo. The probability is that the next general letter to London will repeat this lament in more formal terms, with the storekeeper's monthly returns serving as the evidence for the requested resupply.

The half-and-half rule has been operating against a single working stock of arrack rather than against an indefinitely replenished supply. The shortage now revealed indicates that the rule was constructed around the actual quantities of Batavia and Goa arrack landed earlier in the year. With the inhabitants' demand drawing both stocks down together, the rule will become unworkable as soon as one of the two arracks is exhausted, since there will be no second stock to pair with the surviving one. The probability is that the council will face a decision in the coming weeks on whether to suspend the half-and-half rule, to raise the price of the remaining stock, or to draw on the reserved leaguers, and that the choice will depend on whether a Company ship arrives before the existing stocks run out.

273

265

Gunner Frenchs Time being near Expired in the Garden hou[s]e [p]aid Earl of [P]ole[?]

of fifteen pound a year, Lately in the [P]o[ss]e[ss]ion of [P]aul Geaton he made it his request

That the hou[s]e being rotten and ready to fall, and the Garden Spoilt desires to Quitt

the Same [p]r have it at a Lower rate

We being now Intent to [P]lant [P]hyseck Nutt Trees which we beleive will [s]erve to a good

Acco[unt] in making oyle and Di[s]po[s]ing thereof and that Garden being very [P]roper

for that [P]urpose, It is Agreed That the Gunner [P]rovided he will [P]lant the said

Garden with [P]hyseck nutts and Look after y[e] Same have the use of the Garden this

Insueing year [r]ent free

J[no] Roberts

Tho Goodwin

Edw[d] Mashborne

W[m] Marsden

Daniel Griffith

Island St Helena

At a Consultation Held on Tuesday the 20[th] day

of September 1709 At the United Castle in James Valley

Jn[o]: Roberts Esq[r] Governo[r]

Thom[s]: Goodwin D[e]p[t]y Gov[r]

Pres[en]t Edw[d]: Mashborne 3 in Coun[d]

Will[m]: Marsden 4[th] in Coun[d]

Dan[l]: Griffith 5[th] in Coun[d]

John Ap[p] Rice Late Second mate of y[e] Honoura[ble] United Comp[ys] Ship

Godolphin [P]re[s]ented his [P]etition to us this day Humbly p[r]aying Leave

and Liberty to go [P]a[ss]anger on Board Said Ship for [In]dia, being very Unwill[i]ng

to Stay behind on this [I]sland any Longer, It not at all agreeing with his

Constitution and [I]nterest

Ordered

That the said John Ap[p] Rice have Liberty According to his Desire The Cap[t]

[s]up[p]lying him with so much money as will Defray his Charges due for Lodging

&c on y[e] [I]sland and that y[e] Said Cap[t] do Draw & give him a Bill for The

Remainder of his Wages [P]ayable by the General[l] and Councill of Bombay

The Gov[er]n[r] Finding That Doctor [P]orteous do[e]s often [N]eglect his Busin[e]ss

on not Tendering his [P]ati[en]ts So oft and regula[r]e as he Should & app[ear]s

Returning to the council's business at the consultation of 6 Sep 1709, Gunner French's time in the garden house was nearly expired. The house had been let to him at the rate of £15 0s 0d a year, and had lately been in the possession of Paul Geaton. French represented to the council that the house was rotten and ready to fall, and that the garden was spoilt. He asked either to quit the house or to have it at a lower rate.

The council was now of a mind to plant physic nut trees, which it believed would serve to a good account in making oil and in disposing of the produce. The garden was very proper for that purpose. The council agreed that, provided the gunner would plant the garden with physic nuts and look after them, he should have the use of the garden for the coming year rent free.

Signed

John Roberts Thomas Goodwin Edward Mashborne William Marsden Daniel Griffith

Island of St Helena

At a consultation held on Tuesday 20 Sep 1709 at the United Castle in James Valley.

Present: John Roberts, Esquire, Governor Thomas Goodwin, Deputy Governor Edward Mashborne, third in council William Marsden, fourth in council Daniel Griffith, fifth in council

John Ap Rice, late second mate of the Honourable United Company's ship Godolphin, presented a petition to the council. He humbly prayed leave and liberty to go as a passenger on board the same ship to India, being very unwilling to stay any longer on the island, since the place did not agree with his constitution or his interest.

The council ordered that John Ap Rice have liberty to go according to his desire. The Captain was to supply him with so much money as would defray his charges for lodging and other expenses on the island. The Captain was to draw and give him a bill for the remainder of his wages, payable by the General and council at Bombay.

The Governor had found that Doctor Porteous often neglected his business and did not attend his patients as often or as regularly as he should -

Interpretations

The bargain with Gunner French converts a failing tenancy into an experimental crop trial. The garden house had been a regular Company let at £15 0s 0d a year, and Geaton had held it before French. The structure had fallen into disrepair and the garden had been spoilt, so that French sought relief from the rent. The council took the occasion to redirect the use of the garden to a new purpose, planting physic nut trees for oil production, and traded the rent for a planting and maintenance obligation. The arrangement is parallel to the lime kiln and sugar trials of late July and August in its structure: a small, locally-supplied experiment is set up at low fixed cost, with the tenant supplying the labour in exchange for a benefit, in this case the rent-free year. The council is therefore continuing its programme of low-cost experimental ventures across the island's available ground.

The petition of John Ap Rice to go as a passenger to India closes the Godolphin file in a way that confirms the council's earlier reservation of his case for Bombay. At the consultation of 16 Aug 1709 the council had discharged Ap Rice from the Company's service and turned him ashore. At the consultation of the same day the council had reserved the liberty of sending the other discharged officer as a passenger to Bombay if he should desire it, on the ground that the Honourable Company wanted white men there. Ap Rice's own application now allowed the council to apply the same principle to him, with the Captain supplying him with cash for his expenses and a bill for the remainder of his wages drawn on the General and council at Bombay. The arrangement removed Ap Rice from the island, transferred his wage account to Bombay, and gave the Bombay establishment a man on the same terms as the Geaton, Fox and Webley petitions had supplied earlier in the summer.

The decision to require the Captain to supply Ap Rice with cash for his lodging charges, rather than to draw it from Company funds, returns the cost of his time ashore to the Captain personally. Ap Rice had been turned off the Godolphin on a finding of incapacity that was, in the council's view, partly attributable to the Captain's defence of him as second mate. By placing the cost of his stay on the Captain, the council allocated the cost to the person whose recommendation had created the position. The arrangement is a small but pointed consequence of the August findings, applied in the September order.

The opening of the Doctor Porteous file marks the council's move from external disciplinary cases to internal supervision of its own salaried officers. The Governor's finding that the doctor often neglected his business, and did not tend his patients as often or as regularly as he should, takes the council into the standards of professional service expected of a Company surgeon on the island. The doctor's position is established and salaried, and the council's inquiry will involve the same documented procedure that produced findings against the Godolphin's officers in August. The structure of the entry shows the council extending its scrutiny of competence from the visiting Company shipping to the resident professional establishment.

Speculations

The choice of physic nut trees for the garden indicates that the council was paying attention to the wider Indian Ocean network of useful tropical crops. Physic nut oil was used as a lamp oil, in soap-making and in lubrication, and the council's interest in the crop fits the same programme of low-cost commodity experiments that had produced the sugar cane plantings at Sandy Bay and the tile and tanning contracts of July. The probability is that the council had received information about physic nut cultivation through one of the recent ship visits, or through the proprietors' correspondence, and was now applying that information to a garden that had become available through French's complaint. The trade in physic nut oil was a recognised line of business in other Company stations, and a successful trial on St Helena would have given the island a new exportable product.

The decision to send Ap Rice forward as a passenger to Bombay, on his own application, rather than to leave him on the island, suggests that the council was not prepared to absorb him into the local population even at the lowest level. The Geaton, Fox and Webley petitions had concerned free planters seeking to leave; Ap Rice was the reverse case, a dismissed officer seeking to be taken in. By granting his petition to go on the same ship that had carried him out from England, the council ensured that he did not enter the island's free male population as an unemployed white man. The probability is that the council was concerned to keep the island's free male population stable in number and structure, and was not prepared to add a discharged officer to it on any terms.

The opening of the Porteous file in the same week that the Godolphin prepared to depart suggests that the council was using the temporary quiet on the harbour side to address standing internal problems that the Godolphin business had displaced. The council's calendar had been dominated since 10 Aug 1709 by the Ingram dispute and the various accommodations the Captain had required; with Ap Rice now on his way home and the Captain provisioned, the council could turn its attention to its own surgeon. The probability is that the doctor's neglect had been an issue for some weeks but had been held back by more pressing business, and that the present consultation marks the first opportunity to address it formally.

274

266

the Hono[ble] Companys Blacks be[s]ides his [P]a[ss]ionate Behaviour & [I]ne[v]eu[?] at [...] will as Soldiers, It is thought fitt &[c] Accordingly

Ordered

That Edmond [K]empton who p[ro]fe[ss]es [P]hysick and [s]urgery & [F]ormerly Doctor [N]eedhams Apprentice be a[p]p[oin]ted at the Said Doct[r] [P]orteous and to be when Occasion requires at the [P]lantation hou[s]e to Look after the Blacks there and Soldiers in y[e] Countrey for which Allowed y[e] Su[m]me of Five [P]ound to be Deducted out of Doctor [P]orteous [S]allary of Thirty [P]ounds to be added to his [s]allary of Sixteen [P]ound[s] five Shilling[s] a year, and his Diet at y[e] Company['s] Lower Table when at the Ca[s]tle and also when in the Countrey at [P]lantation hou[s]e And to have the use of the M[e]dec[i]nes on any Occasion keeping an Acc[t] of the Expence thereof, and to [P]ay for all Stuck[?] as he Shall use about y[e] [...] hand busin[e]ss

There has been Severall T[r]iverall Cau[s]es Tryd to day, Entered in another book for that [P]urpose

The Govern[r] [s]ays that for the better Carryeing on of [s]ugar [P]lantations in Sandy Bay Valley, it would be very [P]roper to have a man That Lives hard by there be appointed to Look after and over[s]ee the said [P]lantation which is Thomas Gargen free [P]laner, and that a room be Sett in his house, for the Govern[r] to Lodge in when he goes to view y[e] Said Sugar Cane [P]lantation tho[ugh] he Doubt[s] not but will Turn to y[e] Advantage & I[n]trest of the Honou[ra]ble United Company in time of flouri[s]hing very well now, and the Govern[r] having Ocasion for a bed to Lodge at y[e] M[r] Gargens

Ordered

That the said Thomas Gargen be Sent for and Treated with and that a Bed be Bought of Captain John Ap[p]Rice on the Hono[ble] Companys Acco[unt] for the Govern[rs] use

J[no] Roberts Tho Goodwin Edw[d] Mashborne W[m] Mar[s]den Daniel Griffith

Continuing the council's review of Doctor Porteous, the Governor noted that the doctor's neglect extended to the Honourable Company's slaves. The doctor's behaviour had also been passionate. The manuscript is unclear at one phrase concerning his conduct toward the soldiers; the sense recoverable is that his manner with the soldiers had also been unsatisfactory. The council thought it fit to act accordingly.

The council ordered that Edmond Kempton, who professed physic and surgery and had formerly been Doctor Needham's apprentice, be appointed alongside Doctor Porteous. Kempton was to attend, as occasion required, at the Plantation house, to look after the slaves there and the soldiers in the country. He was to be allowed the sum of £5 0s 0d a year for this work. That sum was to be deducted from Doctor Porteous's salary of £30 0s 0d and added to Kempton's existing salary of £16 5s 0d a year. Kempton was also to be allowed his diet at the Company's lower table when he was at the castle, and at the Plantation house when he was in the country. He was to have the use of the medicines as occasion required, on condition that he kept an account of the expense, and that he paid for any stock he used about his own private business. The manuscript is unclear at one or two of the closing words of this clause.

Several trivial causes had been tried that day. They were entered in another book kept for that purpose, and not in the consultation book.

The Governor reported that, for the better carrying on of the sugar plantation at Sandy Bay Valley, it would be very proper to have a man who lived hard by appointed to look after and oversee the planting. He proposed Thomas Gargen, a free planter, for the task. A room in Gargen's house was to be set aside as a lodging for the Governor when he went to view the sugar cane plantation. The Governor had no doubt that the sugar trial would turn out to the advantage and interest of the Honourable United Company. The canes were now flourishing very well, and the Governor needed a bed at Gargen's house when he was there.

The council ordered that Thomas Gargen be sent for and treated with on these terms. A bed was to be bought of Captain John Ap Rice on the Honourable Company's account, for the Governor's use.

Signed

John Roberts Thomas Goodwin Edward Mashborne William Marsden Daniel Griffith

Interpretations

The Kempton appointment shows the council solving a medical-services problem through reallocation rather than through additional expense. Doctor Porteous remained on the establishment, but £5 0s 0d of his £30 0s 0d salary was diverted to Kempton, who then assumed the country side of the practice at the Plantation house. The net effect was to give the island a second physician for the slaves and the country soldiers at no additional cost to the masters. Kempton's new combined salary of £21 5s 0d a year, with diet at the lower table or the Plantation house according to where he was working, brought him close to the rank of a working Company officer. The structure of the order shows the council using its authority over the salary scheme to remedy the practical problem of an unreliable principal surgeon, while keeping the formal establishment intact.

The reference to Edmond Kempton's prior apprenticeship to Doctor Needham anchors the new appointment in the island's earlier medical lineage. Kempton had appeared in the records before, in the contract dispute and surgeon service extension of 27 Apr 1708, and had now been recognised by the council as a qualified practitioner in his own right. The reliance on a locally-trained apprentice for the second medical post indicates that the council was prepared to draw on the island's own professional formation rather than to wait on a London replacement. The arrangement therefore extended the council's general pattern of meeting operational needs from local resources, the same pattern that had produced the Orchard tanning contract, the Swallow tile trial, the Burnham stone-laying engagement and the Dutch stone-cutter's standardised wage.

The proposed arrangement with Thomas Gargen builds the sugar trial at Sandy Bay into a more permanent operation. The original plot at Sandy Bay had been opened under the Governor's discretion at the consultation of 26 Jul 1709 and was fenced in by the order of 6 Sep 1709. The appointment of a resident overseer, drawn from the free planters of the area, marks the next stage of the trial's development: a planting under the Governor's personal supervision becomes a continuing operation under a local overseer with the Governor visiting periodically. The choice of Gargen, who lived hard by, removed the daily logistical burden of the project from the Governor and the council and placed it on a man with a direct interest in its success. The structure shows the sugar trial moving from experiment to working enterprise within ten weeks of its inception.

The purchase of a bed from Captain Ap Rice on the Company's account, for the Governor's use at Gargen's house, draws the Godolphin file into one further small accommodation. Ap Rice was about to leave the island as a passenger to Bombay under the order of 20 Sep 1709, and the bed available to him served the council's immediate need. By making the purchase on the Company's account, the council also ensured that the asset remained Company property after the journey, which would matter for the running of the sugar trial. The arrangement shows the council settling a domestic operational need through a transaction that drew on a departing officer's possessions in a way that benefited both parties.

Speculations

The structure of the Kempton appointment, with his payment funded by a deduction from Porteous's salary, suggests that the council was preparing the ground for a fuller change in the medical post. The choice to leave Porteous in place at a reduced salary, rather than to discharge him outright, preserved continuity and gave him a working opportunity to recover his position. At the same time, the establishment of a second qualified man on the country side built the structural foundation for a smooth transition if Porteous's conduct did not improve. The probability is that the council was watching the principal surgeon while building up a credible alternative, and that further changes in the medical arrangement might follow if the doctor's performance continued to disappoint.

The decision to send several trivial causes to another book, rather than to record them in the consultation book, suggests that the council was now refining its archival practice in line with the separation of records that had begun to appear in the August consultations. The consultation book was being reserved for matters of policy and substance, while routine judicial work was being separated into its own register. The probability is that the abstract project of Griffith and Alexander was reinforcing this separation, since the working compilers had been instructed at the consultation of 26 Jul 1709 to exclude law suits, quarrels and misdemeanours from their abstract. The clerical practice of routing trivial causes to a separate book parallels that exclusion at the source.

The acquisition of a Governor's bed at Gargen's house, in support of the sugar plantation, indicates that Roberts intended to give the trial his personal attention over an extended period. A short visit could be accomplished without an overnight stay; a working bed in a free planter's house implies a recurring presence, with the Governor returning to inspect the plantation across the growing cycle of the canes. The probability is that the Governor's involvement was both supervisory and proprietary, with the sugar trial closely associated with his own administration and likely to figure prominently in the next dispatch to London. The careful provision for his accommodation suggests that the sugar project had now become one of the principal vehicles by which the council expected to demonstrate its initiative to the proprietors.

275

267

Book cover

276

268

EAP 1364 St Helena

Document Name and Date
St Helena Records 1706-1709

Dimensions
(height x width x depth) (cm)
(H) 46 cm x (W) 31 cm x (D) 5 cm

No. written pages:
266

No. blank pages:
0

Spine and cover
Good Condition

Inside pages
Some frayed edges,
Slight foxing, & Signs of
insect boring

Time taken to photograph
(hours)
5 hours.

  1. Latin month abbreviations usually only apply to the last four months of the year, each being counted from and including March. For example, if March is included, then December is the tenth month. Dates may therefore be shown as follows: 7bris viibris or Septembris (of September); 8br 8ber or viiibr or viiiber or 8bris or viiibris or Octobris (of October); 9br or 9ber or ixbr or ixber or 9bris or ixbris or Novembris (of November); 10br or 10ber or xbr or xber or 10bris or xbris or Decembris (of December) - Kip Sperry, Abbreviations & Acronyms: A Guide for Family Historians (Ancestry Publishing, 2003), 187. ↑