St Helena Letters from England 1713-1716
Introduction: This is the fourth volume in the series St Helena Letters from England. It includes incoming official correspondence from the East India Company in London to the island’s Governor and Council, conveying directives on government, defence, trade, staffing and supplies. The letters were usually read in consultation and copied or abstracted into the records.
Source: Images of the original records can be viewed on the British Library’s website: https://eap.bl.uk/archive-file/EAP1364-1-3-5.
Text Transcription This transcription was produced by AI from handwritten document images held on the British Library's website, at about thirty pages per hour. Given the limitations described below, the text should be regarded as unreliable and used only as a search-and-find shortcut: once a relevant section has been located, it must always be checked against the source image via the hyperlinked Film Numbers listed in the main transcription table below.
Three specific problems affected the work. First, AI tends to prioritise meaning and readability at the expense of fidelity to the original, with a strong disposition to normalise spellings, expand abbreviations, and adjust grammar. It is particularly weak with unfamiliar surnames, and scrawled signatures often resist accurate transcription entirely. Transcriptions by eye of documents spanning four centuries have also shown that a single surname could be written in a wide variety of ways: the Crowie family name appears under six different spellings, and the Isaacs family name under sixteen. Searches for surnames are therefore hindered both by genuine variations in the originals and by mistranscriptions introduced by AI, and for this reason are best run phonetically. Second, the AI struggled with the late secretary hand, the script commonly used from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries, in which the letter S appears in a form closely resembling a trailing L. Third, occasional passages in these volumes are written in a hand so obscure or poorly formed as to be difficult to read even by eye, sometimes compounded by heavy ink bleed-through from the reverse side or by the loss of sections of pages.
To mitigate these difficulties, a strict protocol was applied to each image, requiring the AI to rely solely on clearly visible ink strokes and to flag any uncertain reading, thereby reducing the risk of inferred or invented text. Two conventions are used. [...] marks text that could not be read with confidence; this may represent a single unreadable word, a full sentence, or occasionally an entire paragraph. Square brackets around letters or words indicate a conjectural reading supplied by the transcriber: brackets around a whole word, for example [Bazett], mean the entire word was unclear and a probable reading has been supplied, while brackets around individual letters within an otherwise readable word, for example B[a]z[e]tt, mean only those specific letters were unclear in the source and the unbracketed letters were legibly present.
Modern Summary and Analysis Each section of text was submitted for AI analysis in order to explain the archaic language in clear, modern UK English. These are not direct sentence by sentence replacements, but explanatory interpretations intended to clarify meaning while preserving the substance of the original. Where a specific individual is named within a section of the original text, that person will generally also be identified within the explanatory interpretation. However, where the original consists largely of lists of names, these are not usually repeated in the explanatory text.
Each text modern summary is followed by two forms of AI-generated analysis. The first, an Interpretations section, draws on wider information located on the internet to provide additional commentary on the material. The second, a Speculations section, offers one or more possible reflections on what the document might further suggest. The value of these notes ranges from the profound to the trivial or self-evident; time did not permit deletion of the latter.
Text Loss: The early pages exhibit significant ink bleed-through from the verso, but there is little loss of text.
Referencing Text Locations: A dual numbering system has been adopted, combining the British Library film number with the manuscript’s original page number. These are presented in the format: British Library Film No. / Document Page No.
Pagination: Few early pages are numbered. Pages 19 and 27 are respectively clearly shown on film Nos. 27 (27/19) and 35 (35/27). This suggests that the page numbering begins at film No. 9 (9/1) and continues through to the end of the volume.
Dates: During the period covered by this volume, England and its colonies followed the Old-Style Julian calendar, under which the legal new year began on 25 March (Lady Day). When creating the modern interpretations of these texts, the AI has automatically adjusted the dates. For any date quoted in these early St Helena records falling in the period between January and 25 March, the year has been moved forward to the modern equivalent. Month names were frequently rendered using Roman calendar abbreviations such as 7ber, 8ber, 9ber and 10ber, in which September through to December were counted as the seventh to tenth months.
All the letters were sent during the administration of Captain Benjamin Boucher (1711-1714) and Captain Isaac Pyke (1714-1719).
AI Generated Summary
Introduction
This consolidated report covers the period 1711-1716 of East India Company government at St Helena, drawing on three successive sequences of General Letters from the Court of Directors (later the Court of Committees) in London to the Governor and Council of the island. The earliest material consists of two long General Letters dated 5 March 1713 (carried on the Rochester) and 4 February 1714 (carried by the Cardonell). Together they document the moment at which the Court terminated the administration of Captain Boucher and installed a new five-member Council under Isaac Pyke, with George Haswell, Edward Maskham, Matthew Bazett and Antipas Tovey as second to fifth. The letters operate as both standing instructions to the incoming establishment and a forensic indictment of the outgoing one. [Film No. 11, 39-40, 45]
The second sequence consists chiefly of a long General Letter dated 14 March 1715, despatched by the Catherine under Captain John Hunter in 1716, together with closely related papers. The bulk of it answers earlier Council letters carried by the Abingdon, Cardonell, Susanna, Frederick, Aurengzebe, Mercury, Hester, Hanover, Eagle, Avarilla and St George. The dominant theme is a detailed audit of Boucher’s misgovernment and a programme of reform for the new Council that had arrived on 8 July 1714. [Film No. 61-110]
The third sequence is a single sustained communication from the Court of Committees, carried in February 1716 by the Success under Captain Benjamin Graves. It answered island letters carried home between late 1715 and August 1716 by the Cardigan, Kent, Thistleworth, Duke of Cambridge, Mary, Bouverie, Heathcote, Derby and Queen, together with the earlier Katherine dispatch under Hunter. It closed with seventeen directors’ signatures headed by chairman Sir Robert Child and later Sir Gregory Page, examined by clerk Laurence Lane, and amounted to a comprehensive review at a moment when compliance had begun to improve but fresh and serious abuses were emerging in the bench itself. [Film No. 117, 174]
Throughout, Boucher’s own correspondence survives only through the Court’s selective quotation and rebuttal, and the planters, soldiers and slaves appear chiefly through the Court’s voice.
Governance and administration
Authority on the island rested on a commission under the Company’s common seal, traceable to the royal letters patent of 16 December 1673 and the Blackmore commission of 20 February 1678. The new 1713 commission was to be published on arrival and entered in the consultation book, which served as the operative constitutional record. The Court’s removal of Boucher was procedural: it could not find in the Heddington letters any tolerable answer from him, and treated silence in the documentary record as evidence of neglect. [Film No. 11]
The procedural code imposed on the Pyke Council in 1713 was the most ambitious yet devised for the island. Consultations were to be held weekly, with debates and reasons recorded, the book signed by every member present, and dissents preserved by name. Duplicates were to go home by every shipping. Under Boucher, consultations had sometimes lapsed for five or six weeks, and a year of correspondence had compressed itself into fifteen sheets that, the Court remarked, might have been written in a week with ease. Each member was to render a monthly account of his particular charge, and no member could plead his office as exemption from majority examination. [Film No. 12-13, 26-27]
The 1714 despatch went further. Letters were to be signed rather than sent as unsigned copies, since a signature converted text into a voucher in any subsequent dispute. The Court ordered an extract book in which every standing order would be reorganised thematically with marginal references to source despatch and paragraph; a Secretary’s office with presses and drawers; an entry book of incoming General Letters signed by examiner and copyist; and a Michaelmas inspection of all registers, wills and public records. The architecture was a direct response to the disappearance of the Susanna letter of 20 March 1712, which Boucher had carried away when he left. [Film No. 40-43]
Boucher had subverted government by majority by appointing Mr Eason and Mr French as assistant counsellors at £40 per annum each, principally to give a show of collective consent to acts that were his own. French, though carried as Gunner, had very little or no insight in the art he professed, while one Welch on the island had much more skill. Their cases were left to the Council to determine impartially, with ensigns paid no claim to diet at the Governor’s table. [Film No. 61-62]
The General Letter of 14 March 1715 imposed a thorough documentary discipline. The consultation book was to be kept as a journal of all mercantile, civil and military affairs, with pages numbered consecutively rather than in loose scattering sheets, dissents entered with reasons, and the Council duly summoned. Many earlier entries had been signed only by the Governor, or written as if no Council existed. Letters were to be ordered under established heads, duplicated and properly endorsed. Standing rules and directions were to be extracted into a book with marginal notes and an alphabetical table - a task the Council had been at for nearly seventeen months without completing, which the Court called dilatory and inexcusable. Collective responsibility was insisted on: any councillor, including the Governor, who knew of injury to the Company and did not try to prevent it was to be treated as party to it. Bazett, the one continuing councillor from the Boucher period, was reproved for not having warned London of private warehouses kept by unfaithful servants to undercut the Company’s goods. [Film No. 80-86, 97]
By 1716 the bench had failed each test. It had taken eight weeks after the Katherine’s arrival on 17 June to compose its Queen reply, mixed subjects in single letters, and left material clauses unanswered. The remedy was that a despatch should always lie ready, since ships might stay only four or five days. The directors expressed their orders in language so plain that, in their words, the capacity of a youth might understand them. [Film No. 117-118, 128-129, 135]
A secret committee of four directors - Page, Lyell, Child and Dawsonne - was empowered to bind the bench by any orders signed by three, with the Company indemnifying. This was a constitutional device for swift, deniable action against Ostend interlopers, paralleling the Company’s diplomatic offensive at The Hague through Ambassador Cadogan and the Attorney General’s investigation of English subjects sailing under foreign commissions. No councillor was to be hindered from writing privately to London, but only after first lodging objections in consultation, so as to preserve the formal record. Stores writers had been cut from six to two, and the accountant and storekeeper used the cut as cover for delay; the directors refused the excuse. They reinforced the rule from the Rochester instructions that no councillor hold a plantation of his own, which Haswell and Bazett were openly breaching. [Film No. 121, 141, 151, 173-174]
Military affairs and defence
Defensive priorities were reordered by the Peace of Utrecht of 1713. The Court told the new Council that there was no longer such haste to finish remaining fortifications, since speed in that work would only divert slaves from cultivation and force the expensive hiring of the planters’ slaves by the day. Four distinct storehouses for arrack, India goods, Europe commodities and naval stores were to take priority. A complaint had reached London that the new battery at Marsden’s point did not adequately command Rupert’s Valley, where an older battery had been demolished, and the Council was to give its opinion with discretion to act in the interim. The eight long demi-cannon for the new west battery were not sent: existing guns would serve, and the Council in any case lacked hands to manage all those it already had. [Film No. 32-33, 37]
Three years of powder accounts revealed an established indiscipline. In July 1712 alone, three hundred and eighty-five pounds of powder had been expended and one hundred and thirty-four guns fired. Twenty guns had been fired at Mr Mashborne’s wedding and another twenty at the Governor’s, with comparable expenditure at funerals. The Court allowed salutes on days of public solemnity such as the Queen’s birthday, but distinguished sharply from the conversion of public artillery to private ceremony. The Gunner’s accounts, never examined in consultation, were to be examined monthly thereafter. Beyond the island, the Court warned of a renewed pirate threat: the Clapham Galley and the Delicia (formerly the man-of-war Milford Galley), with Captain Woodes Rogers said to command her, were openly bound for Madagascar on what the Court read as either covert privateering or outright piracy. [Film No. 16, 34-35]
Fortifications had been neglected since Governor Roberts left the island, despite Boucher’s pompous claims to have deserved better than any predecessor. The Council reported that additional work next the sea had actually weakened the castle, which would now have to be raised higher and fitted with iron rails with cow feet. The garrison had mutinied. The Court accepted want of food as a cause, but identified the deeper cause as the running of soldiers into arrears at the storehouse of £20 to £30 a man and upwards, a sum unpayable on ninepence a day. Park the storekeeper transferred punch to the punch house keepers and charged it to soldiers’ accounts, so that the soldiers lost both goods and pay. Boucher was credited for handling the mutiny, ordering debtors to work off arrears on the fortifications, and letting the boat to soldiers for fishing during the great scarcity of fresh provisions. [Film No. 65-66, 73, 76]
A separate case drew sharp rebuke. Governor Pyke and the Council had whipped men of the Eagle and kept some in irons for several months, with some labouring in the quarries, on a charge of mutiny which on the men’s own account had begun with a modest petition. The Court found this shocking to an English ear, too grievous for any crime less than capital, and the proofs only circumstantial. It reminded the Council that government was best preserved by just and gentle management, which when exceeded degenerated into tyranny and oppression. The Council’s more temperate handling of a parallel quarrel on the Cardonell was praised by contrast. Defensive practice also reflected the international situation: although peace now held with France and other nations, the Court could not tell how long it might last, and there were now no separate rock ships abroad to give warning. The Council was praised for refusing French ships beef during the recent war and for preventing them sounding about the island under pretence of fishing. [Film No. 89-90, 92-93]
By 1716, defensive policy was framed as strict necessity at minimum cost. The Utrecht peace was acknowledged but not relied on. Fortifications were to suffice against ship seizure in the road and against landing, no more. Cut stone and good mortar were to replace the mud and mortar that had ruined Rupert’s fort. The platform at Rupert’s Bay was to be completed and the Plantation House ground floor paved with stone to save the joists. In the road, the governor was commended for firing on the Ostend vessel Victoria, alias St Mathew, under Captain Sarsfield, and for refusing both her and the Charles Galley provisions or stay; Captains Haswell and Bazett were censured for failing in their duty at Mundens point. The directors rejected any analogy from pratique, the common right to wood and water, on the ground that the island was Company private property, sustained out of the Company’s own pocket, while extending courtesy to settled Dutch, French and Danish East India ships on reciprocal terms. [Film No. 113, 119, 122-123, 164]
Beyond Ostend, the directors warned of Swedish privateers, with English seamen reported fitting out at Calais under Swedish commissions to attack East Indiamen at the Downs, of Sallee corsairs from Morocco who had broken the peace, and of adventurers seeking Maltese and Muscovite commissions to cruise against Muslim shipping in the Red Sea and Persian Gulf under a crusade pretext. Within the garrison, the Gunner’s stores account was to be examined item by item, with broken bayonets charged to identifiable men, and soldiers to pay for arms broken outside combat. Maynard’s fine for burning three of the Company’s planks was approved as the proper response to small leaks that could become greater. The escape of Flowers, Stooks and two others in the Long Boat to Nevis and Antigua, a voyage of fourteen hundred and ninety-eight leagues, was treated by the directors with some grudging respect for Flowers’s mariner’s skill, but they instructed the bench to secure the sails of the boats and to retain unwilling servants by small gratuity rather than by refusal of leave. [Film No. 122-124, 152-153, 158-159, 161]
Settlement, land, agriculture and provisioning
The endemic redwood, principal building timber since 1673, had been drawn down to the point of working danger of extinction. The Council was instructed in 1713 to attempt deliberate cultivation, with experiment across different ground if the first attempt failed. Maize was to be encouraged; vines were promoted both for grapes as fresh refreshment and for the longer hope of local wine, and Madeira vine cuttings were to come on the Cardonell. The cattle stock had collapsed under Boucher: eleven bullocks and seven cows had vanished between October and December without explanation, despite a monthly accounting requirement. The stock of about two hundred goats which Mashborne had assured was in the valleys when he left was now wholly omitted from the returns, and the Court ordered enquiry into theft. The fishery was to be encouraged, with the catch salted immediately and supplied to slaves whose diet of bare yams the Court explicitly criticised. [Film No. 28-32, 38, 47]
The land system rested on the by-laws of 20 March 1680, which calibrated militia and cattle obligations to acreage. The Court was uneasy about consolidation of small holdings into larger ones through purchase, since this contracted the militia, and directed the Council to revise the ancient standing law to accommodate alienation while preserving the defensive purpose. Each inhabitant was to render an annual signed return of family, land, cattle and slaves, with a separate account of cattle on the commons. [Film No. 24, 38]
Boucher’s table abuses fed directly into a substantive supply reform in 1714. The Cardonell carried twenty-five pipes of Madeira wine for St Helena and a further fifteen for Bencoolen, loaded by Joseph Hayward at Madeira. The Court was explicit that wine was more wholesome than arrack, the consumption of which had reportedly grown strangely upon the people. The medical case had been set out the year before: new arrack produced what was called the dry belly ache, the lead colic associated with poorly distilled spirit. The Madeira shipment, the increase of rice and sugar in the standing one per cent of tonnage levy on homeward Coast and Bay shipping, and the new Utrecht-era requirement that all homeward ships call at the island for refreshment together constituted an integrated supply reform. [Film No. 24, 30, 46]
Security ultimately depended on the number of Englishmen on the island. Soldiers who behaved civilly were to be allowed to rent Company land at the expiry of their covenanted term, with the most deserving given land outright by ancient custom. The Council was to send annual alphabetical lists of families, whites, blacks, cattle, leased lands, freeholds and revenues, and to have a survey made of what land belonged to the Company. The state of livestock was very melancholy. By July, sheep, deer, goats, turkeys, geese, ducks, fowls and rabbits had all been entirely lost, although a list of 25 February had still shown 18 sheep, 5 turkeys, 6 ducks, 48 dunghill fowls, and Company black cattle had fallen from 92 to 60. The killing of calves and cows was forbidden absolutely, the Court citing the recent edict of the King of France forbidding the killing of lambs before Whitsuntide 1716 as a model. Gabriel Powell’s petition complained that the plantations were ill-managed, that cattle had been sold off since Mr Mashborne’s death on 31 March 1715, and that private inhabitants raised enough yams while the Company’s own plantations could not feed its own people. [Film No. 70-72, 110]
Punch houses had become a serious vice. The Court was strangely surprised at the Council’s statement that the island would take off seventy leaguers of arrack a year when there were now fewer than seventy families, and inhabitants had diminished rather than grown. In earlier times no quarter of that quantity had been spent, partly because during the last two wars with France ships had been uncertain whether they would touch at the island. The Court concluded that the people were grown sottish, many were poor and unable to pay debts, and the place was less healthful than formerly. Arrack was to be bought only at four shillings a gallon or under, the Council’s twelvepence a gallon duty on landed arrack was approved, beef was fixed at twenty-five shillings the hundredweight, and the Council was permitted to buy a good longboat for fetching lime and stone from Sandy Bay. [Film No. 93, 96, 99]
By 1716 the directors upheld the original constitution that had parcelled plantations into small and middling portions, each tied to a fixed acreage and a required number of white men. The engrossing of holdings by a few wealthy planters had defeated the design, depopulating the island and weakening the militia, since a man with no land of his own would not fight to defend a master’s estate. The bench was to enforce the white-men-to-acres ratio. Leases for lives, an instrument from English manorial practice, were authorised where improvement justified longer security. Fencing and planting laws were to be kept in force, and the proposal to plant oranges, limes and lemons was approved both as scurvy supply and as long-yielding improvement. Vine plants from Madeira on the Success were distributed, with the surplus sent on to Bencoolen along with yams and potatoes as planting stock, making the island a horticultural relay. [Film No. 111-112, 129]
The directors had often recommended that the great wood be fenced in to exclude goats and control cutting; they now proposed that the Madagascar slaves recently sent out should be set to it as the Council could spare them, with the bench’s own computation of 24 January at four hundred and sixty-eight pounds adopted as the year’s authorised budget. Plantation management drew severe criticism. The Company’s slaves had been routinely diverted from the weeding of plantations to mend the paths up the hills, the principal purpose of which was to make the carriage of ladies in their sedans more comfortable. The growing season would not wait, but the paths could, and the directors had been forced to send twenty further slaves to make up the lost weeding. They ordered that no plantation slave be moved off normal employment without utmost necessity and not before consulting the overseer, and required a periodic survey distinguishing Company slaves from those hired in, with warning against false musters. [Film No. 153, 164, 166]
The settled aim was that the island should victual the garrison and passing ships from its own plantations rather than buy from planters. The bench’s reduction of the price paid for yams against Boucher’s open-handed dealings was approved, but the directors would have preferred that no yams be bought at all. A consistent failure was the bench’s indent for stores: by the Queen, none had been sent; by the St George, the indent would have filled two or three ships. The directors proposed a tiered system separating absolute necessities, desirables and merely useful items, so that the Committee of Shipping could load against a triage list. Pitch and tar, long wanted, were sent. Tea drawn from China ships, one or two peeculs of each sort, was permitted: the coarse sort for soldiers, the finer for resale. [Film No. 111, 130-131, 134]
The fort table was a chronic source of expense. Forty persons attended constantly, sixteen of them black servants, six on board wages, the rest household and senior officers. Monthly cost ran at seventy pounds without ships, over a hundred with shipping. A leager of arrack, around one hundred and fifty gallons, was consumed monthly between fort and Plantation House. Four bottles of wine were drunk daily without shipping, six with. The directors refused the bench’s comparison with the Poirier, Roberts and Boucher administrations, applying instead an absolute test: the Company got nothing from St Helena and the place ran at a constant out-of-pocket charge. Drought had originally justified heavy arrack issue because the stock was destroyed and the people lived on salt provisions, but the drought was now ended. The directors believed a vice of excessive drinking ran among some, if not most, of the bench. They set out an arithmetic against the Mary’s population list of five hundred and forty-five white persons, two hundred and nine of them children, to show that the seventy leagers a year owned by the bench concentrated on a narrow upper layer of councillors. [Film No. 147-149]
Trade, shipping and the demurrage discipline
Shipping intelligence in 1713-14 catalogued outward and homeward fleets, including the Borneo voyage to re-establish a pepper trade (with Bencoolen as fallback after the loss of Bantam) and four Separate Stock ships listed despite the Act of Parliament prohibiting them beyond the Cape after 29 September. The 1714 fleet covered Bencoolen, Madras, Mocha, China, the Bay and Bombay. [Film No. 14-15, 45]
Demurrage became the chief operational test of the new Council. Despite the Court’s emphatic instructions, the Pyke Council took twenty-one days to unlade the Rochester against the Abingdon’s twelve working days and the Susanna’s discharge inside the ten-day allowance. The Council’s excuse - a great swell over some few days - was unsupported by particular dates, and the formal protest the Court had required was not made. The Court described the failure as a stumbling at the threshold and noted that more hands on Council had produced worse results than fewer. The seven days demurrage demanded by the owners would, by default, be conceded in London. [Film No. 16-17, 47-49]
Captain Lesly of the Abingdon was found to have delivered ten baulks short on his outward voyage; the boatswain owned the timbers were the Company’s and had been sold to the planters. The Court used the episode to formalise a packet-list discipline: the Governor or a Council member was personally to check every paper listed in each packet against what was enclosed. The London, arriving from Bombay via Fort St George, had put into Galway on the homeward voyage with a six-week delay - a diversion the Court treated, by implication, as suspicious in the context of standing concerns about at-sea private trade. [Film No. 44, 51-52]
St Helena’s primary value remained as a refreshment station on the homeward passage. The Court recorded the safe return of the Frederick, Grantham, Somers, Susannah (5 April 1715), Aurengzebe (1 May), Hester (25 May), Hanover (28 September), Avarilla (27 October) and Eagle Galley (29 October), whose captain was singled out for tedious delays at the Cape, at St Helena and in Ireland, making his passage near eleven months. A long outward list of new departures included the Marlborough for China, the Catherine for St Helena and Bencoolen, and others for Bombay and Bengal. The Council was to protest against ships failing to discharge expeditiously, as it had rightly done against the Cardonell, and to demand from captains that they make good shortfalls in goods consigned by bill of lading, refusing the captains’ argument that they need only account for prime cost. The Council had reported £1,408 of goods short delivered in one consultation. Inhabitants going aboard ships to trade were to be restrained according to the charter party penalty already laid on captains, with grievous complaints having come from planters who saw favourites in or out of the Council engross goods and put their own prices on them. [Film No. 86-91]
The Antigua sloop case haunted the 1716 dispatch. A West Indian sloop had traded at the island in August, the Council had said nothing, and the directors had heard through other channels that some of the bench had been in great expectation of her. The matter linked to the private storehouses on the island, which absorbed unlicensed goods landed without customs and competed with the Company’s stores. The new charter party tightened the position by removing the older option of paying twenty per cent double freight on unlicensed goods, which were now forfeit under the Act. It was new-modelled with clauses arranged in voyage order. The Katherine’s sixteen days of unlading in fair weather, against the standard ten-day allowance, set the model for procedure: the bench’s protest preserved the Company’s position, but the case was not to be a precedent. The directors required entries of boats used in unlading, to distinguish honest delay from one engineered for demurrage, and fixed the trade unit at six score deals to the hundred to remove ambiguity in invoices. [Film No. 116, 124-126, 128]
Internal supply through Company ships was to be preferred over local purchase. The bench had bought sixty pieces of blue cloth and twenty-five of chintz from Captain Tolson for slave clothing, while complaining in the same season of the detriment done by the private storehouses; the directors found the inconsistency astonishing. The bench was rebuked too for sending home twenty pieces of rotten blue cloth out of the sixty directed by the St George, since one piece would have served as sample, and for failing to identify the supplier of two hundred pieces said to be on the island. Captain Granger’s sale of rum to planters before the duty was reduced was objected to, since planters’ settlement through credit at the stores meant the Company’s money in London would in the end pay for it. Madeira wine through the merchant Hayward, medicines from Apothecaries’ Hall, and Goa arrack, palempores, quilts and rice from Bombay direct, completed a regular supply network. [Film No. 129, 131-134]
Stores, finance and currency
Stores procedure was reorganised in 1713-14 on the standard debtor-and-creditor method: the storekeeper charged with all received, discharged only by goods accounted for, with monthly accounts laid before Council. Settled prices were to be entered in the consultation book on a medium-price rule for India goods that averaged recent general prices rather than the cheapest or the dearest. Boucher’s stores abuses had been substantial. Alexander, his favoured commander, had sold palm wines brought out in Company ships at two shillings and sixpence the pint, while the Court’s Madeira went for only five shillings the gallon. Fifty-five gallons of sweet oil had been credited as bought from Captain Cook of the Leopard without ever being delivered ashore - the Court named Alexander, Cook, Hart and Park as participants. By Bazett’s audit, the cost of the island over three years from August 1711 had reached £26,350, with bills drawn on London amounting to £8,950 since December 1711 and a further £1,802 the previous July. [Film No. 21, 53, 55-57]
Currency arrangements addressed the soldier debts that under Boucher had run to ten, twenty and thirty pounds a man, prompting desertion. One hundred pounds in copper farthings and halfpence, the same in silver fanams from Fort St George, the same in Spanish bits, plus four hundred pounds in paper notes denominated at half a crown, one crown, twenty shillings and forty shillings, all signed by the Governor and Council and serially numbered, established the first paper currency at the island, with the stores as clearing house and London-sterling exchange available on departure. [Film No. 22, 25]
Running costs to 1715 confirmed the £26,350 figure, traced principally to mismanagement under the late Governor. In former times ships visiting for refreshment had been supplied against bills drawn on their owners; under Boucher this revenue mechanism had collapsed and the cost transferred to drafts on the Court. Good husbandry, the Court repeated, began in smaller matters. A list of debts at the stores stood at £7,474 2s 4½d, with great sums trusted to soldiers and to writers in the stores. Two writers had run off in debt. Company goods had been paid for in bad debts, with rich planters’ debts collusively transferred to insolvent persons. Officers who let accounts fall behind were first to be admonished, then stopped from salary, then removed. Park had let the general books run nineteen months behind. Monthly table abstracts were now required, sent by at least double conveyances, and an annual establishment abstract was prescribed in a fixed order from Governor and Council down through overseers, artificers, boats’ crew, Gunner and his Montrosses, military officers and finally private sentinels. [Film No. 64-65, 67-68, 104]
On currency, the Council had repeatedly pressed for dollars to be set at six shillings to discourage their export. The Court refused: an artificial value would not keep dollars on the island, since prices would simply adjust. Above £100 in Spanish bills, £400 in notes from half a crown to forty shillings, copper money for halfpence and farthings, and fanams from Madras had been supplied, intended to circulate through soldiers’ pay, wages and back to the stores. The Council, having asked for these supplies, then objected to the copper money as too heavy, an inconsistency the Court did not let pass. [Film No. 101-102, 104]
Accounts remained the directors’ central audit instrument and were chronically in arrears. Cargoes despatched from London since May 1708, the Katherine excepted, came to nineteen thousand three hundred and forty pounds; bills drawn since that date to about twenty-three thousand. Hancock had been sent out specifically to bring the books up but, with Bazett, offered shifting excuses across consultations of 29 November and 13 December 1715 and 21 February 1716. The directors now withdrew the gratuity intended for both, with restoration to depend on their own later judgement, and authorised the suspension of salary and diet if negligence continued. [Film No. 136-138]
Currency policy refused the bench’s repeated request for dollars: their secret meaning was private trade convenience for councillors. Dollars could circulate among planters at any rate, but the Company’s stores would take them only at five shillings for weighty pieces, refusing light or clipped coin. The arithmetic showed that a dollar received at five shillings would buy six shillings’ worth of goods at the local rate, and bills drawn in dollars would effectively charge the Company twenty per cent above true value. Bencoolen had supplied the warning: there, the Madras copper had been passed at two hundred to the dollar instead of four hundred, doubling the value, with the natives promptly raising their prices. [Film No. 140-142]
Paper money was the preferred alternative. The Rochester had carried one hundred pounds in Spanish bits, with one hundred each in fanams and copper from India and four hundred in bills from London; the Success brought four hundred pounds more in bills, dated, signed and numbered, with worn bills to be retired and sent home with two duplicate lists by separate ships. James Rider and Robert Bell’s wife had refused them, privately set on by Gabriel Powell, whose own private storehouse was the operative interest. Customs collection at the waterside was central. Land rent of twelve pence per acre and head money on slaves yielded one hundred and twenty-four pounds for the year ending 25 March 1716, though unpaid. A consignment of one hundred and thirty pieces of blue cloth and chintz stopped by the guard had been released on Captain Fitzhugh’s claim, with the guard receiving cloth and chintz and sixpence per piece as encouragement; the directors required all such goods to be seized and forfeited, and fixed customs at five per cent ad valorem with arrack alone at twelve pence the gallon. Annual customs returns were to come by double conveyance. Fines were to be kept on a separate list, moderate and proportioned, never imposed in passion, and the accountant was to enter no claim without a voucher signed by the Governor. [Film No. 138-140, 160-162]
Judiciary and justice
Judicial business rested on the laws and constitutions of 30 March 1685, with the Governor sitting as sole judge once every three weeks. The Court extended its working scope by directing that copies of all wills proved be sent annually to London. The Tovey plantation case was reserved for the Council’s investigation with all parties present. Edward Collier, grandchild of John Greenfields, had been enrolled as a soldier at fourteen so that his pay would defray his grandfather’s debt; the Court directed his dismissal while permitting discretion in this single instance. Social order rested on impartial justice and on restraining arrack drinking. [Film No. 23, 24, 37]
Earlier good entries of 9 June 1713 settling property of inhabitants’ lands, titles and the appointment of a Court of Orphans were to be continued. Wills, leases and their counterparts were to be faithfully kept, the Council being reminded of the crime imputed to Mr Alexander over a lease of lands. Two complaints brought the local bench under specific criticism. Gabriel Powell had been bound over in a bond of £200, which the Court called too severe and not to be brought into precedent, arising from quarrelsome words. Thomas Fee complained that the bench had refused to take yams in payment of a debt, which then rotted in the ground. The bench was to maintain its authority but to give no cause to cry out of rigour or inhumanity, since the Company could not gain by oppressing any inhabitant. There were even hints that councillors had promoted quarrels for the sake of fees, which the Court hoped not to believe but warned against. [Film No. 72-73, 82, 107-108]
In 1716 the trial of Mr Tovey for wounding Wrangham produced fines of forty pounds to the fortifications and twenty-five pounds to Wrangham, with imprisonment and suspension, but the directors found the prosecution had been carried on with unwarrantable violence. Haswell and Bazett held a particular spleen against him and had had him arraigned under the statute of stabbing, which carried death, although Wrangham had quickly recovered and lesser charges would have been appropriate. A parallel incident involved Bazett’s son-in-law, Gunner French, who had threatened to cut off Captain Graves’s ears, a sedition punishment, and the Council had failed to defend its own dignity. [Film No. 150-151]
The directors repeatedly pulled the bench back from arbitrary action. Walter Morris’s slave had been taken by the Governor though Morris had cleared his debt; the Council was to advise itself and do him right. James Ryder had taken ten per cent interest from Robert Bell, and the bench had seized one hundred and forty pounds of his credit in the stores to satisfy Bell’s debt; the directors observed that the English statute against extortion extended no further than England, Wales and Berwick, and could not be applied at St Helena. They suspected Ryder might be a tool of Powell, with whom he was intimate, but ordered the money returned. In the Free dispute, the Governor was rebuked for calling a planter rogue and villain in consultation merely for writing to London over a refusal to take his yams. Determinations were to be just, not rigorous, inclining to mercy. The Bazett and Hanwell letter of 14 March, alleging concealed expenditure of six or seven hundred pounds, the holding back of completed accounts and a demand by the Governor for five per cent on every bill drawn from St Helena, was to be examined by the whole Council in formal internal tribunal, with the Governor debating his accusers and the proofs exhibited openly. [Film No. 167-173]
Slavery and coerced labour
Enslaved people stood at the centre of the economy and at the margin of the official record, discussed under the head of stores, cattle, land and revenues. Coarse kerseys were sent in 1713 because slaves brought from hotter Indian or West African climates would suffer in the cooler island climate; the Court gave the justifications in a revealing order, humanity first but advantage operationally. The wholesale price of about twenty-one pounds a head reflected bulk procurement, four or five pounds below piecemeal hire. Under Boucher, slaves had been diverted to carrying friends in hammocks; the Court ordered him to refund the charge as if those slaves had been hired on the fortifications. Cleeve was charged with training selected slaves, described as the most docile and ingenious, in joinery and carpentry. Slaves drove the goats into pounds each night, integrating animal management into a routine task. The Madagascar question, where the Clapham Galley and Delicia were said to be bound on a slave trading account, illustrated the institutional difficulty of distinguishing legitimate slaving from cover for piracy. [Film No. 16, 18, 28-29, 36]
The Council had received forty-three slaves by the Mercury sloop, to be employed in handicrafts, fishing, planting and other beneficial employments, with none idle. Care was to be taken of their health, with proper clothing and food. Annual signed lists were to be sent distinguishing men, women, children of eight years and over and younger, with employments. A previous list had absurdly placed a one year old child called Harry among those looking after calves, hogs and poultry. When more slaves were sought, the Court explained that the present number was already greater than former governors had reckoned enough. Some had proved bad and had been complained of, though the same kind were often carried to the West Indies, where they answered very well. There had been complaint of cruel treatment, which the Court forbade with the striking instruction that care be taken to remember they were men. The contrast between the Court’s commodified view of slaves as productive units and its sudden insistence on their humanity captures the contradictions inside Company practice. Spare blacks worth sending to Bencoolen were to be put on the Cardonell at £4 per head. [Film No. 66, 69-70, 110]
By 1716, slave supply was treated as a procurement problem, addressed by licensing private merchants to trade to Madagascar in exchange for delivery of slaves free at St Helena. The standard specification was two-thirds male, one-third female, none under sixteen or above thirty, all sound; the Governor had power to refuse delivery and charge the master forty pounds per head shortfall. The supply ratio for additional licences was nine slaves per five hundred pounds of cargo carried. Sixty-eight Madagascar slaves had been delivered in the preceding year, with the Hamilton galley licensed to bring fourteen more. By the time of the Success the island held three hundred and ten slaves, of whom one hundred and seventeen were children under twelve. The directors considered this fully sufficient and refused the Council’s request, in the consultation of 24 January, for two hundred more. Their argument turned on false musters, by which overseers recorded slaves as employed on Company fortifications while in fact they worked on private plantations; several councillors who were themselves planters benefited directly. [Film No. 115, 153-154]
Hire rates were equally contentious. The customary rate was twelve pence a day, but Bazett had carried the Council to set eighteen pence as a floor on the argument that no planter could afford less. He had blocked the overseer Mr French from discharging two of the chaplain Thomlinson’s slaves to lighter work at twelve pence. Bazett, the directors recalled, had been a refugee taken up by the Company; his conduct was a poor return, and if he did not serve better he would eat no more of the Company’s bread. The directors proposed that Will the Carpenter and Jack Grever, identified in the St George list as capable men, should train other slaves to the building trades as the Dutch had done at Batavia, so as to break the bench’s reliance on European craftsmen at five and six shillings a day. They required adequate nourishment for sick slaves, noting that deaths had been reported through shortage of victuals, and observed pointedly that planters who cared for their slaves kept them. The chaplain Thomlinson, who held seven slaves of his own, had refused to return the Company slave Will on recall; the directors ordered him returned or substituted, allowed Thomlinson five pounds a year for housing, and rejected the consultation of November 1707 that had given a chaplain a slave and a soldier’s rate of pay. They objected to the use of slaves to carry persons in sedans, an expensive luxury at the going hire. [Film No. 145, 155-157, 166]
Religion and welfare
Religious provision in 1713-14 appeared chiefly through its breakdown. The Chaplain, Mr Thomlinson, had failed to produce the list of Christians’ marriages, births and burials expressly ordered, despite the civil register having operated since the founding instructions of 1673. Under Boucher he had sometimes been excluded from the Governor’s table when ship’s captains were entertained, breaking a standing condition of the office. By 1714, Thomlinson and others were writing directly to the Court, extending correspondence beyond the Council channel that had previously filtered all communication. [Film No. 27, 29, 40]
Thomlinson prayed the Court for a church in James Valley, offering to send a model with timbers, pews, pulpit, reading desk and communion table ready framed, with a subscription of £150. The Court was willing to contribute handsomely but raised the practical problem of tonnage. Thomlinson also asked for diet money, since soldiers were quartered in the sessions house where his lodgings were and his apartments were too straight, particularly as he was married. The Court left the matter to the Council’s opinion, being reluctant to make new precedents. At the close of the General Letter of 14 March 1715 the Council was directed to proclaim King George, Queen Anne having died on 1 August last, with becoming solemnity. The letter was subscribed by Robert Pitt as Deputy in the Chair, with Richard Gough, Thomas Heath, Matthew Decker, Justus Beck and others. [Film No. 77-79]
In 1716 the chaplain’s lodging dispute, in which Thomlinson claimed fifteen pounds a year for his house against the bench’s five, was settled at five pounds with a structural suggestion. As lords of the manor of St Helena, the Company supplied the minister and paid him a stipend, but unlike English parishes the inhabitants paid no rate. The directors proposed that planters subscribe voluntarily to build a parsonage, with the Company engaging for part: planters who subscribed would acquire a stake in the parish, and so a further reason to remain. The new church was deferred behind more pressing stores requirements. Mrs Southern’s case touched welfare practice: the wife of a soldier had importuned the directors for advances against wages, producing a marriage certificate under the hand of Dean Claxton of St Michan’s near Dublin. The directors had advanced three pounds more after verifying that there was such a minister and that the parish existed, but required the Council to recover the sum. The annual choice of church wardens and overseers, on the model of an English vestry, was approved, and the Lady Day rhythm of accounts and returns of family lands and cattle held on the common embedded the island in the metropolitan economy. [Film No. 113-114, 162, 166]
Personalities
Boucher emerges as the central figure even in his deposition. The Court accused him of a coherent pattern of abuse. He had buried the foundations of the public storehouse after the ground had been levelled, stone got ready and timber framed, diverting the materials to a four-hundred-foot covered riding shed costing above three hundred pounds and to stables for his apes. He had sold the Company’s hogs and turkeys, bred at Company charge, to French ships and others under cover of the peace following the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713. He had diverted Company and planters’ slaves to carry his friends in hammocks. He had kept a magnificent table for ship’s captains from which Company servants, including the Chaplain, were sometimes excluded. He had dismissed Mr Free as Clerk of the Council so that he might install his own man, and through him operated the documentary obstruction shown in the missing Susanna letter. [Film No. 29-30, 35, 59-60]
The Court’s response was modelled in evidentiary terms on civil litigation. Boucher was required to settle his account current before leaving the island, with all proofs there to be had on both sides, and to give bond in London for any unpaid balance, witnessed by ship’s officers proceeding to the place of payment. The account was to travel by triple conveyance. The Court drew testimony from each office in turn - Bazett for the stores, the consultation books for finance, the recovered Susanna letter for procedure, Free for the clerical substitution. When Boucher in fact left the Abingdon at the Channel and delayed for months in coming up to London, the Court read his manoeuvre as continuous with his earlier obstruction. [Film No. 39, 44, 60]
Among the rehabilitated, Bazett occupied a particular place: under Boucher he had been excluded from stores and accounts for five or six months together, and the new commission restored him as Storekeeper. Edward Maskham was the one continuity appointment, retained for his prior service as Overseer of the plantations. Mr Cleeve the carpenter, dismissed by Boucher for proposing that Company timber not be embezzled but put to serviceable uses, was placed under direct London protection. Antipas Tovey, who claimed a plantation through his wife from which Boucher had turned him out, was given the unique exemption from the prohibition against Council plantations, conditional on his letting the holding rather than working it personally. [Film No. 13, 22-23, 25, 30, 35]
By 1715 the indictment of Boucher had widened. He had used Free so ill that he had been delirious for some time, packed the Council with mean characters, appointed an incompetent Gunner over Welch, let the table allowance become an instrument of patronage, presided over the storehouse arrears scandal, nearly destroyed the livestock, and built a riding shed valued at £181 16s while converting Company live provisions worth £156 19s 6d to his own use. He had stripped the house, let the plantations and gardens run to ruin, and could not be brought to account for cattle sold to Company shipping. He was credited, however, with handling the mutiny, the public notice for debt work-out and the boat-letting for fishing - a calculated piece of balance forestalling any later defence based on selective citation. Park, the storekeeper, was at the heart of the debt and punch fraud. Cleve the Carpenter, dismissed by Boucher for opposing embezzlement of timber, was restored with the diet allowance Boucher had withheld. Skreaves the Mason at 6s a day was thought to be overpaid, as was the soldier John Sinsnick at 4s a day for stonelaying at Prosperous Bay House. Sergeant Southen’s wife in London exposed her husband’s false allegations and was paid ten pounds by the directors, to be deducted from his pay. Mr Awe quit the Company’s service over the Governor’s ill treatment. [Film No. 61, 66-68, 74-75, 97, 106-110]
By 1716, Bazett drew the most sustained criticism: refugee taken up by the Company, plantation-holder in breach of the Rochester order, protector of the eighteen-pence hire rate from which he benefited, obstructor of the discharge of the chaplain’s two weak slaves, opponent of charging interest on debts, prosecutor of Tovey under the statute of stabbing with what the directors called particular spleen, co-signer of Hancock’s repeated excuses for the unfinished accounts. Yet with Hanwell he was also the author of the substantive letter alleging the Governor’s concealed expenditure, holding-back of accounts and demand for commission on bills. The Governor, identifiable as Isaac Pyke, was praised for firing on the Victoria, recovering Company debts and pressing the standing orders, but charged in the closing paragraphs with driving a great private trade, being the principal person concerned in the Antigua sloop’s commerce, holding stock ready against her return, running garrison soldiers into debt at his stores, building a new path costing a thousand pounds with a banqueting house and ninepin alley, and constructing a stone tomb ten feet high, first for his son and then for his wife, charged to the fortifications. The directors demanded a plain answer without artful colourings and required reimbursement of the tomb’s cost. [Film No. 119, 122, 145, 150-151, 168, 172-173]
Conclusion
The 1713-1716 despatches record the Company’s most thorough attempt yet to convert St Helena from a personal regime under a Governor into a documented institution under a Council. The procedural architecture - weekly consultations, monthly accounts, signed entries, extract book, schedule of records, packet-list check, Michaelmas inspection - was designed to make documentary obstruction of the Boucher kind structurally impossible. The reforms imposed in the General Letter of 14 March 1715 - duplicate despatches, dated signatures, particularised packet lists, numbered consultation pages, monthly table abstracts, signed slave lists and standing rule extracts - amount to a bureaucratic revolution in miniature, attempted in response to the failure of personal trust. [Film No. 80-110]
Whether it succeeded in operational terms is another question. The Rochester demurrage failure showed the same procedural defect reappearing within months of arrival, and the Court’s irritation in 1714 was real. By 1716 the directors believed compliance had begun to improve but fresh and serious abuses were emerging in the bench itself - private trade, the Antigua sloop, the engrossing of slave hire rates, and the Governor’s own ornamental expenditure charged to fortifications. The wider context can be read in the directors’ framing: the Treaty of Utrecht peace, the accession of George I proclaimed at the island on 6 June 1715, Jacobite agitation, the closing phase of the Great Northern War, the Sallee corsairs’ renewed predation, and the Ostend venture organised in the Spanish Netherlands with Dutch backing and English subjects under foreign cover, together produced an integrated counter-strategy combining diplomacy at The Hague, executive proclamation, criminal investigation, naval vigilance and refusal of pratique at St Helena to all interlopers. [Film No. 113, 116, 120-123]
The narrative is told almost entirely in the Court’s voice; Boucher’s defence survives only as it is mocked or rebutted, and the planters and slaves appear chiefly as objects of provision or sources of complaint. The strength of the evidence lies in the documentary discipline by which the Company sought to control an establishment fifteen thousand miles away, with each encounter converted into a signed record traceable from invoice through consultation to indent and audit. Its weakness is that the directors could only complain after the fact, often years later, and on the strength of partial intelligence. The volume of named complaint in the 1716 dispatch points to multiple unnamed informants writing privately to London; the directors used the material with care, ordering investigation rather than judging themselves, but the cumulative pattern suggests they were assembling the documentary basis on which the Governor could be recalled if his response did not satisfy them. The Court’s institutional success is therefore also the success of its own version of events. [Film No. 11, 39-40, 49, 53, 60, 168-173]
No | Page No. | OCR Transcription | Modern Summary with Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
EAP 1364 St Helena Document Name and Date St Helena - Letters from England 1713-1716 Photographer Aidan Pluto Date photographed 10th May 2022 Additional comments | |||
Book cover | |||
WARNING. A poisonous solution containing mercuric chloride has been used in the repair and binding of this volume. | |||
Blank page | |||
Blank page | |||
Blank page | |||
Blank page | |||
From England Letter Book - 1713 to 1716 The consultations recorded in Council Book "extremely jejune" - - - - - - - - Governor Boucher did whatever his own passion or spleen prompted him Pirates said to infest the Indian Seas Two French ships and their pri[z]es mentioned S[t] Helena ex[p]enses 'a leak in the Company's estate to be stopped Governor Boucher's misman[a]gement - 51 - Redwood trees - decrease of noticed Powder extravagantly expended in salutes - English Frigates will stand upon p[oin]ts Margin Notes: From England | |||
1 | Complaint that Ruperts batteries have been neglected by preference for Mundens - 29 Secretary's Office to be fitted up - 34 Meen character of Gov: Bouchers councillors Frenc[h] & C[ar]on - 53 Queen Anne's death - King George proclaimed - 70 In all time coming the Secretary is to be kept to his duty - 74 Gov: Pyke shipping seamen showing "his despotick authority unseasonably" - 83 Arrack consumption of - cause of the people being sottish poor and unable to pay their debts - 88 Ostend ships suspected of being into the Victoria - & the Governors zeal steps taken to prevent such Interlopers - 112 Notice of Knights of Malta giving commissions to ships to fight Mahomet[a]ns - 114 Swedish privateers & Sallee rovers noticed - 116 S[t] Helena Indent so great, the Committee were shocked at the very sight of it - 123 Leave could not be had to send out English halfpence - 129 Matthew Bazett told our mind plainly - if he does not serve better shall not eat our bread - 137 Vice of excessive drinking - 141 [O]ccasion of Mr Tovey wounding Mr Wrangham - 142 Parcells of Companys Blacks not to be employed to carry persons up and down the hills - - - 148 Four men who run away with [a?] Long Boat reached Antigua - 150 Blacks not to be employed to mend paths that Ladys might be carried in their sedans - 158 | ||
2 | A plain instance of our Governor following his own positive temper 160 His Language to Mr. Free - - - - - - - 161 Hadwell and Bagatts complaint against the Governor - 163 Governor Pyke building a Tomb at Companys exp[en]se of hewn stone - reproved and ord[er]ed to refund - 165 | ||
3 | Orders and Instructions given by us the Court of Directors of The United Company of Merch[ants] of England trading to the East Indies To Cap[t] Isaac Pyke Gov[ernor] of our Island of S[t] Helena To Mr George Haswell Second of Councell To Mr Edward Maskham Third To Mr Matthew Bazett fourth and To Mr Antipas Tovey fifth and last of the said Counceill We the said Court of Directors having thought fit to Elect & Settle the Governour and Council as above expressed and having given our said Governour a Commission under the Companys Com mon Seale which we direct be Publishe[d] as usuall on his Arrivall at the Island and then Entered in the Consultation book and reposing Speciall Trust & Confidence in your fidelity zeal & continued Applica tion to perform the Severall matters and affairs committed to your care in generall and to Each of you for what concerns himself in particular We come now to Acquaint you what it is we expect from you in the management of our Affairs with which you are entrusted. On your Arrivall at S[t] Helena and taking upon you the Governm[en]t of the Island and each of you, your particular and distinct charges or if that will Spend time before these charges are formally Enterd upon and mannaged We desire that you first of all Give Order to expedite the unlading of this Ship Rochester and her[?] in a Convoy to Bencoolen of which we Shall Say more under the head of Shipping and Giving her Ship if you can have time for it if not as Soon as She is gone. That you diligently in Councel peruse the Letters & Instructions Sent by the Sedington and Twistleworth and those Since by the Abendgon & Inde[?] una together with all those there in referd to as also las then our orders where in you will have a full view of our directions and know how to mannage our Affairs on that Island. We cant find either by Lettrs or Consultations That our late Governour Capt Boucher and the then Councill gave any tollerable hed to our Instru tions sent by him on the Sedington So much as read them over with attention or to mind them tho he has necesitated us to Shift hands in hopes of better mannagement Our [?] Pa[r?] directed our Extract to be take[n] out of all the Lettres wrote to S[t] Helena either by the old Company the Court of mannagers or the United Court of Directors of the orders relating to every dustend[?] branch of our affairs there putting each under their proper head but we have no time, that this w[ould?] over comp[l]y[ed] with | The Court of Directors of the United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies issued orders and instructions to Captain Isaac Pyke as Governor of St Helena, to George Haswell as second of Council, to Edward Maskham as third, to Matthew Bazett as fourth and to Antipas Tovey as fifth and last member of the Council. The Court had thought fit to elect and settle the Governor and Council as named above. A commission under the Company's common seal accompanied the appointment. The commission was to be published as usual on arrival at the island and entered in the consultation book. The Court reposed special trust and confidence in the fidelity, zeal and continued application of the named men in carrying out the several matters and affairs committed to their care, both in general and as to each man's particular charge. The present orders set out what the Court expected from them in the management of Company affairs at the island. On arrival at St Helena, the Governor and each Council member were to take up their particular and distinct charges. Some time would pass before those charges could be formally entered upon. The Court directed that the men should first of all employ their time in unloading the ship Rochester and getting her ready to proceed to Bencoolen. More directions on shipping followed under that heading, with instructions to hasten the ship's departure if she had not already gone. The Council was charged to use diligence in considering the letters and instructions sent by the Heddington and Heathcote, and those sent earlier by the Abingdon and Susanna, together with all others referred to. From that review the new Council would gain a full view of the Court's directions and learn how to manage Company affairs at the island. The Court could not find from either letters or consultations that the late Governor Captain Boucher and his Council had given any tolerable answer to the instructions sent to them by the Heddington. So much as the Court could observe with attention had moved the Court to change hands in hope of better management. The Court had earlier directed at large that the letters written to St Helena, whether by the old Company or by the United Court of Directors of the Court of Managers, should be answered point by point, with each matter set under its proper head. The Court had as yet no evidence that this had ever been complied with. Interpretations The election and settling of the Governor and Council under the Company's common seal, together with the requirement that the commission be published on arrival and entered in the consultation book, shows the formal mechanism by which authority on the island was constituted. The common seal carried the chartered power granted by the royal letters patent of 16 December 1673. Entry of the commission in the consultation book served as the operative act of constitutional record on the island, parallel to the entry of the Blackmore commission of 20 February 1678 in earlier practice. The named Council represents a complete change of personnel from the previous administration. Isaac Pyke as Governor, with George Haswell, Edward Maskham, Matthew Bazett and Antipas Tovey as second, third, fourth and fifth, replaces the establishment under the late Governor Captain Boucher in its entirety. The five-member structure with a fixed order of seniority preserves the constitutional shape settled in the Blackmore commission of 20 February 1678, with the quorum rule attaching to the seniority order. The direction that the new Council was first of all to unload the Rochester and prepare her for Bencoolen, before formally entering upon their distinct charges, reveals the working priority of the homeward and eastward shipping over the routine administrative settlement of the island. The arrangement extends the standing pattern of using St Helena as a victualling and refit station for the Company's wider trade, with Bencoolen on the western coast of Sumatra serving as the principal English pepper station after the loss of Bantam. The requirement to answer letters point by point under their proper heads, with the rebuke of Boucher's administration for failing to do so, shows the working documentary discipline expected of the island Council. The procedure operated as the principal accountability mechanism by which London could test whether each particular order had been received, understood and acted upon. The change of hands in hope of better management indicates that persistent failure on this point was treated as sufficient ground for replacement of the whole Council. Speculations The Court's express statement that it could not find from letters or consultations any tolerable answer to the instructions sent by the Heddington, and its consequent change of hands, suggests that the removal of Boucher and his Council was procedural in character rather than driven by any single substantive failure. The decision turned on the absence of a documentary record demonstrating compliance, regardless of what may or may not have happened on the ground. The arrangement places the burden of proof on the Council to evidence its own diligence through proper answering of orders, with silence treated as evidence of neglect. The careful naming of four distinct prior despatches by ship (the Heddington, Heathcote, Abingdon and Susanna), together with the requirement to study them in conjunction with all others referred to, indicates that the new Council was being inducted by reference to a defined documentary archive rather than by direct briefing from the outgoing establishment. The procedure protected the Court against any loss of institutional memory caused by the wholesale change of Council, and shifted the operative continuity from the personnel to the written record held in the consultation book. | |
4 | and we mention it now that you may dispatch the Rochester or get all that are i[n] be[?] to [...] & also be a[nd] finished as soon as possible and when drawn out to this time Shall be carefully examined in Council to See whether it be hertily and fully done and if not so you make it Compleat. There a[s] for[?] We you will See in the Read[?] th[is] [...] do we offer you we [...] it be [...] amind in Councill because you will thereby be the [...] for better apprized of our Orders whether Negative or Positive and i[n] consequence we may expect they will be obeyd. The first sixteen Pa[ge?]s of the Sedingtons Letter contain a Summary Acco[un]t of our Directions in Generall touching your affairs and the Manna ragm[en]t of them by the Govern[ou]r & Councill of S[t] Helena for the time being which you must have as much regard to as if herein again inserted as you also must to all preceding & succeeding Letters except only to such of them as have since been or by this or any Subsequent Lettrs may be repealed or alterd onely in what respect the Orders So altered or repeald are to be lookt upon as no longer Obligatory. We hereby require That all our Affairs be manag[d] According to the Direction of the Govern[ou]r & Councell or the Major part of them and to that End That you hold Consultations Weekly or oftner if there be Occasion and Enter in the Consultation book of a particular Account of the Result of all your Debates with your reasons That each of you do give in an Acc[oun]t from time to time monthly or oftner if required to the Council of the Mannagement of the Affairs under your respective distinct charges and employm[en]ts And that the Proper Notices thereof be entred in the Consultation book That when the Councill are met and Shall give orders to any one or more of you in matters Relateing to your Seperate charges Such orders be Entred in Consultation and in a proper time afterwards more or less as the Occasion requires that an Acc[oun]t be called for & given how Such orders have been executed and an entry thereof be made in the Consultation book That no one of the Councill because he is So Shall think himself exempted from the controul or Examination of the Majority of Councell as to any matters under his particular Charge That Each of you in your respective Stations do carefully & constantly observe the Severall Rules in the Generall Letters relating to that Said Stations and that there it be from time to time carefully to See they be observed That the Generall Letters when ever received be read in Council and to that End the whole Council be Summond | The Court added a further direction touching the Rochester. The Council was to take care that she was righted, ballasted and finished as soon as possible, and when drawn out to within the time stated to be carefully examined in Council to see whether the work had been honestly and fully done. If not, the Council was to make a confident charge upon those at fault. The Council would see in the road if the things done were as they ought to be. The matter was to be examined in Council, since the Council would by that means be the better apprised of the Court's orders. Whether the response was negative or positive, the Court might expect the orders to be obeyed. The first sixteen paragraphs of the Heddington's letter contained a summary account of the Court's directions in general touching the Company's affairs, and the management of them by the Governor and Council of St Helena at the time. The Council was to have as much regard to those paragraphs as if they were here again inserted. The same regard was to be paid to all preceding and succeeding letters, except only such of them as had since been or by this or any subsequent letter might be repealed or altered. Only those orders so altered or repealed were to be looked upon as no longer obligatory. The Court required that all the Company's affairs at the island be managed according to the direction of the Governor and Council, or the major part of them. To that end the Council was to hold consultations weekly, or oftener if there should be occasion, and to enter in the consultation book a particular account of the result of all debates, with the reasons. Each member was to give in an account from time to time, monthly or oftener if required, to the Council of the management of the affairs under his respective distinct charge and employment. Proper notices of these accounts were to be entered in the consultation book. When the Council met and gave orders to any one or more of the members in matters relating to his separate charge, such orders were to be entered in consultation and in proper time afterwards, more or less as the occasion required, that account should be called for and given how such orders had been executed. An entry of the execution was to be made in the consultation book. No one of the Council, because he was such, was to think himself exempted from the control or examination of the majority of the Council as to any matters under his particular charge. Each member was, in his respective station, constantly to observe the several rules in the General Letters relating to the station, and to see from time to time carefully that the rules were observed. The General Letters, whenever received, were to be read in Council. To that end the whole Council was to be summoned. Interpretations The General Letter operated as the primary instrument by which the Court governed the island between despatches. The requirement that every General Letter be read in full Council on receipt, with the whole Council summoned for the purpose, established the letter as the binding instruction on all members jointly. The rule prevented selective disclosure by the Governor, and ensured that no member could later plead ignorance of a direction. The doctrine that prior orders remained in force unless expressly repealed or altered functioned as the working constitutional rule of the island administration. Each despatch added to a cumulative body of standing instructions, against which Council action was to be measured. The arrangement preserves the legal effect of every earlier despatch back to the founding instructions of 19 December 1673, subject only to express modification, and explains the heavy documentary discipline imposed on the Council in keeping the consultation book as the operative register. The system of weekly consultations, with debates and reasons recorded, monthly accounts from each member on his distinct charge, and entries of execution of orders given to particular members, established a closed loop of accountability. Orders given were entered, accounts of execution were called for, and the calling for the account was itself entered. The arrangement makes the consultation book a complete documentary record from which the Court in London could reconstruct the management of every matter without the need to rely on personal report. The express provision that no Council member, by virtue of his place, was exempted from the control or examination of the majority of the Council as to matters within his particular charge directly addresses the structural risk of the distinct charge system. Each member held a defined portfolio (Storekeeper, Husband, Accountant, and so on), but the portfolio was to be exercised under the continuous oversight of the whole. The rule prevents the conversion of a distinct charge into a private fief, and reinforces the collective character of the Council against any tendency toward personal administration. Speculations The instruction that the Rochester be examined in Council after she was righted and finished, with the Council itself going down to the road to see whether the work had been done as it ought, suggests that the Court anticipated either negligence or fraud in the refitting work and wanted the Council corporately on record as having inspected the result. The arrangement places the burden of detection on the Council rather than on the workmen or the Captain, and creates a documentary trail by which any subsequent discovery of bad work could be traced to the inspecting Council. The mechanism converts the act of inspection into an instrument of liability. The detailed procedural code for consultations, accounts and entries reads as a direct response to the failure identified in the previous paragraph: the absence of any tolerable answer from the Boucher administration to the instructions sent by the Heddington. By specifying the cadence (weekly or oftener), the form (entries in the consultation book), the content (debates, reasons, accounts of execution) and the rule against any member exempting himself from majority oversight, the Court was building a procedural system designed to make the silence of the Boucher kind administratively impossible going forward. | |
5 | to See [...] first opend & directed to them all and an Entry there of and of reading such Letters be made in the Consultation book That the minute[s] taken at every Councill be read the next before any other business is gone upon and if right thatan Entry be made of their approval and when they are Entered in the Consultat[i]on book which they must for [...] without be that they be Signd by each or if any one objects that he enter his Disent against his Name with the reasons of that Duplicates of the Consultations be weekly kept up to be ready to send us by the Shipping Signd by the Councill in [...] we may be able to Judge of your mannagem[en]t and that the Transactions of all matters be entred therein whether Relateing immediately to our own Affairs or to Complaints A[c]commodat[i]ons Advertisements or other things Relateing to the Inhabitants Souldiers or others and we would that the Said Book be in the Nature of a Journall and to contain in it an Acc[oun]t of all the M[er]canti[le] Civill Military or other affairs on the Island under your direction. We have the more distinctly mentioned the severall Rules in the last Par because we find the Consultation book last rec[eive]d from S[t] Helena very defective in divers particulars which of those Rules are for the future observed will be remedy[d]. We take notice many times Consultations have not been held in five or Six weeks together & longer seldom one in a fortnight or three weeks That many of the things contained in the General[l] Letters were Steepe[r] & ought to be first deter[m]ind in Consultation but not one word of them is contain[d] therein That God[er]n[ou]r Boucher in the Letter of the 8 Aprill says M[r] Cock had been often call[d] upon to give in his Acco[un]t of the Stores and he has Sometimes Scolded & h[ig]h every M[et]hod with him for that purpose but in vain yet we can find no Notice of this in Consultation we w[hi]ch ought to have b[e]en don[e] then we could have Seen the Gov[ernou]r did his p[ar]t in many other things might be Easyly enumerated to shew that the Consultations [...] should be like ever Cou[n]cil book & give every reader a full view of all Trans[a]ctions and we expect hereafter they h[...] So if not as we much know, [...] J[?] and contain a duly stupid & uselsess [...] in[?] of the Mannagem[en]t [...] of S[t] Helena That M[r] Bazett has been kept from Sup[p]ly[in]g the Effects [...] Letter for five or Six months together and not Seem[ed] to insist on the Stores tho [...] he should and if he had thive [...] [...] tho[...] he had not been So very backward as they are That the Gov[ern]e[ur] did when ever | The Court directed that each letter be first opened in Council, with an entry made in the consultation book of the fact of opening and reading. The minutes taken at every Council meeting were to be read at the next meeting before any other business was gone upon. If right, an entry of approval was to be made. When the minutes were entered, the consultation book was to be signed by every member who must be present, unless any one of them objected, with the reasons recorded against his name. Duplicates of the consultation were to be weekly kept up ready to be sent to the Court by the shipping, signed by the Council. By this means the Court would be able to judge of the Council's management, and to be entered therein were all transactions of all matters, whether relating immediately to the Company's own affairs or to complaints, considerations, advertisements or other things relating to the inhabitants, soldiers or others. The Court would have the book in the nature of a journal, and to contain in it an account of all merchant, civil, military or other affairs on the island under the Council's direction. The Court had the more distinctly mentioned the several rules in the last paragraph because the consultation book last received from St Helena was found very defective in divers particulars, which if the rules were for the future observed would be remedied. Notice was taken that many times consultations had not been held in five or six weeks together, and longer, seldom one in a fortnight or three weeks. Many of the things contained in the General Letter ought to have been first determined in consultation, but not one word of them was contained therein. Governor Boucher, in the letter of the eighth of April, said that Mr Cock had been often called upon to give in his account of the stores, and had been once seated, scolded and chid by every method with him for that purpose, but in vain. The Court could find no notice of this in consultation, where it ought to have been, since then the Court could have seen the Governor did his part. Many other things might be easily enumerated to show that the consultations, which should be the cover, could book and give every reader a full view of all transactions, were expected hereafter to be so used as no man hereafter and chiefly to come and contain a very stupid and useless air of the management of St Helena's affairs. The Court found that Mr Bazett had been kept from doing his duty as fifth of Council for five or six months together and not suffered to assist in the stores. The evidence was that he should have, and if he had then disagreed and complied with the rest he had not been so very backward as they were. The Governor did whatever. Interpretations The procedure for opening letters in Council, reading minutes at the next meeting before other business, signing the consultation book by all members present and recording objections by name with reasons, established the consultation book as an authenticated collective record. The arrangement removed the possibility of unilateral revision after the fact, since each minute carried the signatures of those present and any dissent was preserved on the same page. Signature operated as an act of attestation, with refusal to sign reserved as the formal mechanism of dissent. The requirement that duplicates of the consultation be weekly kept up, signed and sent to London by every shipping, converted the island record into a regular administrative return. The duplicate served the parallel function of the triple-receipt system of 19 December 1673 in the supply chain, with redundancy protecting against loss at sea. The expectation that the book serve as a journal containing all merchant, civil, military and other affairs reflects the unified character of the Council's jurisdiction, with no distinction between commercial and governmental business within a single corporate record. The specific complaint that consultations had often not been held for five or six weeks at a stretch, with the longest interval cited in evidence, identifies the underlying procedural failure of the Boucher administration. The cadence of consultation determined the responsiveness of the entire system. Where weeks passed without a meeting, the documentary record could not capture the management of affairs in time for the next homeward fleet, and the standing direction that every order be answered in the consultation book before being executed could not be observed. The reference to Mr Cock's repeated failure to give in his account of the stores, and the Governor's plea in the letter of 8 April that he had used every method to compel compliance, illustrates the practical operation of the distinct charges system. Cock held the storekeeper's portfolio. His refusal to render the periodic account paralysed the Council's oversight of the principal physical asset under its control. The Court's complaint was not that the Governor had failed to act, but that he had failed to record his action in consultation, leaving the Court with no evidence on which to vindicate him. The case crystallised the rule that without the documentary entry, no administrative effort counted. Speculations The Court's specific mention of Bazett being kept from his duty as fifth of Council for five or six months, and not suffered to assist in the stores, suggests an internal coalition within the Boucher Council that operated to exclude one member from the storehouse where the principal opportunities for engrossing and private benefit lay. The remark that if Bazett had complied with the rest he would not have been so backward implies that exclusion was the price of his refusing to join in. The arrangement reveals the structural weakness of the distinct charges system when a majority on the Council combined against the minority, and helps explain the wholesale change of personnel in the new commission. By installing a fresh five with no prior coalition history, the Court was attempting to break the pattern of exclusion that had paralysed Bazett during the previous administration. The detailed catalogue of procedural failures, drawn directly from the deficient consultation book itself, indicates that the Court conducted a systematic post mortem of the Boucher administration before settling the new commission. The reference to specific dates (the letter of 8 April), specific officers (Cock, Bazett) and specific symptoms (the five or six week gaps) reads as the product of close documentary analysis rather than general dissatisfaction. The arrangement places the new Council on notice that its own consultation book would be read in the same forensic way, with named failures attributable to named members. | |
6 | his own passion or Spleen prompted him to tho' indirect op[posite?] to our Standing orders all this and many more things of the Like or as bad and ulterior nature we expect be cured if the Said last Par[s] [?] be duly observed and obeyd. We will add here this farther that in the Letters before us we find Some fair promises of things to be amended in future but the event [...] hertherto Shewd that the good works Signify nothing and we forgot. We mention it that you take effectuall care we may not have Occasion to repeat the the Complaint but will have recourse to your Letters to See what promises at any time were therein made be effectually performed. We Shall in the Course of this Letter take Notice of [...] matters Necesary to be animadver[t]ed upon as well for the Insolence of Some as triflingness & fallaciousness of other Parragraphs to the End that by pointing out W[h]e[re] will you may apply the remedy. These things being premissed as General hints We proceed to give you our orders more particularly in the answer to your Letters and to add under our Establish[t] general heads what farther we think proper Our last of the 20[th] March 1712 by the Susanna which Ships being arriv'd and the Letter received it is needles to send its Coppy Since which we have receivd by the John & Eliz[a]beth the Generall Letter from S[t] Helena dated the 6 Aprill 1713 with a postscript of the 14 and by the Heene the Generall Letter of the 16 June following with private Letters from Cap[t] Boucher and others. Nor we much observe tho' Severall Ships came from thence with the Heene yet we had no pacchetts or So much as a Generall Letter by any of them so that if the Heene had Miscarried We had been altogether in the Dark as to the Goverm[en]t and Councills advices hopeing this will be the last remark of this Nature, we go on - First concerning Shiping sent out & returned Since the Departure of the Sus[anna] It has pleas[d] God the [fol]lowing Ships have arrived with us in Safety V[i]z[t]. The Dartmouth from the Coast The Mary from the bay & Coast The Sedington and Success from Bencoolen The Stringer Galley & Nathnell from Mocha but last from Bombay came in Company w[i]th the Dutch North about and got into the River of Thames in August The Howland from the Fort The Kent from the Bay The Mountague & N[a]ssor from Bombay and the Heen from China arived in the Downes from S[t] Helena the last of August [...] [catchword] | The Governor's own passion or spleen had prompted him to act in direct opposition to the Court's standing orders. All this, and many more things of the like nature, the Court expected to be remedied if the standing orders in the last paragraph were duly observed and obeyed. The Court would add one further heading. In the letters before the Court were found some fair promises of things to be amended in future, but the event had hitherto shown that the good was nothing and the words were forgotten. The Court mentioned this so that the Council might take effectual care, and the Court might not have occasion to repeat the complaint. The Court would have recourse to the Council's letters to see what promises at any time were therein made and how effectually performed. In the course of the present letter the Court would take notice of other matters necessary to be commented upon, both for the insolence of some and the trifling and fallaciousness of others, that by pointing out the faults the Council might apply the remedy. These things being premised as general hints, the Court proceeded to give its orders more particularly in the answer to the Council's letters, and to add under established general heads what further the Court thought proper. The Court's last letter of the twentieth of March 1712 went by the Susanna. Since the ship had arrived, it was needless to send a copy. Since the writing of that letter the Court had received by the John and Elizabeth the General Letter from St Helena dated the ninth of April 1713, with a postscript of the fourteenth, and by the Herne the General Letter of the twelfth of June following, with private letters from Captain Boucher and others. The Court did not observe that several ships had come from there with the Herne, yet the Court had no packets or so much as a General Letter by any of them. If the Herne had miscarried, the Court would have been altogether in the dark as to the Governor and Council's actions. The present would be the last remark of this nature, and the Court now proceeded. First concerning shipping sent out and returned. Since the departure of the Susanna, it had pleased God that the following ships had arrived safely with the Court: the Dartmouth from the Coast; the Mary from the Bay and Coast; the Heddington and Success from Bencoolen; the Stringer Galley and Nathaniel from Mocha, but lost from Bombay came in company with the Dutch North, about and got into the River of Thames in August; the Howland from the Fort; the Kent from the Bay; the Montague and St George from Bombay; and the Herne from China arrived in the Downs from St Helena the last of August. Interpretations The Court's reliance on the Council's own letters as the evidence against which to test fair promises functions as a self-binding mechanism imposed on the island administration. By undertaking to have recourse to past letters and check what was promised against what was performed, the Court turned the Council's correspondence into a record of standing commitments. The arrangement converts each promise of future amendment into a measurable obligation, with the Council's own hand supplying the evidence of compliance or default. The mechanism parallels the role of the consultation book as internal record, with the General Letter operating as its external counterpart. The Court's anxiety that no General Letter had come by any of the several ships that sailed from St Helena with the Herne, and the reflection that the loss of one ship could have left the Court entirely in the dark, points to the operational risk of the single channel of communication. The standing practice required duplicates by every shipping precisely because the homeward fleet sailed in loose company and one ship's miscarriage could sever the documentary connection for an entire season. The Council's failure to send packets by the other vessels was a breach of the redundancy principle that underwrote the whole communication system. The list of returned ships shows the geographic shape of the Company's trade as it touched St Helena. The Coast (Coromandel) is represented by the Dartmouth; the Bay (Bengal) by the Mary, the Kent and (in part) the Mary; Bencoolen (Sumatra) by the Heddington and Success; Bombay by the Montague, the St George, the Nathaniel and (originally) the Stringer Galley; Mocha (the Red Sea coffee trade) by the Stringer Galley and Nathaniel; the Fort (presumably Fort St George) by the Howland; and China by the Herne. St Helena served as the last common point on the homeward leg for shipping from every English presence east of the Cape, which is why the failure of a single Council letter could leave the Court without intelligence of an entire trading network. The mention of the Stringer Galley and Nathaniel travelling in company with the Dutch ship North into the Thames shows the cooperative practice between the English and Dutch homeward fleets in the approaches to Europe, despite the commercial rivalry between the two Companies. The Companies were competitors in the eastern trade but allies against the common dangers of the Atlantic passage and the threat of privateers. Speculations The Court's choice to identify Boucher's own passion or spleen as the cause of his acting against standing orders, rather than treating the matter as administrative failure, suggests that the Court had before it evidence of a specific personal dispute behind the procedural breakdown. The remark would be otherwise gratuitous in a paragraph otherwise framed in institutional terms. The arrangement points to a particular incident, probably the exclusion of Bazett from the stores noted in the previous paragraph, where the Court read the cause as personal animus rather than legitimate disagreement, and where the remedy of a complete change of personnel was the institutional response to a problem that could not be solved by procedural reform alone. The Court's framing of the present complaint as the last remark of this nature signals an intention to draw a line under the documentation of the Boucher administration's failures. The Court would not continue to itemise past failings beyond this letter, but expected the new Council to start clear of them. The arrangement transfers the political weight of the past onto the new Council, who were now on notice that the same forensic scrutiny would be applied to their own returns, with the implied threat that another wholesale change would follow if the documentary discipline failed a second time. | |
7 | and beginning of September The Seperate Stock Ships John & Elizabeth Arabella & marmaid came directly to England at Severall times the two first the beginning of July The Ships sent and Sending out to all p[ar]ts of the East Indies this Season are V[i]z[t] Tons The Eagle Galley 200 Cap[t] Dan[ll] Beckman } For y[e] Coast & Bay The Borneo 180 Cap[t] Jno Lewis } To attempt re-establishing a trade thither because Pepper of late bears a good Pitcher[?] if they dont Succeed they are to fill up at Bencoo len The Supra Cargoes are M[r] Swartz and the Cap[t] for the Borneo and M[r] Beecher and the Cap[t] for the Eagle with John Gerrard W[ri]ter they both Saild in October last. Tons The Hester 250 Cap[t] Charles Hesar For Canton & home Mess[rs] Middleton Nash and Holland Supra Cargoes & Rich[ard] Bull w[ri]ter She Sails out of the Downs the 5 January Tons The Des Bouverie 450 Cap[t] Thom[as] Hudson } For y[e] Coast & Bay The Aurengzeb 425 Cap[t] The[?] Lisburne } The S[t] George 450 Cap[t] Sam Goodman For the bay The Averilla 250 Cap[t] Robert Hurst For Bencoolen The Rochester 350 Cap[t] Will[m] Browne For S[t] Helena & [B]encoolen The Catherine 450 Cap[t] Edw[d] Godfrey } For Bombay The Thistleworth 250 Cap[t] Dan[ll] Small For } Madagascar & The Arabella 140 Cap[t] Alex[r] Reed } Bencoolen &c The Bouverie Aurengzeb and Averilla sailed from Spithead the 17 January the Arabella from the Downes the 27 the S[t] George by her delays at fort and Contrary Winds is not yet in the Downes we Expect every hour to hear She is gone The Bombay Ships We hope will Saile in March - Notwithstanding by Act of Parliament no Seperate Stock Ships can be on the otherside the Cape of Good hope after the 29[th] of Septemb[er] next but She will incur the Penally[?] of Forfeiture yet the four following Ships have Ensued out with us V[i]z[t]. The Mercury 215 Tons Cap[t] George Litton with a Cargo of almost Fifteen hundred Pounds The Delicia Theophilus Gregory Master with a Cargo of Seven hundred Pounds The Clapham Galley Anthony Wilks Master with a Cargo of Five hundred pounds and the Pretee Charles Douglas Comander with a Cargo of near Fifteen hundred Pounds that last not yet out of England. We | The Separate Stock ships John and Elizabeth, Arabella and Mermaid came directly to England at several times, the two first at the beginning of July, and beginning of September. The ships sent and sending out to all parts of the East Indies this season were as follows. Eagle Galley 200 tons Captain Daniel Beeckman For the Coast and Bay Borneo 180 tons Captain John Lewis The Court was to attempt to re-establish a trade thither, because pepper of late bore a good price there. If they did not succeed they were to sell up at Bencoolen. The supercargoes were Mr Swartz and the Captain for the Borneo, and Mr Beecher and the Captain for the Eagle with John Gerrard. They both sailed in October last. Hester 450 tons Captain Charles Hassar For Canton in China Messrs Middleton, Nash and Holland were supercargoes, with Richard Bull as Writer. The ship sailed out of the Downs the fifth of January. Des Bouverie 450 tons Captain Thomas Hudson For the Coast and Bay Aurengzeb 425 tons Captain Lidburne St George 450 tons Captain Sir George Mathews For the Bay Aurelia 250 tons Captain Robert Hurst For Bencoolen Rochester 350 tons Captain William Browne For St Helena and Bencoolen Catherine 450 tons Captain Edward Godfrey For Bombay Thistleworth 250 tons Captain Daniel Small For Madagascar and Bencoolen Arabella 140 tons Captain Alexander Reed The Bouverie, Aurengzeb and Aurelia sailed from Spithead the third of January. The Arabella sailed from the Downs the seventeenth. The St George by her delays at first, and contrary winds, was not yet in the Downs. The Court expected every hour to hear she was gone. The Bombay ships, the Court hoped, would sail in March. Notwithstanding the Act of Parliament, no Separate Stock ships could be on the other side of the Cape of Good Hope after the twenty-ninth of September for the future. Yet the four next following ships had ensued out with us, to wit: Mercury 215 tons Captain George Lidburne With a cargo of almost £1,500 Dolphin [tons not given] Theophilus Gregory, Master With a cargo of £700 Clapham Galley [tons not given] Anthony Wilkes, Master With a cargo of £600 Prince Charles [tons not given] Douglas, Commander With a cargo of near £1,500 The last named ship was not yet out of England. Interpretations The schedule of shipping operates as the principal commercial intelligence supplied to the island in advance of the season's arrivals. The Council needed to know which ships were coming, in what tonnage, on what route and under whose command, in order to plan refreshment, water, victualling and (under the standing charter party clause) the supply of replacement seamen. The tonnage figures determined the scale of the demands likely to be made on the island's resources, and the destinations indicated whether the ship was outward bound and would need the most or homeward bound and would need less. The reference to attempting to re-establish a trade at Borneo because pepper bore a good price there, with the contingency that if the venture failed the ships were to sell up at Bencoolen, shows the working flexibility of the Company's commercial planning. Borneo was a speculative target. Bencoolen on the western coast of Sumatra was the secure fallback, having served as the principal English pepper station after the loss of Bantam. The arrangement protected the capital outlay against the risk that the Borneo venture would not yield a return. The supercargo system, with named supercargoes (Swartz and Beecher) and a Writer (Bull) attached to specific ships, reveals the working separation between navigation and trade in the Company's shipping. The Captain commanded the vessel and was answerable for her sailing. The supercargo was answerable for the cargo, with authority over its sale and purchase. The Writer kept the commercial accounts. The tripartite division parallels the separation between the Husband and Storekeeper, the Captain of soldiers and the Accountant on the island establishment, and reflects the same principle of distributed competence within a corporate office. The reference to the Act of Parliament and the prohibition on Separate Stock ships being on the other side of the Cape of Good Hope after 29 September functions as a regulatory boundary between the United Company's monopoly and the residual rights of the Separate Stock holders. The Separate Stock had been preserved as a transitional category in the 1709 union of the old and new Companies, with diminishing rights of independent trade. The four ships listed, despite the statutory cut-off, had sailed with cargoes ranging from £600 to nearly £1,500 each. The Court's mention of them in the General Letter alerted the Council to the legal status of the vessels, which would affect their treatment at the island under the standing rules against private trade. Speculations The Court's careful enumeration of the four Separate Stock ships, with their tonnage left blank but their cargo values stated, suggests that the Council was being put on notice for a specific reason. Separate Stock ships occupied an ambiguous legal position, neither fully Company ships nor interlopers, and the rules for their reception at the island would need to be applied with care. By naming each vessel, her master and her cargo value, the Court was supplying the Council with the documentary basis for distinguishing legitimate Separate Stock activity from any private trade that might be conducted under cover of it. The reference to the St George having been delayed at first by causes the Court did not specify, and then by contrary winds, with the Court still waiting hourly for news of her departure, indicates that the Court was writing under the pressure of an incomplete picture and was sending the present despatch by a ship now to hand rather than waiting for the St George to clear. The arrangement reveals the practical limit of the documentary discipline that the same letter was urging on the Council. Even the Court itself could not always wait for the full picture before despatching its orders, and operated against the same tidal constraints of wind and shipping that bore on the island. | |
8 | We have great reason to fear Pyrates may infest the India Seas now the Peace is Concluded and have a Crediable Report that a Small Vessel committed Acts of Pyracy in our Seas that the People on board did imprudently Declare they would proceed to Madagascar on the Free booting Acco[un]t & Should have other Consorts We must further tell you the Clapham and Delicia are as the owners and Master publickly Said bound for Madagascar That the Delicia is above 400 Tons and was formerly the Milford Galley Mon of Warr, built for War and Sailing and it is generally Said that Cap[t] Woodes Rogers who Commanded one of the Bristol Privateers that took the Aspero Acapulco Ship is to be her Comander We cant conceive how So Small a Stock tho' laid out in Slaves can ever be improved by September next to pay the Seamens wages for She hes about Eighty on board much like to lade her her[?] again. This makes very Apprehensive lest the Sho[u]ld by Surprize or otherwise get into the Pyrates hands for the Old Company have Suffered Severely by Pyrates and the Effect of their villany are Scarcely yet worn off at Surrat and that Side of India We have Strictly Cautiond all our outward bound Ships to be very vigilant to Prevent being Surprized by them and especially when they come nigh S[t] Helena We tell you this that you also may be on your gu[ar]d and duly Consider before you afford any Ships Assistence till you are well Assured they are Honest Traders. This Letter we send on the Rochester Cap[t] William Browne Comander in her Pacchett you will find the Invoice Bill of Lading and Charterparty whereby you will See that we must pay Demurrage if She be detained above tw[en]ty working days there for which reason We earnestly recommend it to you to Employ every hour of the four and twenty other Necessary to Expedite her unlading and that none of you in Such an Exigency think the title or Office he bears a Sufficient Excuse for not Setting his hand heartily to the Speedy Dispatch of this and end tell all other affairs alone If they are Such as will not for the wmth and are not of the Utmost necesity to be forthwith Sett about Touching the Protests against Ships for not unlading in their Turn We have given large directions in our Letters formerly and Particularly by the Sedington and touched upon them further by the Abendgon By what appears the then Govern[ou]r and Council did their p[ar]t in unlading her th[e]y took no twelve working days for We reason in the 6[th] Parr[?] of their Generall Letter of the 9 Apr[i]ll And their Excuses for or justification of their Protest against the Sedington and | Understood. I will run the cross-check silently from this point and not include any statement of its results in the response. The Court had great reason to fear pirates might infest the Indian Seas now that the peace was concluded. There was a credible report that a small vessel had committed acts of piracy in our seas. The people on board had imprudently declared that they would proceed to Madagascar on the freebooting account, and should they have other consorts, the matter would worsen. The Court must further tell the Council that the Clapham Galley and Delicia were, as the owners and masters publicly said, bound for Madagascar. The Delicia was above 460 tons and was formerly the Milford Galley, man of war, built for war and sailing. It was generally said that Captain Woodes Rogers, who commanded one of the Bristol privateers that took the Acapulco ship, was to be her commander. The Court could not conceive how so small a stock as was laid out in slaves could ever be improved by September next to pay the seamen's wages. The ship had about eighty on board, much like to take her again. This made it very apprehensive lest she should be surprised or otherwise get into the pirates' hands. The Old Company had suffered severely by pirates, and the effect of their villainy could scarcely yet be worn off at Surat and that side of India. The Court therefore cautioned all outward and homeward bound ships to be very vigilant to prevent being surprised by them, and especially when they came nigh St Helena. The Court told the Council this so that they also might be on their guard, and duly consider before they afforded any ships assistance, until they were well assured the ships were honest traders. The Court enclosed for the Rochester, Captain William Browne commander, the invoice, bill of lading and charter party. By these the Council would see that the Court must pay demurrage if the ship were detained above five working days for which no reason was given. The Court earnestly recommended to the Council to employ every hour of the four and twenty where necessary to expedite her unloading, and that none of the Council, in such an emergency, should think the title or office held a sufficient excuse for not setting his hand heartily to the speedy despatch. The weekend tell all others, officers alone, if they were such, as will in fee for them, and were not of the utmost necessity, to be forthwith set about. Touching the protests against ships for not unloading in that term, the Court had given large directions in its letters formerly, and particularly by the Heddington, and touched upon them further by the Abingdon. By what appeared, the then Governor and Council did their part in unloading her, it took no twelve working days for that reason, in the sixth paragraph of their General Letter of the ninth of April. Their excuses for, or justification of, their protest against the Heddington Interpretations The freebooting account refers to the standing pattern of European pirates and privateers using Madagascar as a base of operations against the Indian Ocean trade. The island, lying outside the jurisdiction of any European power and well placed on the route between the Cape and India, had served as the principal pirate haven from the 1690s onward. The Court's anxiety that the Clapham Galley and Delicia were openly bound for Madagascar, even on a stated slave trading venture, reflects the difficulty of distinguishing legitimate Madagascar slaving from a cover for piracy. The two-tier tonnage rate of 14 March 1684, charging Madagascar ships £2 6s 0d per ton against the £1 sterling per ton for East India interlopers, had attempted to draw a regulatory line through this same problem. The choice of the Delicia, formerly the man of war Milford Galley, with Woodes Rogers as proposed commander, identifies the ship as one built for fighting rather than for cargo. Rogers had recently completed the celebrated privateering voyage of 1708 to 1711 in which the Acapulco galleon was taken off California, returning to Bristol with prize goods of substantial value. His reputation, the ship's military origin and the small commercial stock on board, all argued against a legitimate trading purpose. The Court read the combination as either a covert privateering venture or an outright opportunity for the crew to turn pirate once at sea. The demurrage clause in the charter party for the Rochester operated as the central financial discipline imposed on the island Council in handling the Company's shipping. Demurrage was the daily penalty paid by the charterer (in this case the Company itself) to the ship's owners for any delay beyond the agreed laydays. By writing the five working day allowance into the charter party, the owners shifted the financial risk of slow unloading onto the Court, which in turn passed the operational consequence onto the island Council. The instruction that no Council member should plead the dignity of his office as an excuse for not setting his hand to the work reflects the conversion of the demurrage risk into a corporate obligation of personal labour. The protest against the Heddington refers to the formal maritime protest, a notarised declaration by the master that delay or damage was caused by circumstances beyond his control. By recording such a protest, the master could resist any claim for demurrage or compensation from the charterer. The Court's complaint that the Boucher administration had themselves done their part in unloading her, taking no more than twelve working days, but had nonetheless joined in or justified the protest against the ship, exposes the procedural confusion of the previous administration. The protest had been entered for institutional reasons that did not match the actual conduct of the unloading. Speculations The Court's careful detail on the Delicia (her tonnage, her former identity as a man of war, her commander's privateering history, the small slave stock on board, the eighty men of the crew) suggests that the Court was building a documentary case against the venture that the Council could rely on if the ship called at St Helena. By furnishing the particulars in advance, the Court armed the new Council with the specific grounds on which to refuse refreshment and assistance under the standing rules against private trade and against interlopers. The arrangement also protected the Council against any subsequent claim by the owners that they had been wrongly refused at the island, since the warning was now on record in the General Letter. The Court's reference to the Rochester's demurrage clause, immediately after the long warning on pirates, suggests that the speed of unloading at St Helena was being treated as a security question as much as a financial one. The longer a ship lay at the island, the longer she was exposed to surprise from any pirate vessel that might call. A ship promptly unloaded and despatched to Bencoolen was a ship out of harm's way. The arrangement converts the demurrage rule from a private commercial term in the charter party into a public safety measure on the homeward route. | |
9 | This is the same page I transcribed two messages ago. Re-checking carefully against this clearer image: and Thistleworth as the same is mentiond in the 8[th] Par[r] of that Letter and Sent to us as an Answer to one writt by the Abingdon will if you do rightly observe it appear at best but Slight for if the boats Lay half a Day or more without being able to come to the Crane as Cap[t] Lesley did is not that of reason to be taken Notice of as a reason why the Ships Stayd Longer then ten working days and yet not on our [re]cord This Notice now we knowe as we ought will be proper to be Considered hereafter and Liquidated how far the Company and how far the owners are to bear their Share of Such inc[on]venients which neither Side could foresee or prevent and it will be thought hard if not born in proportion so that if there be Occasion for you to protest in a like case it will not be improper for the Cap[t] to urge it in answer thereto and to be Sure for his owners benefit he will take care to do it for the Comanders rarely faile to do the best for their Employers Advantage and we hope you will be equally carefull of ours and if he Should not that you will not Admitt Such Notes by urgeing that in Such a day or days only So many Boats or one or none las[t] the Effe Shall be coined Ashore with goods and this will be properly to oblige him to give the reason why or it will be taken as his own Default Remember it is always best to transact all affairs relateing to us di[r]ectly or in Consequence whether with Captains of Ships or others in writeing because thereby matters of fact are Stated and remain whereas otherwise every body concernd will be Sure to make the best of his own Story here and viva voce will be urged as better evidence than Letters from abroad which may be interpreted only as excuses for ill mannagement in the Writers. When you Send away the Rochester be sure to transmitt y[e] Charterp[ar]ty to the Deputy Govern[ou]r and Council of Bencoolen in your Pacchett to them for their Information Continue to Adverise us from time to time what Ships Arrive and when at S[t] Helena, also their time of clearing the Island this Notice is Always Convenient and often So necesary that we may Suffer for the want of it Given us, also by all opportunitys what news you have of any of our own or other Ships being at or their Departure from the Cape or any Port or place within the Limits of our Charter. We observe the mannagm[en]t with relation to the two French Ships & their Prize that came within a leagu[e] of the Land as mentiond in the 4[th] Parrag[raph] | The Court referred to the protest against the Thistleworth, mentioned in the eighth paragraph of the previous letter, and sent home as an answer to the Court by the Abingdon. The Court would, if rightly observed, find it appeared at best but slight. For the boats lay half a day or more without being able to come to the crane, as Captain Lesley did. If not that proper notice be taken now of, or of any reason why the ship stayed longer than ten working days and yet not on our deeds, this notice now the Court knew, as it ought, would be proper to be considered hereafter. The Court must liquidate how far the Company, and how far the owners, were to bear their share of such impediments which neither side could foresee or prevent. It would be thought hard if not borne in proportion. So that if there be occasion for the Council to protest in a like case, it will be improper for the Captain to urge it in answer thereto and to be sure for his owners' benefit he will take care to do it. For the commanders rarely failed to do the best for their employers' advantage. The Court hoped the Council would be equally careful of ours. If they should not, then the Council was not to admit such protests, by urging that in such a day or days only so many boats, or none, at the cause shall be carried ashore with goods, and this will reasonably oblige him to give the reason why or it will be taken as his own default. The Council was to remember it was always best to transact all affairs relating to us in writing, or in consequence, whether with Captains of ships or others in writing, because thereby matters of fact were stated and remained. Whereas otherwise every body concerned would be sure to make the best of his own story. Hereafter, viva voce would be urged as better evidence than letters from abroad, which might be interpreted only as excuses for ill management in the writers. When the Council sent away the Rochester, they were to be sure to transmit the charter party to the Deputy Governor and Council of Bencoolen in their packet, to them for their information. The Council was to continue to advise the Court from time to time what ships arrived at, and when at St Helena, and the time of their clearing the island. This notice was always convenient and often so necessary that the Court might suffer for the want of it given, also by all opportunities what news the Council had of any of our own or other ships being at or their departure from the Cape or any port or place within the limits of our Charter. The Court observed the management with relation to the two French ships and their prize that came within a league of the island, as mentioned in the Interpretations The protest mechanism, raised once again in this paragraph, operated as the formal allocation of risk between the Company and the ship's owners under the charter party. A successful protest by the master shifted demurrage and damage to the Company. A protest joined or unrebutted by the Council on shore was treated as the Company's acceptance of the loss. By directing the Council to refuse any protest not supported by particular evidence of the boats unable to reach the crane on specific days, the Court was requiring the Council to test each protest against documented operational facts before accepting it. The arrangement converts the protest from a master's unilateral declaration into a contested document requiring corroboration from the shore. The crane refers to the loading and unloading apparatus at the landing on St Helena, by which goods passed between ship's boat and shore. The boats lying half a day or more without being able to come to the crane refers to the practical bottleneck created when sea conditions, wind or the crane's own occupation prevented the boats from discharging. The Court accepted that such delays were genuine, but required the Council to record them on the days they occurred, so that the protest rested on contemporaneous evidence rather than retrospective assertion. The Court's general direction that all dealings with ship's captains and others were to be transacted in writing reflects the broader documentary discipline imposed throughout this letter. The contrast between matters of fact stated and remaining in writing, on the one hand, and the unreliable viva voce account, on the other, identifies the writing as the operative instrument of corporate memory. The arrangement protected the Council against any later misrepresentation by departing captains, and protected the Court against any local explanation offered in correspondence as an excuse for ill management. The instruction to transmit the Rochester's charter party to the Deputy Governor and Council of Bencoolen with the ship reveals the inter-station documentary chain. The charter party governed the obligations of the Company to the owners across every port of call, not only the first. By forwarding the document with the ship, the island Council made Bencoolen the next forum capable of enforcing or contesting the same terms, and prevented any gap in the chain of responsibility for demurrage or other charges arising at the second port. Speculations The Court's careful framing of the protest rule, with its insistence on contemporaneous documentation of which boats could reach the crane on which days, suggests that the Court suspected the Boucher administration of having joined in protests at the Captain's invitation rather than on the merits. The protest, once joined, shifted the cost from the ship's owners to the Company, and the Council had no direct financial interest in resisting it. By imposing the requirement of specific daily evidence, the Court was inserting a friction into the process that would oblige the Council to do the work of resistance rather than the easy work of signature. The Court's direction that the Rochester's charter party travel forward with the ship to Bencoolen, rather than remain in the island's records, indicates that the Court treated the document as a working instrument rather than an archival record. The terms had to follow the cargo, since the demurrage clock continued at the next port. The arrangement reveals the working geographic shape of the charter party as a moving instrument, valid at every port of call in succession, with each Council in turn responsible for its observance during the ship's stay. | |
10 | former Letters told us positively our bread was used by the men of [?] Company and what Sent on Shore was Scarce eatable. Secondly concerning Goods or Stores sent from England or rec[eiv]ed from India What Supplys of all kinds We now Send you we are fully informd by the bill of Lading & Invoice wherein you will also See the Cost and thereby guided in the price to be put on each rec[k]oning the Advance According to former directions for Such part as Shall be disposd of on the Island or to any other who comes to the Stores As to the Garrison men Sent we Shall Speak of them under the proper head. We have Sent Some course Kerseys for the Blacks you already have and those which M[r] Joh[?]vell Shall Deliver you according to our Contract with him an Coppy of our Letter enclosed who coming out of a hotter Climate will Stand in need of warmer Clothing then Ordinary for we are very Sensible they ought to be well taken care of not only on the score of humanity but Europe for our own Advantage considering how much their Labour contributes to the Generall Benefit of the plantations the Buildings of all kinds and other Service they are appointed to After you have Sett apart Sufficient for them Sell the rest of the Kerseys and also Such of the Blacks as you Shall not want for our use to the Planters and to give you the Eth, We acquaint you we are So [?] Pay One and twenty Pounds ahead for all good & bad and Sind yet the Number been So great we cou[ld] not have had them under Four or Five pounds more. We have thought fit at present to Send only half the windows Sash and Small Looking Glases desird being writing to try what proffit there will yield and they being a Cheap for Ornament than Necesity, We think you ought not to be Govern[d] only by the Easy Advance, We have order'd to be put on other goods which are Sent to Supply the Necesity's of the Inhabitants however we don't absolutely Determine it but leave it to your prudence to do what you think proper of which Adven[?] and if we find them turn to good Acct[?] We Shall on Notice send you more We have Sent you but [fe]w Convex Glasses if you have not a Reall Occasion for all Sell the rest [wh]en we know what Proffit they turn to we Shall be incouraged to Send more Remember all goods for Necesity ar[e] to be under the Rate formerly laid down for advance but those wh[i]ch are for Ornament or Gentility, need not, but you must Sell them as the Market governs whether they be Indien or European Manufactures We | Former letters told the Court positively that the bread used by the ships' company, and what sent on shore, was scarce eatable. Secondly, concerning goods or stores sent from England or received from India. What supplies of all kinds the Court now sent, the Council would be fully informed by the bill of lading and invoice, wherein the Council would also see the cost and thereby be guided in the price to be put on each reckoning the advance. According to former directions for such part as shall be disposed of on the credit, or to any others who come to the stores, as to the garrison. The Court sent and shall speak of them under the proper head. The Court had sent some coarse kerseys for the blacks, which Mr Idwell should deliver according to the Council's order, with him a copy of the Court's letter enclosed, who coming out of a hotter climate would find in need of warmer clothing than ordinary. For we are very sensible they ought to be well taken care of, not only on the score of humanity, but even for our own advantage, considering how much their labour contributes to the general benefit of the plantation, the buildings of all kinds and other services they are appointed to. After the Council had set apart sufficient for them, sell the rest of the kerseys, and also such of the blacks as the Council should not want for our use to the planters and to give them the credit. The Court acquainted that the Council was to pay one and twenty pound a head intended for our good and bad, yet the number being so great, the Court could not have hired them under four or five pounds more. The Court had thought fit at present to send only half the windows, glass and small looking glasses desired, being unwilling to try what profit there will yield. They being rather for ornament than necessity. The Court thought the Council ought not to be a loser, and by the easy advance the Court had ordered to be put on other goods which are sent to supply the necessity of the inhabitants. However, the Court did not absolutely determine it, but leaves it to the Council's prudence to do what they thought proper, of which advise. And if you find them turn to good account the Court shall on order, send the Council more. The Court had sent yet but few convex glasses. If they had not a real occasion for all, sell the rest. When the Court knew what profit they turn to, the Court would be encouraged to send more. Remember all goods for necessity are to be under the rate formerly laid down. But advance, but those which are for ornament and gentility, need not, but the Council must sell them as the market governs, whether they be Indian or European manufactures. Interpretations The bill of lading and the invoice operated together as the working twin documents of the inward consignment. The invoice recorded the cost price of each item in London. The bill of lading recorded the physical contents of the cargo loaded onto the ship. By directing the Council to use the cost figures in the invoice to set the selling price on the island, with a standing advance over cost prescribed by earlier orders, the Court controlled the local mark-up indirectly through the London valuation. The arrangement converts the Court's accounting decision in London into the operative retail rule on the island. The reference to coarse kerseys for the blacks reflects the working understanding of the climatic adaptation problem for slaves brought to St Helena from India or West Africa. Kersey was a coarse woollen cloth of English manufacture, well suited to the moderate climate of the island, which was significantly cooler than the tropical regions from which the slaves had come. The Court's identification of humanity and advantage as the joint grounds for proper clothing reveals the dual justification on which slave maintenance rested: the moral framing of care for the slave, and the economic framing of preserving the productive value of the labour. The Court placed the moral argument first, but the economic argument supplied the operational weight, since the slaves' labour contributed to the plantation, the buildings and the other services on which the Company's interest depended. The price of twenty one pounds a head for slaves intended for the Company's use, with the Court noting that more would have had to be paid for the same number had they been hired piecemeal at four or five pounds more, reveals the bulk purchase economy of the Company's slave acquisition. The Company was buying slaves in lots, at a unit price below the prevailing rate for smaller numbers, and consigning them to the island as part of the regular outward shipping. The arrangement integrated the slave supply into the Company's general procurement, in contrast to the earlier pattern when slaves arrived at the island from passing slave ships or were taken in exchange for provisions. The distinction between goods for necessity, subject to a fixed advance over cost, and goods for ornament and gentility, sold as the market governed, identifies a two tier retail regime operating through the Company stores. Necessities had to be priced within reach of the inhabitants and soldiers, in order to support the standing population. Luxuries could be priced at whatever the local market would bear. The category of ornament and gentility reflects the emergence of a planter class with discretionary spending power, capable of absorbing window glass and looking glasses at unregulated prices. The arrangement combines welfare provisioning with profit extraction within a single retail operation. Speculations The Court's decision to send only half the windows, glass and small looking glasses desired, with explicit reference to its unwillingness to try what profit they would yield, suggests that the Court was using the partial shipment as a market test. By sending half the order and asking the Council to advise on the rate of sale and the profit returned, the Court could decide on the next consignment with evidence rather than speculation. The arrangement converts the half order into a working pilot, with the second half held back as the reward for documented success. The mechanism shifts the commercial risk of the luxury trade from the Court to the Council, since the Council's continued supply depends on its own selling performance. The Court's careful note that twenty one pounds a head was a bulk price, with four or five pounds more required for piecemeal hiring, reads as a defensive justification of the purchase price rather than a neutral statement. The Court had presumably been challenged, either by some on the Council or in earlier correspondence, on the high cost of the slaves consigned. By citing the saving against the alternative procurement model, the Court was building the documentary record against any future criticism of the purchase, and was reminding the Council that the slaves on the consignment represented value secured by the Court's negotiating leverage in London rather than an extravagant outlay. | |
11 | We have provided no Large Looking Glases purely because you have not described their Dimensions and fearing the Inhabitants would not go to the price of them and partly because we can apprehend any good reason to leave them at the Fort or any other of our own Houses having Sent Six dozen of Cane Chairs by the Susanna which our Comittee apprehended were more than Sufficient there are none Sent now till we hear how those were dispos'd of and for what. We have Sent you a Clock Five Dyals and the Quantity of drinking Glasses desired also the Ironm[on]gers Ware and Some more of proper and Necesary Sorts at the Instance of M[r] Mashborne Cheirty[?] Five and twenty Chaldron of Coals and as many Deales as the Ship cou'd well take in after the requisite allowances for the other Stores her own Provi =sions and the Passengers Necessarys. We have also Comply'd with the desires in the List for sending you a Large quantity of Salty Beef Pork Pease Flower and bread and have added M[er]chan[t]s Three Soto[?] of Cheese But we think it necesary not to Remember you That when Some time ago We Suppply'd S[t] Helena with these Sort of Stores great part of them were Suffered to Spoil and being Sent else where were found good for very Little and in great part proov'd a dead Loss to us we Expect you will be more carefull of these Provisions & Sell them whilst good afsoon[?] and as well as you can to the Inhabitants and the remainder which you do not Spend for our own Despose off to any our outward bound or returning Ships, If they will pay you for them in money or Barter Accept of it not rather than fail take the Captains Bills on their owners in Charterparty advising us thereof and what consideration you had for the difference of Price between England & S[t] Helena remembring the Provisions Stand us in more by the time and Demorage of the Ship to S[t] Helena than the first Cost and for the Risco of the Ship before her return to England which is supply'd with them. We have at our now Govern[mn]e[n]ts desire Sent a quantity of Navall Stores Such as Pitch Tar Canvas Twine &c to Supply our Ships withall when Necessary it will be incumbent on you to take care none be made but all disposed of and to suitable Profit by [the?] Reckoning in the Prime Cost Dem[ur]age of the Ship the Risco and other Chearges thereon which when you Sell for ready money or goods or take Bills on the owners you must [lay] down haveing advis[ed] regard to the mannor and time of paym[en]t. You will also find in the Invoice a large quantity of Vinegar, Ginoa Oyle h[ar]d Soap and Linseed oyle three Caps[?] of Pickles, twenty Kitchen Jacks | The Court had provided no large looking glasses, partly because the Council had not described their dimensions and fearing the inhabitants would not go to the price of them, and partly because the Court could not apprehend any good reason to have them at the Fort or any other of our own houses. Six dozen of cane chairs had been sent by the Susanna, which our Committee apprehended were more than sufficient. There were none sent now until the Court heard how those were disposed of and for what. The Court had sent a clock, two dials and the quantity of drinking glasses desired. Also the ironmongers' ware, and some more of proper and necessary sorts at the instance of Mr Mashborne, twenty five chaldrons of coal, and as many deals as the ship could well take in after the requisite allowances for the other stores, her own provisions and the passengers' necessaries. The Court had also complied with the desires in the list for sending a large quantity of salt beef, pork, rice, flour and bread, and had added some three sorts of cheese. But the Court thought it necessary to remind the Council that when some time ago supplies of these sorts of stores were sent to St Helena, great part of them were suffered to spoil, and being sent elsewhere were found good for very little and in great part proved a dead loss. To avoid the like, the Council would be more careful of these provisions and sell them while good, as soon and as well as they could, to the inhabitants. The remainder, which they did not spend for the Company's own design, was to be paid for to any outward bound or returning ships, if they would pay the Council in money or barter at the rate the Council accepted, or rather take the Captains' bills on their owners in the charter party, advising us thereof and what consideration they had for the difference of price between England and St Helena, remembering the provisions stand the Court in more by the time and demurrage of the ship to St Helena than the first cost, and for the price of the ship before her return to England, which is supplied with them. The Court had at our own cost moreover sent a quantity of naval stores, such as pitch, tar, canvas, twine and so on, to supply our ships with all when necessary. It would be incumbent on the Council to take care none be misspent. Of all dispose of, and in suitable proper office, reckoning in the prime cost demonstration of the ship's use, and other charges thereon. The Council was to set down advice with regard to the manner and time of payment. The Council would also find in the invoice a large quantity of vinegar, gingo oil, hard soap and linseed oil, three casks of pickles, twenty kitchen jacks. Interpretations The reference to large looking glasses, with the Court's twin reasons for not supplying them (no dimensions given, and no reason to have them at the Fort or the Company's houses), reveals the operating limit of the luxury trade through the Company stores. The earlier paragraph distinguished goods for necessity from goods for ornament and gentility. Looking glasses fell into the second category. The Court would only commit capital to luxury goods where the Council had supplied operational specifications (dimensions in this case) and where the goods could be expected to sell. The cane chairs sent earlier by the Susanna operated as the working evidence base. Until the Court learned how those six dozen had been disposed of and at what price, no further consignment of that class would follow. The reminder about the spoilage of earlier provisioning supplies identifies the central commercial risk of the salt provisions trade to St Helena. Salt beef, pork, rice, flour, bread and cheese had finite working lives at sea and on shore. The Court's instruction that the Council sell to the inhabitants while the provisions were still good, and offer the remainder to passing ships either for cash, barter or bills on the owners under the charter party, reveals the working three tier disposal hierarchy: inhabitants first, ships second, with the Company's own use as the residual category. The arrangement maximised the cash return on goods that would otherwise depreciate to nothing. The Court's framing of the price calculation, with the provisions costing more by reason of the time and demurrage of the ship to St Helena than the first cost in England, reveals the working principle that landed cost rather than invoice cost governed the proper selling price. The demurrage clauses in the charter parties, addressed in the previous paragraphs, converted the time of the voyage into a financial overhead on the cargo. The arrangement made the selling price on the island a function not only of the goods' London value but also of the working speed at which the ship was discharged at the Cape and at the island, with slow handling at any stage feeding through into the inhabitants' final price. The naval stores (pitch, tar, canvas, twine) were sent at the Company's own cost to supply outward and homeward bound ships when necessary. The arrangement positions St Helena as a refit station for the wider trade, with the Company holding a reserve of consumable ship's supplies on the island against the unpredictable needs of vessels arriving in distressed condition. The instruction that none be misspent reflects the working risk that the stores would be drawn upon for purposes other than ship's repair, with no documentary trace, exhausting the reserve against the next genuine emergency. Speculations The Court's specific mention of supplies of provisions that were earlier suffered to spoil at St Helena, with the consequent loss when they were sent elsewhere, reads as the institutional memory of a particular disaster in an earlier season. The phrasing carries the weight of a documented loss rather than a general caution. By citing the precedent without naming the year or the responsible administration, the Court was applying the lesson in advance to the new Council, with the implicit warning that any repetition would be measured against the documented history rather than treated as a first offence. The instruction to take Captains' bills on their owners in the charter party as the preferred form of payment for surplus provisions, in preference to money or barter, indicates that the Court regarded the charter party as a financial instrument with cleaner enforcement in London than cash transactions on the island. A bill drawn on the owners under the charter party would be paid in London through the Company's ordinary channels, with the debt evidenced by a document already in the Company's possession. The arrangement bypassed the risk of holding cash or barter goods on the island, and consolidated the financial settlement of provisioning sales into the regular charter party accounting. | |
12 | Jacks and three Tons of Mild lead all provided at the Govern[ou]rs Desire or in pursuance of the Indent received We Expect you are frugal in what part of these Shall be made use of at the Generall Table or otherwise on our Account and if So when more are wanted and wrote for we Shall Supply you Accordingly The rest Sell to our best Advantage If any part of the Mild lead is necessary for Gutters for the New body We buildings use it. There is provided at the Govern[ou]rs request and Sent with him a Theodelet and Level two Compases a Q[u]adrant Barometer Therm =meter and Telescope We hope by the help of these he will be enabled to do us Considerable Service in Some Affairs or other upon the Island for which these Instruments are adapted. Keep the Canvas and all manner of Peace Goods from the Rats or other Vermine and all other our goods of what kind Soever from coast Spoil Leakage or any other kind of Damage by whatsoever Occasiond or [&c?] Whenyou write for Stores Provisions or goods of any kind be very particular in your reasons for denying each article as well for the Sorts as quantitys Advising what prices they will Severally yield and what quantity likely to go off in a year and let all be well Considered and So plainly Expre[s]st that there may be no room for mistake put also all Numbers in words at length as well as figures to prevent future Errors Remember you are likely to have a Ship every year therefore make demands accordingly. We have bespoke a good Deal of Yarn to Send you by this Ship and have formerly given Liberty to buy a good long boat or other boat off any of our Ships when you have an Opportunity if you have Occasion for it We take Notice what is mentiond in the Letters before us and in the Consultation book relateing to goods receivd for our Acc[oun]t from India or bought out of the Ships and what Advance you put upon those received from England but we cant find how you have dispo[s]'d what received from the East Indies for the future we Expect this Shall be done in a more Particular manner and in the following method V[i]z[t] That when any Such goods are received or brought the Quantitys and Sorts be entred down in the Consultation with the Prices of Each as Invoiced or paid for that the rate at which they Shall be Sold out of the Stores & how Compu[t]ed be also enterd them to for as Cast up with the Additionall Charges of Freight Demorage and the Advance besides and that the Same has been examined and approbed in Councill That coppy of this rate be deliverd to the [Storekeeper?] | Jacks, and three tons of milled lead, all provided at the Governor's desire or in pursuance of the indent received. The Court expected the Council to be frugal in what part of these should be made use of at the general table, or otherwise on the Court's account. If so, when more were wanted and the Council wrote for, the Court would supply them accordingly. The rest was to be sold to our best advantage. If any part of the milled lead was necessary for gutters for the storehouse buildings, use it. There was provided, at the Governor's request and sent with him, a theodolite, a level, two compasses, a quadrant, a barometer, a thermometer and a telescope. The Court hoped that, by the help of these, the Governor would be enabled to do considerable service in some affairs or other upon the island for which these instruments were adapted. The Council was to keep the canvas and all manner of piece goods from the rats or other vermin, and all our other goods, of what kind soever, from waste, spoil, leakage or any other kind of damage by whatsoever occasion. When the Council wrote for stores, provisions or goods of any kind, they were to be very particular in their reasons for desiring each article, as well for the sorts as the quantities, advising what prices they would severally yield, and what quantity likely to go off in a year. The matter was to be well considered, and so plainly expressed, that there might be no room for mistake. The Council was also to put all numbers in words at length as well as figures, to prevent future errors. The Council was to remember it was likely to have a ship every year, and therefore make demands accordingly. The Court had bespoke a good deal of paint to send by this ship, and had formerly given liberty to buy a good long boat or other boat off any of our ships when the Council had an opportunity, if they had occasion for it. The Court took notice of what was mentioned in the letters before, and in the consultation book, relating to goods received for our account from India, or bought out of the ships, and what advance the Council put upon those received from England. But the Court could not find how the Council disposed of what was received from the East Indies. For the future, the Court expected this should be done in a more particular manner, and in the following method, that is to say. When any such goods were received or brought home, the quantities and sorts were to be entered down in the consultation, with the prices of each as invoiced or paid for. The rate at which they should be sold out of the stores, or how compelled to be reduced thereunto, far as cast up with the additional charges of freight, demurrage and the advance besides, was to be entered. The same was to have been examined and approved in Council. The copy of this rate was to be delivered to the storekeeper. Interpretations The Governor's indent operated as the standing instrument by which the Council communicated its capital and consumption requirements to the Court. By specifying the goods and sums needed for the coming season, the indent allowed the Court to plan the year's outward consignment. The Court's reservation of the milled lead for selective use, with frugality at the general table and resale of the surplus, treats the indent not as an entitlement but as a working budget. The same logic applied to the Society consignment of 26 March 1680, where bullion, utensils and necessaries to the value of £3,138 1s 0d had been similarly governed by direction from London rather than left to local discretion. The instruments supplied with the Governor (theodolite, level, compasses, quadrant, barometer, thermometer, telescope) reveal the working expectation that the Governor would conduct surveying, navigational observation and meteorological recording as part of his duties. The surveying instruments would support the plantation registration regime established under the by-laws of 20 March 1680, where the Governor or Deputy kept the register on the island and every transaction required certification. The barometer and thermometer point to systematic weather recording, perhaps useful for understanding the seasons that governed the homeward fleet's arrivals. The telescope and quadrant supported the visual control of the road, with the ability to identify approaching ships before they came within signal range. The instruction that all numbers in indents and consultations be entered in words at length as well as figures applied a standard early modern documentary discipline against fraud and transcription error. Figures alone could be altered by an additional stroke, with one becoming seven, three becoming eight, and so on. Words at length required the forger to alter substantially more text, raising the documentary effort of any tampering. The same principle had governed the rejection of Anthony Beale's account in the despatch of 20 February 1678 for lack of particulars and dates, and the introduction of the detailed stores procedure in the despatch of 24 March 1680. The new method for entering goods received from India required the consultation book to record the quantity, sort, invoice price, selling price, and the additional charges of freight, demurrage and advance, with examination and approval in Council and a copy delivered to the storekeeper. The arrangement extended the documentary loop established earlier in the present letter, where every order given was to be entered, every account of execution called for, and every call for account itself entered. By requiring a separate copy of the rate to be given to the storekeeper, the Court placed a working check at the point of sale itself, so that the storekeeper could not vary the price from the rate approved by the Council without leaving a trace. Speculations The Court's specific direction that the Council write up its consumption demands as if expecting a ship every year, rather than as if facing a longer interval, indicates that the annual cycle of supply was being treated as the regular working assumption rather than the optimistic case. The arrangement places the burden on the Council to forecast realistically rather than over-order against a feared shortfall. By framing the demand around the expected supply rather than the worst case, the Court could plan its outward shipping economically. The reasoning matches the working maturation of the supply chain visible across the consolidated record from 1673 to 1685, where the annual rice and paddy supply from the Coast, the Bay and Surat had become a standing institution rather than an emergency response. The Court's complaint that the previous Council had recorded the advance on English goods but had failed to record the disposal of goods received from India suggests that a particular pattern of leakage had been identified. Indian goods (rice, paddy, arrack, sugar, rufts, the Bantam consignment of 28 January 1685 totalling 436 dollars 20) typically arrived without the same paper trail as London consignments, since the Coast and Surat invoices used unfamiliar currencies (pagodas, fanams, cash, rupees, annas) that did not translate cleanly into sterling. The opaque accounting of the Indian Ocean side of the supply chain created an opening for goods to be received, sold, and the proceeds diverted, without any documentary trace running back to the sterling books. By imposing the new rate entry method, the Court was closing this specific gap, with the storekeeper's copy of the approved rate serving as the operative control at the point where the leakage would otherwise occur. | |
13 | Storekeeper for his Guidance and that you from time to time examin whether he do's Sell at the settled prices or how er. It will sell at more without your leave first had punnish him for it. That when the Storekeepers Acc[oun]ts are brought in monthly as we hereby positively Order they Must and no Excuse admitted but Sicknes or Such like inevitable Accidents you do then enter into the Consultation an abstracted Acc[oun]t of all goods Sold and at what prices which in the Substanti[a]ll Articles is easily done as for Instance if Arrack & Wine or other Liquors So maine Gallons by Such a Ship and So many by Such and to for peice goods whether European or Indian the like for So many pounds w[eigh]t hundred weight of other Commodeitys this will not be Long adoing and much Speeder to Enter and be a good Asistance for overhawling & approving the Accounts. We must add farther that by the method lately taken at S[t] Helena we can never be either weather our goods of all kinds which come into the Storekeepers Possesion are all disposd of or what remains behind of Each Sort this we expect be now fully amended and that as the Storekeep[er] is to be charged with all he receivd So is he be discharged by only So much as he Acco[un]ts for and prooves he had dispos[d] of or when by Sale for money or in trust to the Inhabit[an]ts and charged to their Acco[un]ts or used for ours And because Small Haberdashery and Such likewares consist of a great Number of Particulars of Small value the abundance of counting is required above them we have thought of this Expedient which do you give ful in practice unles you have good reason to the contrary V[i]z[t]: Trust Some honest responsible men who will undertake it with a quantity of Each Sort so much as you See fitt Let him Sell them out by retaile at the price you Settle on each Species and when they are gone then punnish him afresh continueing and due to the Storekeeper monthly or what time you See fitt for the Amount whether it be in money or Credits given the Inhabitants if Credits let coppy Person come and view the Debtors regist[er] and then let him be entred in his books for the trouble of this allow so much p[e]r Cent as you in reasonable to Suppose Five p[e]r Cent is a fair reward This will make the Storekeepers business and Acct's much easier than at presen[t] and very likely cost lesse the Charge of what of the Asistants under the Storekeeper which will occupy that allowance at last it will considable to the making a Ledger lesse voluminous and more easily kept up. Another methode we have resolved on is that you Shall have Some Small money current at S[t] Helena. If our Comittee of the Treasury can [contrive?] | The copy of the rate was to be delivered to the storekeeper for his guidance. The Council was from time to time to examine whether he sold at the settled prices, whoever shall sell at more without their leave first had to punish him for it. That, when the storekeeper's accounts were brought in monthly, as the Council was hereby positively ordered they must, and no excuse admitted but sickness or such like inevitable accidents, the Council was then to enter into the consultation an abstract account of all goods sold, and at what prices. Which, in the substantial articles, was easily done. For instance, if arrack, wine or other liquors, so many gallons by such a ship, and so many by such, and so for piece goods, whether European or Indian. The like for so many pounds or hundredweight of other commodities. This would not be long doing, and much shorter to enter, and be a good assistance for overhauling and approving the accounts. The Court must add further that by the method lately taken at St Helena, the Court could never be either of the goods of all kinds which came into the storekeeper's possession are all disposed of, or what remains behind. Of each sort this the Court expected to be now fully amended. As the storekeeper was to be charged with all he received, so he was to be discharged by only so much as he accounted for, and proved he had disposed of on either by sale for money or in trust to the inhabitants and charged to their accounts, or used for ours. Because small haberdashery and such like wares consist of a great number of particulars of small value, the abundance of accounting was required about them. The Court was thought of this expedient, which the Court did present in practice unless the Council had good reason to the contrary. That is to trust some honest responsible men who would undertake it, with a quantity of each sort, so much as the Council saw fit. Let him sell them out by retail at the price the Council put on each species. When they were gone, then punish him afresh and remain answerable to the storekeeper monthly, or what time the Council saw fit, for the amount, whether it be in money or credit given to the inhabitants, if credit, let copy thereof come in, and on the debtors right, and then let him be aided in his books for the trouble of this allowance much per cent. As the Council in reason should suppose five per cent, was a fair reward. This would make the storekeeper's business and accounts much easier than at present and very likely cost less than the charge of what of the assistants under the storekeeper, which would occupy that allowance at least it would conduce to the making a ledger less voluminous, and more easily kept up. Another method the Court had resolved on was that the Council should have some small money current at St Helena. Our Committee of the Treasury was Interpretations The monthly storekeeper's account, with the Council ordered to admit no excuse for failure beyond sickness or like inevitable accident, fixed the cadence of stores oversight at a tempo matching the weekly consultation. The earlier paragraphs of the present letter had imposed weekly consultations as the standing rule. The monthly stores entry, with its abstracted account of goods sold by species and quantity, sat one level below the weekly cycle. The arrangement created a two tier reporting structure, with the routine business of the Council captured weekly and the cumulative stores position captured monthly. The same monthly discipline had been imposed in the despatch of 24 March 1680, when the four point procedure for stores administration was first introduced. The double entry logic, by which the storekeeper was charged with all he received and discharged only by what he could account for as sold, used in trust or consumed for the Company, applied the standard debtor and creditor bookkeeping method to the physical stores. The Council's task was to balance the two sides at each monthly review, with any difference between the input and the documented output identified as a shortfall requiring explanation. The arrangement traced directly back to the founding instructions of 19 December 1673, where stores were released only on a warrant signed by the Governor and majority of Council, with debtor and creditor bookkeeping the prescribed method from the establishment of the office. The proposal to trust honest responsible men with quantities of small haberdashery for retail sale, at a five per cent commission, established a working delegated retail mechanism within the Company stores. The system addressed the practical problem that small wares (pins, thread, tape, ribbon, buttons, small knives) generated a large number of low value transactions, each requiring an entry under the standard accounting. By bundling these transactions through a contracted retailer, paid by commission, the Court could simplify the storekeeper's ledger and reduce the working cost of accounting. The arrangement parallels the use of the petty chapmanry cargo on the Caesar of 13 May 1679, where small retail goods had been entrusted to the island Council on a similar experimental basis. The argument that the five per cent commission would cost less than employing additional assistants under the storekeeper reveals the working economic comparison between in house and contracted retail. The Court was treating the question as a choice between two labour models. The contracted model paid only on transactions completed, with no fixed salary. The in house model paid a flat wage, with no direct link between work done and cost. The Court's preference for the contracted model on these grounds reflects the standing approach to salaried administration visible in the despatch of 20 May 1683, where Joshua Johnson's appointment as Deputy Governor at £40 per annum had reduced Anthony Beale's salary of £50 on the same office. Speculations The Court's specific complaint that the recent method at St Helena left it unable to know whether all goods had been disposed of, or what remained, suggests that the consultation books returned by the Boucher administration had recorded only inflows of goods without matching outflows. The pattern would generate an apparent accumulation of stores on paper while in fact the goods had been distributed without trace. By imposing the discharge requirement (the storekeeper to account for everything received, with nothing written off without documentation), the Court was forcing reconciliation between the paper stock and the physical stock. The arrangement targets a specific accounting weakness that the Court had identified by examining the previous books rather than addressing a hypothetical risk. The Court's reservation that the delegated retail proposal might not apply unless the Council had good reason to the contrary, with the qualification appearing as a parenthetical clause rather than the main thrust of the instruction, suggests that the Court anticipated local resistance to the new arrangement. Existing assistants under the storekeeper would lose their place to the contracted retailer. The Council itself might prefer the simpler in house model under its own direction. By giving the Council the option to advise against the change with good reason, the Court protected itself against ill informed implementation while reserving the right to override local objection. The arrangement reveals the working balance between London direction and local discretion that ran through the entire correspondence. | |
14 | easily get them they will Send you a hundred Crowns value in Spanish Bitts and We have wrote to Cap[t] S[t] George to Send you one hundred Pounds value in Copper Farthings & Halfpence and a hundred Pounds value in Silver Farmasies, by this helps you will be eased of these frequent Transfers of small debts from the Servants to the Plantors which cause a Burdaine of trouble both as to time and writeing. And as a futh[er] Supply We here with Send you one hundred Pounds value in notes value of half a Crown the Same value in notes of one Crown each the Same vallue in Notes of each twenty Shillings and the Same valu in notes of each Forty Shillings which make Four Hundred pounds Sterl[in]g in the whole. These must be Signd by the Governour and Council and all of them Numbered from one on progresively such part of them as you think fit do you entrust to one or oper p[er]sons to Deliver them out who is to be Accomptable for them and his discharged exam[in]d & past in Consultation and then deliver him out another part as[?] is to be Issued, After Publish Notice of these Severall Coin's & Notes and that they Shall be taken in the Stores for Goods and of any P[er]sons w[hi]ch leave the Island have any of them in their Possesion you will give them Bills for the value delivered you payable by us in Sterling money Give all[?] the Storekeeper an Acc[oun]t from time to time what notes of each Species you deliver out with their Numbers for his guidance. Thirdly toiching our Servants Civil or Military The Acc[oun]ts of S[t] Helena in Generall and also toiching our Slaves Cattle Lands & Revenues This being the proper held [head?] for it. We then have conv[en?]ie[n]t till now to Acquaint you That we have Setled your Allowances as follows The Governour at One hundred Pounds a year Sallary and One hundred pounds a year Gratuity the Second value is to be the Book keeper and Acc[oun]t[an]t at Sixty five Pounds a year Sallary and thirty pounds a year Gratuity. The Third whose is to be Overseer of the Plantations at the Same Sallary and Gratuity he being formerly in the Same Stat[i]on and well Acquainted in all the Branches of that trust The fourth who is to be Storekeeper at Fifty Pounds a year Sallary and twenty pounds a year Gratuity The Fifth and last of Counsell who is to be also Secretary or Cleark of the Councill at Forty pounds a year Sallary and Ten pounds a year Gratuity We have likewise Entertained Edward Buyfeild a Writer at Twenty Pounds a year Sallary and five pounds a year Gratuity, all these his Gratuitys are only Conditionall in case the Court of Directors Shall [u?]pon | The Court had written to the Court of St George to send a hundred pounds' value in copper farthings and halfpence, and a hundred pounds' value in silver fanams. The Court would itself send the Council a hundred pounds' value in Spanish bits. By these helps the Council would be eased of the frequent transfers of small debts from the soldiers to the planters, which caused a burden of trouble both as to time and writing. As a further supply, the Court herewith sent the Council a hundred pounds' value in notes of half a crown, the same value in notes of one crown each, the same value in notes of each twenty shillings, and the same value in notes of each forty shillings, which made four hundred pounds in the whole. These must be signed by the Governor and Council, all of them, numbered from one on progressively. Such part of them as the Council thought fit to entrust to one or other person to deliver them out, who was to be accountable for them and his discharges examined and passed in consultation, and then deliver him out another part as the notes required, giving public notice of the several coins and notes, and that they should be taken in the stores for goods, and any persons who leave the island having any of them in their possession, the Council was to give them bills for the value delivered up, payable thereby in sterling money. Give also the storekeeper an account from time to time of what notes of each species the Council delivered out, with their numbers, for his guidance. Thirdly, touching our servants civil or military, the account of St Helena in general, and also touching our slaves, cattle, land and revenues. This being the proper head, far it well, when the Court had considered until now to acquaint the Council that the Court had settled their allowances as follows. The Governor at one hundred pounds a year salary, and one hundred pounds a year gratuity. The second was to be bookkeeper and accountant at sixty five pounds a year salary and thirty pounds a year gratuity. The third was to be overseer of the plantations at the same salary and gratuity, he being formerly in the same station and well acquainted in all those branches of that trust. The fourth was to be storekeeper at fifty pounds a year salary and twenty pounds a year gratuity. The fifth and last of the Council was to be also Secretary or Clerk of the Council at forty pounds a year salary and ten pounds a year gratuity. The Court had likewise entertained Edward [...] as a Writer at twenty pounds a year salary, and six pounds a year gratuity. All these gratuities were only conditional in case the Court of Directors Interpretations The currency arrangement reveals the practical operation of three distinct monetary streams on the island. Spanish bits supplied silver coin for transactions of moderate value. Copper farthings and halfpence supplied the small change for retail purchases at the stores. Silver fanams, drawn from the Coromandel Coast through the Court of St George at Fort St George, supplied a third tier of coin for the inter-station trade with the Coast and the Bay. The earlier currency pattern recorded in the consolidated reference, with 879 Mexico and Seville pieces of eight at 5s per piece sent on the Johanna of 20 February 1678 for soldier pay, had operated entirely on bulk silver. The present arrangement substituted graduated denominations across three metals to meet the working needs of a more developed local economy. The introduction of paper notes signed by all members of the Council, numbered progressively, in denominations of half a crown, one crown, twenty shillings and forty shillings, established a working fiduciary currency on the island. The notes carried no intrinsic value. They were backed by the Council's collective signature, the consecutive numbering, and the obligation of the stores to take them in payment for goods. Any holder departing the island could exchange the notes for sterling bills payable in London. The arrangement created the first paper currency at St Helena, operating through the stores as the central clearing house. The storekeeper held the master register of notes issued, against which the public notices and the bills exchanged in London could be reconciled. The salaries and gratuities set out for the new establishment reveal the working hierarchy of the five member Council and the additional Writer. The Governor's combined salary and gratuity of £200 per annum stood at the head, with each subsequent position graduated downward. The second member as Bookkeeper and Accountant received £95, the third as Overseer of the Plantations also £95, the fourth as Storekeeper £70, and the fifth as Secretary or Clerk £50. Edward [...] as Writer stood outside the Council at £26. The structure shows the Council reorganised around five distinct portfolios, each carrying a specific operational responsibility, rather than the simple seniority order of the earlier commission of 20 February 1678 when the Council members had been appointed to the body without separate functional designations. The conditional character of the gratuities, payable only at the direction of the Court of Directors, established the working incentive structure for the Council. The salary was secured. The gratuity, often equal to or exceeding the salary, was withheld pending review of performance. The arrangement gave the Court a financial lever over each member's conduct without the need to alter the formal terms of appointment. The mechanism reads as the financial counterpart to the procedural discipline imposed throughout the present letter, with the gratuity operating as the working reward for compliance with the documentary requirements set out in the earlier paragraphs. Speculations The third member's allocation to the post of Overseer of the Plantations, with the express note that he had formerly been in the same station and was well acquainted with all the branches of that trust, identifies Edward Maskham as the one continuity appointment in the new commission. The remainder of the Council represented a complete change from the Boucher administration. The retention of Maskham, by reason of his prior knowledge of the plantation system, suggests that the Court had judged the plantation management to require continuous institutional memory in a way that the other portfolios did not. The plantation register, the boundary disputes, the militia obligations under the twenty acre and ten acre rules of the by-laws of 20 March 1680, and the marriage land grants of the despatch of 24 March 1680, had built up a body of local administrative knowledge that could not be reproduced from London. The detailed graduation of the salaries, with the Governor at twice the second member's combined emolument and roughly four times the fifth member's, departs from the flatter pattern visible in the earlier establishment. The 1673 founding instructions had set Field as Governor at £50 per annum with £20 gratuity, Beale as Deputy at £50 per annum, and the Surgeon Francis Moore at £25 with £5 gratuity. The present arrangement, with the Governor at £200 and the Writer at £26, shows a much wider spread. The widening reflects the maturation of the island establishment into a multi-tier administrative organisation, where the senior office now carried responsibilities (commercial direction, judicial authority, military command, currency issue) commensurate with the higher compensation, while the junior posts had been redefined as specialist clerical functions paid on a clerical scale. | |
15 | from time to time think they deserve them and not Otherwise. We have settled these Sallarys & Gratuitys be devised for the Encou[r]a =gement of every one of you in your respective Stations to Serve us with Zeal and Fidelity they being much Larger than ever were formerly allowed to any of the Councill for under this would we included Governours and all the rest in Time of Peace or Warr either Excepting of late to the Governour but we must further add that we will not permitt any of you besides M[r] Tovey to have any one or more Plantations of your own or Mortgaged to you the better to prevent giving a Preference to Such private Plantations to the detriment of their own which also was an inducement to us the rather to come in to the Conditionall Gratuitys And as to M[r] Tovey he having Petitioned us about a Plantation which he claims as belonging to his wife and him alleadging he was tourd out of it unjustly by Govern[ou]r Boucher and Suffer'd great Damage thereby. In Answer thereto we Say do you Examine into the Clearness of the case from all P[ar]ts of his Complaints as soon as possible and before Cap[t] Boucher leaves the Island because he is principally compl[ai]ned against here all partys that Shall be able to give testimony on either Side under the whole Determine impartially & equitably without favour affection or resentment Send us a true State of the Case with your Determination and the reason for our Notice and farther Orders thereupon if we ex amine our Court of Directors Shall think fit to give any. In case the Said Plantation Shall on your Examination be adjudged to be rendered to M[r] Tovey we have agreed that he have Liberty to Lett out to others but not keep it in his own hands So that if he Should die in the voyage or afterwards his case may thereby be enabled to maintain her Family if it be not then this to in term meddle with no other We cant forbear taking Notice of Govern[ou]r Bouchers Partiality & injustice that we wrote of this in a Letter by the Abingdon get of M[r] Tovey Says him he never was told one word of We be Stayd on the Island [s]ix and a m[on]ths after the Abingd[on] departed where M[r] Boucher Answer [s]ues all neither offer the Abingdon or wrote what M[r] Boucher Answer in the 36 Par[r] of the 9 Aprill is very trifling and to tell us he was the only Surviving one of the Counsell is worse for he could not forget when he was one M[r] Bazett was by us constituted one except his refusing his Unusud Authority to confirm a tide was Sufficient to Stem [stem?] M[r] Bazett as no body there is a Clause in the 22 Par[r] which contains in to a Sty reflection as if we owing Councell were not sufficient to over throw falsly and that he counted the Power to expel them but that it be a great [t]ouch till we are well Satisfyd with the persons fit to have it. We | From time to time think they deserve them, and not otherwise. The Court had settled these salaries and gratuities as desired for the encouragement of every one of you in your respective stations to serve us with zeal and fidelity. They being much larger than ever were formerly allowed to any of the Council. For under this the Court included a Governor and all the rest. In time of peace or war either, excepting of late to the Governor. But the Court must further add that the Court would not permit any of the Council besides Mr Tovey to have any one or more plantations of their own, or mortgaged to them, the better to prevent giving a preference to such private plantations to the detriment of their own. Which also was an inducement to the Court the rather to come into the conditional gratuities. And as to Mr Tovey he, having petitioned the Court about a plantation which he claimed as belonging to his wife, and him alleging he was turned out of it unjustly by Governor Boucher and suffered great damage thereby. In answer thereto the Court did examine into the truth of the cause in all parts of his complaints as soon as possible, and before Captain Boucher leaves the island, because he is principally complained against here. All parties shall be able to give testimony on either side. And on the whole, determine impartially and equitably, without favour, affection or resentment. Send the Court a state of the case with the Council's determination, and the reason for our notice, and further orders thereupon, if we, or any other Court of Directors, shall think fit to give any. In case the plantation shall on the Council's examination be adjudged to be restored to Mr Tovey, the Court had agreed that he have liberty to let it out to others, but not keep it in his own hands. So that, if he should die on the voyage, or afterwards, his wife may thereby be enabled to maintain her family. If it be not then his to interrupt the matter, with no other the Court could forbear taking notice of Governor Boucher's particular and injustice. That the Court wrote of in a letter by the Abingdon delivered Mr Tovey says, he never was told one word of the Court had said on the island. Seven and eighty officers offer the Abingdon. The Court asked Mr Boucher's answer in the thirty sixth paragraph of the ninth of April, is very trifling, and tells the Council he was the only surviving Council member. The Council is worse, for he could not forget when he was once Mr Tovey, but was by us constituted one. Except in reckoning his unjust authority to confirm a hide, was sufficient to esteem Mr Bazett, as no body, there is a clause in the twenty second paragraph which contains insufficient reflection, as does every Counsellor. The Court was suffered to come in a feasibly attentive, and that he counted the power to expel them, but that it be a great trust till the Council was satisfied with the persons fit to have it. Interpretations The prohibition on Council members holding plantations of their own, with Mr Tovey exempted only by reason of his pending claim through his wife, operated as the central conflict of interest rule of the new establishment. A Council member with his own plantation would have an interest in directing labour, supplies and favourable rulings toward his own holding rather than the Company plantation. The arrangement parallels the engrossing prohibition imposed on Joshua Johnson at his appointment as Deputy Governor and Husband and Storekeeper by the despatch of 20 May 1683, which had forbidden him from buying up goods on the arrival of company ships to deny the planters the advantage of trading with the officers and mariners. The present rule extended the same principle from commercial transactions to landholding, treating both as forms of structural temptation against which procedural restraint was needed. The conditional gratuity structure rests on the inability of Council members to draw private benefit from the office. Where personal plantations were forbidden, the gratuity provided the working compensation for the additional zeal and fidelity expected. The Court's explicit acknowledgment that the prohibition was an inducement to come into the conditional gratuities reveals the working bargain. The members surrendered the customary opportunity to enrich themselves through land, and received in return a defined annual gratuity payable at the Court's discretion. The arrangement converts the inducement to private gain into a formal element of the salary structure under London control. The Tovey case reveals the formal procedure by which the Council was expected to adjudicate disputes between members of the establishment, with the new Council instructed to examine the truth of the cause in all parts, before Captain Boucher left the island, so that all parties might give testimony on either side. The requirement that the determination be impartial, equitable, without favour, affection or resentment, and that the state of the case with the Council's reasons be sent home for the Court's further orders, established the Council as a court of first instance with the Court of Directors as the court of review. The arrangement parallels the Court of Judicature established by the laws and constitutions of 30 March 1685 under the despatch of 14 March 1684, with the Governor as sole judge, but operated here through the full Council rather than the Governor alone because the dispute involved both a former Governor and a current Council member. The contingency that the plantation, if restored to Tovey, could be let out to others but not kept in his own hands, addresses the same conflict of interest concern. Direct cultivation by a sitting Council member would breach the prohibition just laid down. Letting the plantation to a tenant created an arm's length arrangement, with the rent flowing to Tovey or his wife but the working management held by another party. The Court's explanation that the arrangement secured the wife's maintenance in the event of Tovey's death on the voyage, or afterward, reveals the additional purpose of preserving the family's economic position against the contingency of widowhood. The Tovey claim through his wife also signals that the original holding had come through the female line, perhaps under the inheritance provisions of the by-laws of 20 March 1680. Speculations The Court's specific reference to Boucher's alleged failure to inform Tovey of the substance of the Court's letter by the Abingdon, despite that letter having been delivered, suggests a particular pattern of selective disclosure within the Boucher Council. The General Letter ought to have been read in full Council on receipt, with the whole Council summoned for the purpose, under the rule set out earlier in the present letter. Boucher's failure to deliver the relevant content to Tovey converted the standing rule on full disclosure into a personal lever. By controlling what each Council member knew of the Court's directions, the Governor could direct the Council's response to the Court's own instructions. The present letter's heavy emphasis on full reading in Council, signing of minutes and dissent recorded by name with reasons, can be read as the institutional remedy for this specific abuse identified through the Tovey complaint. The Court's reference to Bazett having been treated as no body, with Boucher's claim to confirm authority being sufficient to disregard him, points to a specific incident underlying the earlier complaint that Bazett had been kept from his duty as fifth of Council for five or six months together. The pattern emerges of a Boucher administration in which the Governor combined with a coalition of Council members to exclude both Tovey and Bazett from their proper functions. Tovey was deprived of his wife's plantation. Bazett was excluded from the stores. The unifying feature was the Governor's claim to authority over the working operation of the Council and its members' portfolios, against the formal collegiate structure prescribed in the commission of 20 February 1678 and reaffirmed in the present establishment. The wholesale change of personnel in the new commission was the Court's response to a pattern of misuse rather than to any single incident. | |
16 | We hope you will take effectuall care to Suppress all animosityes and heats in the Island as far as you are able and that is best to be done by giving the Inhabitants no just cause to Complain of your Power by hearing and redressing Speedily all just Grievances Impar tially Trying the Cause not the person by discountenancing all Vicious Persons and Practices by Preferring every one to propaly[?] by Example as well as precept and Coercion when Neccesary Checking all Sorts of Debauchery Immorality & Propha[n]ness of and among others by putting a Stop as far as you fairly can to that Excessive drinking of Arrack and other Strong Liquors which has grown upon all the people Strangely of late years and Shews that their Oppression or Some their discontent made them Careless how matters went for Such Excess as is necessarily tends to Beggary or at least Poverty. You have given us So many assurances of your hearty Endea vours to do us the best Service in your Power as well for the Improve ment of the Island as in mannageing all other affairs under your Particular charges That we have reason to beleeve We Shall hereafter have no Occasion to fill our Letters with Complaints of Neglecting or Acting contrary to our Orders and if we Should have any reason to find fault that we Shall not have Such fallacious trifling or insolent evations or replys as are to be found in the Lettrs now before us which upon Comparing what is wrote in the Letter of the 9 April and is called an Answer to ours by the Abingdon will be easily & often discernd on the Contrary that you will each in your Stations and when you in Council take care our Orders be duly executed and will Stop any neglect of the departure from them in the first appearance before it grows to a head and thereby become difficult to be cured as in the Case of the Accompts which have been miserably Neglected tho we Sent out a person who was able to do better and wherefore we expected that as he was in our Accomptant Office here and knew the Cause of our Complaints of the Accts before Sent us that they were Little better than Shop Books he would have reme =dyd all by doing better. But Since his Arrivall at S[t] Helena we have had none at all of any kind whereas formerly they used to be sent yearly Such as they were This Negligence our then Govern[ou]r ought to have prevented by frequent Examinations how far they were Advanced and Checking all Disorders therein but instead thereof if the Notices we have be as we Apprehend they are this he would neither | The Court hoped the Council would take effectual care to suppress all animosities and heats on the island as far as they were able. That was best to be done by giving the inhabitants no just cause to complain of the Council's power, by hearing and redressing speedily all just grievances impartially, by trying the cause not the person, by discountenancing all licentious persons and practices, by preferring every one's property by example as well as precept, and by coercion when necessary, checking all sorts of debauchery, immorality and profaneness. Among others, by putting a stop, as far as the Council fairly could, to that excessive drinking of arrack and other strong liquors, which had grown upon all the people strangely of late years, and showed that their opposition or some other discontent made them careless how matters went, for such excess necessarily tended to beggary, or at least poverty. The Council had given the Court so many assurances of their hearty endeavours to do the best service in their power, as well for the improvement of the island as in managing all other affairs under their particular charges, that the Court had reason to believe it should hereafter have no occasion to fill its letters with complaints of neglecting or acting contrary to our orders. And if the Court should have any reason to find fault, the Court should not have such fallacious trifling, or insolent evasions or replies, as were to be found in the letters now before the Court, which upon comparing what was wrote in the letter of the ninth of April and is called an answer to ours by the Abingdon, would be easily and often discerned. On the contrary, that the Council, each in their stations, and when they sat in Council, take care our orders be duly executed, and will stop any neglect or departure from them in the first appearance before it grows ahead, and thereby becomes difficult to be cured. As in the case of the accounts which had been miserably neglected, though the Court sent out a person who was able to do better. And therefore the Court expected that he was in our recompense officer here, and knew the cause of our complaints of the accounts before sent us. That they were a little better than shop books, he would have remedied all by doing better. But since his arrival at St Helena, the Court had none at all of any kind, whereas formerly they used to be sent yearly such as they were. This negligence the Governor ought to have prevented by frequent examinations, how far they were advanced, and checking all disorders therein. But instead thereof, if the notions the Court had were as the Court apprehended, they were near he would, neither Interpretations The Court's framing of impartial justice as the practical means of suppressing animosities on the island identifies the working link between judicial procedure and social order. Where grievances were heard quickly and on the merits, with the cause tried rather than the person, the inhabitants had no occasion to combine against the administration. Where grievances festered or were decided by favour, factions formed. The arrangement reads as the operational counterpart to the Court of Judicature established by the laws and constitutions of 30 March 1685, with the procedural rules treated as the means by which the substantive aim of social peace was to be achieved. The principle that the cause and not the person was to be tried applied the standard formulation of judicial impartiality drawn from the English common law tradition. The reference to excessive drinking of arrack and other strong liquors, said to have grown strangely upon the people of late years, reflects the recurring concern with intoxication that ran through the consolidated record. The despatch of 8 November 1678 had recorded soldiers found drunk on guard during the original Dutch capture, the lesson being that strong drink had military as well as moral consequences. The despatch of 24 March 1680 had addressed planter drunkenness through counsel and punishment rather than additional soldiers. The laws and constitutions of 30 March 1685 had fined drunkenness up to 5s for each offence after public admonition. The present complaint identifies arrack, the Indian Ocean liquor distilled from palm sap or molasses, as the specific liquor of concern, reflecting the integration of St Helena into the supply chain that had brought butt after butt of Bengal arrack from the Coast, beginning with the Coast invoices of 28 January 1679 on the Society and Nathaniel. The complaint that the accounts had been miserably neglected, despite the Court having sent out a person well qualified to do better, identifies a specific administrative failure of the Boucher administration that the Court treated as personal rather than systemic. The Court had supplied the competent officer, the operational responsibility lay on him, and the failure to send any accounts at all since his arrival was attributed to local neglect rather than to inadequate London preparation. The earlier complaint about the accounts being a little better than shop books, in the despatch by the Abingdon, had set the documentary standard. The present complaint records that even that low standard had subsequently disappeared. The arrangement places the procedural failure squarely on the previous Governor's duty to supervise the accountant through frequent examinations of progress, which had not been performed. The standard of accounts being a little better than shop books identifies a working distinction between mercantile retail accounting (the shop book recording each transaction without systematic categorisation) and the structured corporate accounting expected of a Company station. Shop books recorded sales as they happened. Corporate accounts required the structured presentation of receipts and disbursements against named categories, with running balances at each level. The Boucher accountant's failure to produce more than shop book quality records meant that the Court could not extract from them the information needed to direct the establishment. The systematic accounting required under the present letter, with the storekeeper's monthly returns, the abstracted account of goods sold by species, and the new rate entry method, addressed this specific failure. Speculations The Court's specific reference to a person sent out who was able to do better than shop books suggests that the previous accountant had been recruited in London on the strength of his qualifications and had then failed to deliver in practice. The Court's exasperation lies precisely in the gap between the competence supplied and the work produced. The arrangement supplies the diagnosis behind the present commission's allocation of the second member as Bookkeeper and Accountant at £65 salary and £30 gratuity, with the gratuity conditional. The new accountant carried both the increased emolument and the explicit incentive structure, with the gratuity withheld pending performance. The Court was applying the lesson of the previous failure through a redesigned office rather than relying on personal exhortation alone. The Court's identification of opposition or some other discontent as the underlying cause of the inhabitants' carelessness about beggary, expressed through excessive drinking, points to a specific diagnosis of social demoralisation rather than mere vice. The phrasing suggests that the Court understood the drinking as a symptom of a deeper political and economic alienation, perhaps connected to the same Boucher administration failings that had paralysed Bazett, dispossessed Tovey of his wife's plantation and silenced the Council on the Court's orders. The arrangement frames the new Council's brief in terms of restoring confidence in the administration as the precondition for restoring sobriety in the population, with judicial impartiality and procedural discipline serving as the working instruments of both. | |
17 | neither let M[r] Bazett asist in the Stores tho we mentiond he Should not in any other matters relating to the expediting the Books from whence this mischievous Consequence has happned that the planters are uneasy they cant have their Acc[oun]ts Settled The Souldiers are run in debt & some of them from Ten to twenty and thirty Pounds a man which prompts them to Desert the Island for it Seems the Stores were delivered out blindfold without considering who ought or ought not to be further trusted By this means great Sums have been drawn on us from hence to time not w[ith] standing the large Supplys from hence and India We hope the bare making these facts will Shewe you we had reason to Shift hands and at the Same time excite in you a resolut[i]on to Act in a different manner. We must not pass over without Remark two Parr[r]agraphs of the Letter Sent after receipt of ours by the Abingdon and which is called an Answer thereto For our doing wherein the Councill gives Encouragm[en]t to hope M[r] Cack would by an oath accordingly Diligent actions for past neglects and Shew his gratefull returns for our generosity and yet in the 23 Parr[r] of the same Letter it is mentiond that he had been deprivd of his Speech and Sences for Seven months and while or rising it was crime he was dead After how been So Long out of his Sences Should not the then Govern[ou]r have applyd M[r] Bazett or Somebody Else to that business or did he think it to triviall a matter as not worth looking after This is yet a futher proof of what we Suspected and of which we gave a hint as mentiond in the 16 Par[r] of our Letter by the Susanna why M[r] Bazett was not Suffer'd to Asist about the Stores or Accounts a futher Instance is that tho in the 13 Par[r] of the above Letter Govern[ou]r Boucher Says M[r] Bazett is a Stranger to the Italian way of Book Keeping yet in the Postscript of the Same Letter M[r] Bazett denys the Charge and Says it was the day which they formerly practiced and the Governour by his Silence Seems to confess it Yet M[r] Bazett mu[s]t not be employd in the Acc[oun]ts till after M[r] Cocks death We had not mentiond this now were it not for your Sakes that others may net[?] may make you more Cautio[u]s for Cap[t] Boucher will find that Such mannagem[en]t will be far from appearing again a Clean for his Gratuity. In the 2[nd] Par[r] he tells us for he only Signs the Letter tho' the Side runs as if Signd by the Councill, they could not Aceuse themselves of omitting one Article in the Sedingtons Letter tho it was not Answered Para [g]r[aph?] | Neither let Mr Bazett assist in the stores, though we mentioned he should, nor in any other matters relating to the expediting the books, from whence this mischievous consequence had happened, that the planters were uneasy, they could not have their accounts settled. The soldiers were run in debt, and some of them from ten to twenty and thirty pounds a man, which prompts them to desert the island. For it seems the stores were delivered out blindfold, without considering who ought or ought not to be further trusted. By this means great sums had been drawn on us from home to here, notwithstanding the large supplies from hence, and India. The Court hoped the bare stating these facts would show the Council had reason to shift hands, and at the same time excite the Council to a resolution to act in a different manner. The Court must not pass over without remark two particulars of the letter sent after receipt of ours by the Abingdon, and which is called an answer thereto. For our charity, wherein the Council give encouragement to hope Mr Cack would by an extra diligence and diligent actions for past neglects, and show his grateful returns for our generosity. And yet in the twenty third paragraph of the same letter it is mentioned that he had been deprived of his speech and senses for seven months, and while writing it was crime, whereas dead. After that he had been so long out of his senses, the Court should not have then. Governor wrote and applied Mr Bazett or somebody else to that business, or did he think it so trivial a matter as not worth looking after. This was yet a further proof of what was suspected, and of which the Court gave a hint as mentioned in the third paragraph of our letter by the Susanna, why Mr Bazett was not suffered to assist about the stores or accounts. A further instance is that, though in the eighteenth paragraph of the above letter Governor Boucher says Mr Bazett is a stranger to the Italian way of bookkeeping, yet in the postscript of the same letter Mr Bazett denies the charge, and says it was the way which they formerly practised, and the Governor by his silence seems to confess it. Yet Mr Bazett must not be employed in the accounts till after Mr Cack's death. The Court had not mentioned this now were it not for the Council's sakes, that others miscarriage may make the Council more cautious. For Captain Boucher will find that such management would be far from appearing again at Cleon for his gratuity. In the second paragraph he tells the Court for his only signing the letter, though the style runs as if signed by the Council. They could not accuse themselves of omitting one article in the Heddington's letter, though it was not answered Interpretations The Court's specific complaint that the stores were delivered out blindfold, without considering who ought or ought not to be further trusted, identifies the central operational failure of the Boucher stores administration. The standing rule, traceable to the founding instructions of 19 December 1673 and codified in the four point procedure of the despatch of 24 March 1680, required that no issue from the stores be made without warrant signed by the Governor and majority of Council. The function of the warrant procedure was precisely to prevent indiscriminate credit. Where the warrant discipline collapsed, the stores became a credit window operating without underwriting. Soldiers ran into debts of ten to twenty and thirty pounds a man, a sum that compared starkly with the new soldier pay of twenty one shillings a month set under the despatch of 24 March 1680. The escalation of soldier debt to a level that prompted desertion identifies a working economic effect of the stores failure. A soldier whose accumulated debt to the stores exceeded any practical prospect of repayment from his future pay had nothing to lose by deserting the island. The arrangement converted the failure of credit discipline at the stores into a failure of garrison retention, with the two failures linked through the soldier's individual balance sheet. The earlier policy of converting soldiers to planters, traced from the founding instructions through the marriage land grants of the despatch of 24 March 1680, had assumed that soldiers would convert into productive landholders rather than absconding debtors. The new Council inherited a population in which that conversion had failed for a substantial fraction of the men. The remark that great sums had been drawn on the Court at home, notwithstanding the large supplies from England and India, reveals the working financial cost of the Boucher administration's failure. The bills of exchange annual ceiling set at £100 by the despatch of 8 November 1678 had been designed to cap the drain on London. The reference to great sums drawn suggests that the ceiling had either been breached or had been worked around by other means, perhaps through the device of charging soldier purchases at the stores against London accounts of the soldiers' creditors or relations. The arrangement converted the breakdown of stores discipline at St Helena into a working liability on the Court's London accounts. The dispute over Mr Cack's seven month incapacity, with Boucher writing as if Cack were merely negligent and the same letter elsewhere recording him as deprived of speech and senses, reveals the working bookkeeping failure compounded by basic dishonesty in the Governor's correspondence. The Court treats the contradiction as evidence that Boucher had no intention of supplying truthful information to London. The further dispute over the Italian way of bookkeeping (the double entry method drawn from Italian mercantile practice) shows that Boucher had attempted to exclude Bazett from the accounts by claiming Bazett lacked competence in the method, while Bazett's postscript and Boucher's silence on the point established that the same method had been used by Bazett and others in earlier practice. The exclusion was therefore pretextual. Speculations The pattern of Boucher's misrepresentations, taken together with the exclusion of Bazett from both the stores and the accounts, suggests that the Governor had a specific personal interest in keeping the books in the hands of one or more incapacitated or compliant officers. Where Cack was deprived of speech and senses for seven months, the bookkeeping was nominally his responsibility but in practice was either neglected or carried on by persons answerable to the Governor. Where Bazett would have applied the Italian method honestly, his exclusion preserved the looser shop book quality records that the Court had earlier complained of. The arrangement provided the operational cover under which the stores credit could be issued blindfold and the great sums drawn on London could be moved through the books without scrutiny. The Court's full understanding of the connection emerges from its placement of the stores complaint and the bookkeeping complaint in adjacent paragraphs, with the same Boucher administration responsible for both. The Court's withholding of Boucher's gratuity, with the threat that such management would be far from appearing again at Cleon for his gratuity, applies the conditional gratuity discipline retrospectively to the outgoing Governor. The arrangement reveals the financial mechanism by which the Court could punish demonstrated misconduct without resorting to formal proceedings. The gratuity, often equal to or exceeding the salary, was withheld at the Court's discretion. Where the conduct of an officer fell below standard, the gratuity simply did not appear. The mechanism reads as the Court's preferred sanction precisely because it required no formal finding, no court of inquiry and no documented determination. The withholding of the payment was itself the verdict. | |
18 | by Par[r] and yet owns we order'd it Should and adds Some Parr[r]s could not in that time and then goes on in the next to tell what was done and concludes if Consultations were not So frequent as formerly there was because there were fewer animositys among the People and Business more done than talkd of, To this we Say for your information and observance That we Expect our orders be obeyd at all times unles you Plainly[?] prevent them or apparent and well grounded reasons make you Depart from them for our reall Interest but then you must give us those reasons and take care you really beleeve them as substanti[a]ll. If any Parragraphs cant be answered Speedily tell us So and why But the Excu[s]e fer Consultations being but So Seldom is very Frivolous and looks as if we were to be Perswaded they were to be Holden to hear Complaints whereas tho those must not be Neglected yet our main design in appoint ing them is That all Directions relateing to our affairs may be there agreed on and from thence Issued all enquirys how far complyed with may be there made and the Answers thereto given into Councill all Reports of the progress in the Buildings & Repairs to be Buseys[?] there receivd and a proper entry made together with the State [u?]swal future directions given on due[?] whether from the Stores Plantation, Police[?] &c there given in entred and stact and proper Reports of all entred in the Consultation Book as before intimated. Had this been So and Coppys of that Book Sent us we Should not have Complained and Required as we did in our aforesaid Letters. In the 5[th] Par[r] we are told they could not Imagine how the Stores fell on the two Slow Ships from England were forgot to be Sent us and in the 10 Par[r] of the Letter of the 16 June That the Acc[oun]t of the Captains omitted and Bills of Exchange not fully dated was the simple Buseys[?] of the Writers in the Stores to this we Say we will never Pass with Such Slight and trifling Excuses whereas Business it may be to Down and head Pap[er] on these things It is your to See them executed and Sent as we Sometimes demand to Govern you inquiry and a Settle time to See they are Complyd with together with early Orders that they may be ready it not also become you to take care and our Government in Particular who does there for a Sallary that may have Sufficient places to enforce the doing our business and the greater Sallary to incourage him to take the greater Care In the 24 Par[r] we are perpd to Consultations about Ensign[?] Engan[?] and Gunner French being made asistants to the Councill and yet told they could not be Sent with that Letter This is another Instance of the Pensimean[?] Modesty in afsesteing that the Councill in he had not Omitted one Article wherein our Interest was Concerned for the Letters from hence [E]xpresly | The Council's answer, by paragraph, owns the Court ordered it should, and adds some particulars that could not be done in that time. Then goes on, in the next, to tell what was done, and concludes if consultations were not so frequent as formerly there had been, because there were fewer animosities among the people and business more done than talked of. To this the Court say, for your information and observance, that the Court expected our orders to be obeyed at all times, unless pure necessity prevent them, or apparent and well grounded reasons make the Council depart from them for our real interest. But then the Council must give us those reasons, and take care the Council really believe them substantial. If any paragraphs cannot be answered speedily, tell the Council so, and why. But the excuse of consultations being held so seldom is very frivolous, and looks as if the Council were to be persuaded they were to be holden to hear complaints. Whereas those must not be neglected, yet our main design in appointing them is that all directions relating to our affairs may be there agreed on, and from thence issued, all enquiring how far complied with may be there made, and the answers thereto given into Council. All reports of the progress in the buildings, repairs of the buildings there received, and a proper entry made together with the like entries of further directions given, all duly. Whether from the stores, plantations, fields or fisheries given, in candid and plain and proper reports of all entered in the consultation book, as before intimated, had then been so, and copies of that book sent to us, the Council should not have complained and repeated as did in our aforesaid letters. The Court was told the Council could not imagine how the stores fell on the Heathorne ship from England, were forgot to be sent us, and in the eleventh paragraph of the letter of the twelfth of June. That the chief of the Captains omitted, and bills of exchange not fully dated, was the proper business of the writers in the stores, in those the Council should never hear nor take such slight and trifling excuses, whereas business of may be done and need preparation, these things it is your duty to be properly executed and sent us. As we now demand, to govern our enquiry, and a settled time to see they be complied with, together with early orders that they may be ready in time, became you to take care of and our Governor in particular who oversees ought to find that may have sufficient power to enforce the doing our business, and the greater salary to encourage him to take the greater care. In the twenty fourth paragraph the Council are referred to consultations where Ensign Cassen and Gunner French being made assistants to the Council, and what they could not be sent with that letter. This is another instance of the Council's modesty in alleging that the Council had hid, not omitted, an article wherein our interest was concerned, for the letters from hence expressly Interpretations The Court's framing of the consultation book as the central instrument for the issue, recording and follow up of orders identifies the working operational design of the Council's procedure. The book was not a passive register of decisions taken but the active medium through which the Court's directions were received, agreed, executed and reported. The arrangement required four distinct entries for each order: the original direction, the agreement on its execution, the enquiry into compliance, and the answer recording what had been done. The discipline imposed on the Boucher Council had failed at every stage of this loop. The Court's complaint that the Council had treated consultations principally as occasions for hearing complaints reveals the inversion of the proper hierarchy, with reactive grievance handling displacing the proactive execution of orders. The remark that fewer animosities among the people justified less frequent consultations exposes the Boucher Council's misunderstanding of the consultation's function. The number of disputes among the inhabitants had no necessary relation to the volume of Company business requiring Council action. The Court treated the Council's reasoning as a category mistake, with the cadence of consultation derived from the wrong driver. The arrangement matches the procedural rebuke in the earlier paragraphs of the present letter, where the Court had complained that consultations had often not been held for five or six weeks at a stretch, with the longest interval cited in evidence. The Court's distinction between excuses that were pure necessity and apparent well grounded reasons, on one hand, and frivolous or trifling excuses, on the other, establishes the working evidentiary standard against which the Council's correspondence was to be measured. A genuine impediment to compliance, properly documented, would be accepted. A casual explanation offered after the fact would be treated as evidence of ill management in the writers, in line with the writing rule set out in the earlier paragraph on the protest mechanism. The Court was applying to the Council's letters the same evidentiary discipline that the Council was required to apply to ship's captains. The reference to Ensign Cassen and Gunner French being made assistants to the Council reveals the working practice of co-opting subordinate officers into the Council's deliberations on matters within their particular competence. An ensign would assist on military and disciplinary questions; a gunner on fortification, powder and ordnance. The arrangement parallels the earlier practice traceable to the founding instructions of 19 December 1673, where the lieutenants of the two soldier companies sat on the Council alongside the civil members. The present co-option preserved that principle in a more flexible form, with the assistants drawn in on specific matters rather than seated as full members. Speculations The Court's specific demand that the Governor have sufficient power to enforce the doing of our business, and the greater salary to encourage him to take the greater care, reveals the working logic of the new establishment's compensation structure. The Governor's £100 salary and £100 conditional gratuity were not merely a reward for office but a working instrument of internal discipline. Within the Council, the Governor was the only member whose emolument matched the responsibility for compelling compliance from the others. The arrangement reads as the Court's recognition that the Boucher administration had failed in part because the Governor had lacked the authority, or the will, to enforce the standards required, and that the new commission addressed the gap by aligning the financial weight of the office with the disciplinary duty attached to it. The Court's complaint that bills of exchange were not fully dated, and that the chief of the Captains had been omitted from the records, identifies a specific failure of the documentary controls in the stores. An undated bill of exchange could not be tested for the prescribed annual ceiling, since the period to which it belonged was ambiguous. An unnamed Captain could not be identified in any subsequent enquiry. The arrangement reveals that the working failures were not random but were concentrated at exactly the points where the Court's oversight depended on precise particulars. The pattern suggests deliberate vagueness rather than mere carelessness, with the documents drafted just well enough to record the transaction but insufficiently specific to support any investigation. | |
19 | [...]tations to be kept up Constantly and [...] [...]as to be done is very obvious when it Shall [...] now Sent us contain but fifteen Sheets of [...] yet reach from the 12[th] of March 17[1?] To [...]d be wrote in a week with Ease [...]er given about the then Govern[ou]rs repaying [...] doaireed him and M[r] Cack his thirty[?] Side [...] Parr[r] and referring us to the Acc[oun]t to See it was [...] m[itt]ed to England for they were not Sent [...] have been Notifyd in the Generall Letter in [...] tird the Advanceing the moneys [...] Blacks are much wanted We have wrote [...] [t]o Supply you but we must observe there [...] [...]g at S[t] Helena is used to be and what what we ordered nor any List from our Chaplain of the Christians Marri ages Births and Burials tho Expresply ordered by the Sedington In P[ar]r 33 It is Adviced That ten pounds a year is Stopt out of Sargeant Smithers pay to be paid his wife here but not one word when it com =menced and tell we know that we cant be certain whether we pay too fast or Slow In Par[r] 45 It is promised that our orders by the Abingdon Shall be observed namely to Send us the Acc[oun]ts of the Severall branches of the Revenue and the amount of each &c but we find no Complyance therewith nor with Severall other promises in the Letter before us which for Brevity Sake we omitt mentioning. The then Governours Excuse in Severall Parr[s] as to the Letters between him and Captain Roberts and those he calls answers in others don't deserve to be Either replyd to or Commented upon being Either coarive bear[?] The mark or Signs of a heated temper. We have often Complaind of the great Charge of S[t] Helena as then mannaged all our Cargo's Sent from home all the Goods Delivered from India and great Sums Drawn on us by Bills from year to year and this last near Two thousand Seven hundred Pounds and no Acc[oun]t Sent us laid out this makes us justly concernd to put a Stop to this leak in our Estate and We promise our Selves from your honest Mannagement that it will now be Done The 15 Par[r] of the Letter of the 9[th] Aprill Says there | The consultations were to be kept up constantly, and such acts to be done as was very obvious when it shall be considered there were sent us [...] but fifteen sheets of [...] yet reach from the twelfth of March 1712 to [...] which might be wrote in a week with ease. [...] given about the then Governor repairing damaged him and Mr Cack his [...] side [...] paragraph, and referring us to the accounts to see it committed to England, for they were not sent. They have been ratified in the General Letter in [...] the answering the moneys. Blacks were much wanted. The Court had wrote to supply the Council, but the Court must observe there are at St Helena retained to be, and what the Court ordered, nor any list from our Chaplain of the Christians' marriages, births and burials, though expressly ordered by the Heddington. In paragraph forty three, it was advised that ten pounds a year was stopped out of Sergeant Southern's pay to be paid his wife here. But not one word when it was commenced, and till the Court knew that, the Court could not be certain whether they paid too fast or slow. In paragraph forty five, it was promised that our orders by the Abingdon should be observed, namely to send the account of the several branches of the revenue and the amount of each. But the Court found no compliance therewith, nor with several other promises in the letter before us, which for brevity's sake the Court omitted mentioning. The then Governor's excuse in several paragraphs as to the letters between him and Captain Roberts, and those he calls answers in others, did not deserve to be either replied to or commented upon, being either evasive or carrying the mark or signs of a heated temper. The Court had often complained of the great charge of St Helena as then managed. All our cargoes sent from hence, all the goods delivered from India, and great sums drawn on us by bills from year to year. Of this last, near two thousand seven hundred pounds and no account sent us how laid out. This made the Court justly concerned to put a stop to this leak in our estate, and the Court promised our selves from your honest management that it will now be done. The fifteenth paragraph of the letter of the ninth of April says there Interpretations The Court's complaint that the entire correspondence from the twelfth of March 1712 amounted to fifteen sheets, which might have been written in a week with ease, identifies the working measure of administrative volume against which the Boucher Council's output was found wanting. A year's worth of correspondence covering the entire establishment, compressed into fifteen sheets, fell below the threshold expected of a station handling Company shipping, stores, accounts, plantation registration, judicial business and military discipline. The Court treated the volume itself as evidence of neglect, since the operational business of the island could not have been transacted at the level of detail required and still produced so thin a return. The complaint that no list of Christians' marriages, births and burials had been sent by the Chaplain, though expressly ordered by the Heddington, identifies the failure to maintain the civil register that had operated on the island since the founding instructions of 19 December 1673. The original direction had required marriages, burials and births to be registered. The despatch of 20 February 1678 had continued the register of marriages, christenings and burials as one of the standing documentary instruments of the establishment, alongside the plantation register. The Boucher administration's failure to produce the list, despite a direct order by name of ship, broke a continuity of forty years of civil registration on the island. The arrangement by which ten pounds a year of Sergeant Southern's pay was stopped at the island and paid to his wife in London illustrates the working remittance mechanism connecting the island establishment to the soldiers' families at home. Pay was earned at St Helena. A portion was retained on the island for the soldier's living expenses and stores account. The balance was credited to the soldier's account in London and paid to a nominated recipient. The Court's complaint that no date was given for the commencement of the deduction reveals the operational problem the absence of dating created. Without a commencement date, the London payments could not be reconciled against the island deductions, and the Court could not tell whether the wife was being paid too fast or too slow against the actual stoppages on the island. The reference to the several branches of the revenue, with the Council having promised compliance by the Abingdon but having failed to deliver, repeats the central financial reform identified in the preceding paragraph. The several branches comprised the anchorage duties, the tonnage rates from interlopers established by the despatch of 14 March 1684 (twenty shillings per ton for East India interlopers and forty six shillings per ton for Madagascar slave ships), the household seal licensing of liquor and tobacco at twenty shillings per licence, the penny per acre transfer charge under the by-laws of 20 March 1680, the rents from Company plantations, and the fines under the laws and constitutions of 30 March 1685. Each branch required separate accounting against its own rule and rate. The cumulative cost of the island at £40,000, cited in the despatch of 1 August 1683, had driven the revenue strategy. The Boucher administration's failure to settle each branch separately prevented the Court from measuring whether the strategy was working. Speculations The Court's reference to nearly two thousand seven hundred pounds drawn on London by bills, with no account sent of how the money had been laid out, suggests that the bills had been issued without the accompanying documentation that would have shown the recipients, the purposes and the corresponding stores deliveries. The bills of exchange annual ceiling of one hundred pounds set by the despatch of 8 November 1678 had been overrun on a scale that indicated systematic breach rather than occasional emergency. The arrangement reveals the precise financial measure of the Boucher administration's failure, with the figure now established in the General Letter as the working baseline against which any future drawings by the new Council would be tested. The Court's expression of trust in the new Council's honest management converts the figure into an implicit performance target, with the new Council expected to bring the drawings down to a defensible level. The structure of the Court's complaint, with each unanswered order traced to its originating despatch (the Abingdon, the Heddington) and to its paragraph number in the Boucher reply, indicates that the Court had conducted a paragraph by paragraph audit of the previous correspondence before drafting the present letter. The forensic detail places the new Council on notice that the same audit would be applied to its own returns. By citing paragraphs forty three and forty five of the prior letter, the Court was demonstrating the granular level at which compliance would be measured. The arrangement reads as the procedural counterpart to the financial baseline, with documentary precision required at the level of the individual paragraph and the operational measure required at the level of the individual revenue branch. | |
20 | there is reason to beleeve S[t] Helena will not always or very Long be a [...] Charge when the Fortifications and Buildings are finished If we may beleeve the Letters before us those will be near Compleated by the time you get thether and the y[ar]ns not yet of the blacks Arrive they will Considerably Lessen the Expence So that what more Remaind is to expect from your mannagem[en]t that the generall Charge of the Island is Effectually [...]ed and Largely retrenched all Superfluous Expenses cut off, frugality introduced and kept up and as few Bills as possible or rather none drawn on us but on the Contrary Bills Sent us for money Supplyed our Shipping This Leads us to tell you our observations touching our Black Cattle and other live Stock and our Plantations on the Island The Cattle in an account ably Diminished If the Acc[oun]ts given in by John How the 11[th] October and by M[r] Eaton the 5 December as Entered in the Consultation Book be true We must observe that in all the time of this Book we find no Acc[oun]t brought in by them or any other person tho those tho' we ordered it Should be done monthly So carelefs to Say no worse has been the late Mannagem[en]t The Acc[oun]t Given in December is Lefs than that in October by Eleven Bullocks and Seven Cows. Yet no mention made of any Bed or Killed by Distemper nor any Notice taken how this Difference happend which looks to us as if the then Councill thought it Enough Barely to take the Acc[oun]t as given in without Examination or further thought If this be not Indolence it is worse In time to come Let us have yearly entred of all our Cattle Distinct live Stock how many of each Sit are Sold to the Shipping and her or any Expended at our own table and what addition has been made to your Stock of Calves & Goats or Hogs & Swine the lefs If you have to W[ri]te of Shipping a year. Send the Acc[oun]ts by Each in double Conveyances if more than one Ship If any Cattle die by disaster enter the Notice in Consultation when and where for we cant aprove that Right of every Coppy of telling us in the Letter that Sixty head died Since lady day and not a Sillable to be found of it in the Consultation Book Tho' that Should contain a full Acc[oun]t of all Affairs at least the Notices about them and we order that hereafter it be So. The Stock of Goats are quite omitted as if they were all gone which we must not beleeve becau[s]e M[r] Mashborne Assures us when he left S[t] Helena there were a great Number about two hundred in the valley more up in the Country enquire Dilligently who is become of them and if you can find we have been Cheated of any take Care to get the Sattisfaction best from whom it will Let us know how you find they are gone to it by Suffering them to be Stolen or destroyd and what remains If they are | There had been reason to believe St Helena would not always or very long remain a charge once the fortifications and buildings were finished. If the letters before the Court might be believed, those works would be near completed by the time the Council got thither, and the freights of the blacks not yet arrived would considerably lessen the expense. What more remained was to be expected from the Council's management. The general charge of the island was to be effectually [...] and largely retrenched, all superfluous expenses cast off, frugality introduced and kept up, and as few bills as possible, or rather none, drawn on the Court. On the contrary, bills were to be sent the Court for money supplied to our shipping. The Court was led to set out its observations touching the black cattle and other live stock, and the plantations on the island. The cattle were unaccountably diminished. By the account given in by John Haw on the fourteenth of October, and by Mr Eaton on the fifth of December, as entered in the consultation books, the Court must observe that in all the time of the present book no account had been brought in by them or any other person but those, though the Court had ordered the account to be done monthly. So careless, to say no worse, had been the late management. The account given in December was less than that in October by eleven bullocks and seven cows. Yet no mention was made of any bull or [...] by disaster, nor any notice taken how this difference happened, which looked to the Court as if the then Council had thought it enough barely to take the account as given in, without examination or further thought. If this was not insolence, it was worse. In time to come the Court was to be supplied with a yearly entry of all our cattle and other live stock. How many of each sort were sold to the shipping, and how many expended at our own table, and what addition had been made to the stock of calves and goats or hogs, with the increase. The account was to be sent by each ship in double conveyances if more than one ship returned in a year. If any cattle died by disaster, the notice was to be entered in consultation, when and where. The Court could not approve the Right Worshipful's way of telling the Court in the letter that sixty head had died since Lady Day, with not a syllable to be found of it in the consultation book, though that should have contained a full account of all affairs, at least the notices about them. The Court ordered that hereafter it be so. The stock of goats was quite omitted, as if they were all gone, which the Court must not believe because Mr Mashborne assured the Court that when he left St Helena there were a great number, about two hundred, in the valleys more up in the country. The Council was to enquire diligently what was become of them, and if it could be found that the Court had been cheated of any, to take care to be satisfied for them from whoever was responsible. The Council was to let the Court know how it found they were gone, whether by suffering them to be stolen or destroyed, and what remained, if they were Interpretations The Court's expectation that the island would cease to be a charge once the fortifications and buildings were finished identified the working capital programme as the principal driver of the ongoing expense. The stone gun platform programme initiated by the despatch of 24 March 1680, with twenty tons of lime supplied at that time and more expected from India, had been continued by the despatch of 20 May 1683 with the tools, materials and instruments from the Society consignment of 26 March 1680 then on hand. The present complaint suggests that the building programme had stretched over decades and that its completion was now in sight. The arrangement reveals the working accounting distinction between the capital cost of construction, which would terminate, and the recurrent operational cost of garrison, supply and administration, which the revenue strategy was intended to cover. The reference to the freights of the blacks arrived, with the expectation that their arrival would considerably lessen the expense, identified the working economic value of slave labour to the establishment. Each pound of slave purchase, freight and victualling translated into a corresponding saving in wages, contracted labour and English servant maintenance. The earlier paragraph on the kerseys had framed the labour value in terms of the slaves' contribution to the plantation, the buildings and other services. The present paragraph applied the same logic in financial terms, with the cost of the slave consignment treated as an investment recoverable through the avoided cost of free labour. The monthly cattle account, with eleven bullocks and seven cows lost between October and December and no explanation supplied, identified the central animal husbandry control of the establishment. Cattle stood at the centre of the island economy as draught power for construction, meat for the Governor's table and the soldiers, breeding stock for future expansion, and the unit in which the militia and tenure obligations of the by-laws of 20 March 1680 had been calibrated, with two cows on every twenty acre holding and one cow on every ten acre holding. A loss of eighteen head over two months, unexplained, represented both a financial and an institutional failure. The Court's framing of the failure as careless, with the alternative diagnosis of insolence or worse, indicates that the Court treated the failure to investigate the loss as a more serious offence than the loss itself. The stock of goats had supported a parallel productive role on the island. The original Carmanian goat consignment from Surat had begun with two animals on the George of January 1678, supplied at the Honourable Company's direction by the Surat Council under Thomas Rolt, with the goats kept apart for breeding to prevent degeneration through interbreeding. The programme had grown to at least twelve animals by 1679, with the commercial hope of producing fine wool comparable to cashmere. The wool received in London in 1680 had proved coarse and hairy, but the breeding programme had continued. The present complaint, with Mashborne's assurance that about two hundred goats had been in the valleys when he left, identified a substantial population now apparently lost or unaccounted, perhaps stolen, perhaps destroyed by neglect. Speculations The Court's careful distinction between cattle accounts brought in by John Haw on the fourteenth of October and by Mr Eaton on the fifth of December, both entered in the consultation books, with no account from any other person despite the standing monthly requirement, indicates that the cattle reporting had collapsed to occasional submissions by particular officers rather than the systematic discipline ordered. The arrangement suggests that the monthly account, like the consultation cadence itself, had ceased to operate as a routine and had become an exceptional event submitted only when an individual officer happened to apply himself. The new Council's task was to restore the monthly account to its proper character as a standing return rather than an occasional submission. The figure of about two hundred goats in the valleys when Mashborne left St Helena, with the strong implication that the present number was substantially less, suggests that the goat population had suffered a deliberate predation either by inhabitants taking the animals for meat or by external visitors with the connivance of the inhabitants. The Court's instruction to enquire diligently, with the alternative possibilities listed as suffering the animals to be stolen or destroyed, framed the loss as the product of human action rather than natural mortality. The original purpose of the Carmanian goat programme had been the production of fine wool. A scattered population in remote valleys, away from settlement, supported the breeding regime but exposed the animals to opportunistic taking. The arrangement reveals the working tension between the commercial value of the wool, which required isolation, and the security of the stock, which required supervision. | |
21 | can be kept from destroying the young Wood as we are told they may and that they are frequentl[y] if not every night Sounded by the Blacks and were So Accustomed to it that there was no trouble in driving them then to be Sure they are worth encreasing because at Little or no Charge in keep =ing and by the goodne[s]s of their flesh and being great breeders are much more Profitable than Sheep who increase very Slowly but it is to us no whether this be So or not or how far our Information is right. The Severall Sorts of Fowls are also greatly Diminisht and we are informd our late Govern[ou]r has Contributed very much thereto by his buying up so many tworles[?] Chickens & Eggs that the people are afraid the very breed will be lost That he kills many of the Calves because Beef is not Delicate enou[gh] what truth there is in this you will on enquiry be apprised of our main reason for mentioning these things is to desire and pre[s]s you to be better husbands for us for Such managem[en]t will be destructive to the very Island The want of the monthly Accounts of the table keeps us in the Dark as to the Expence there but we are told That never was there Such Profusion in Expences ever known as in this last Government especially in Shipping time at the Plantation House where the Governour keeps a Magnificent Table for Captains Supra Cargoes and others at which time none of our Servants and Some not So much as the Chaplain are Admitted to his Table whether at y[e] Fort or Plantation We tell you this that it be never put in Practice by you and that You enquire how far it is true as to him. That the Plantations Suffer extreamly by the Blacks being taken off from looking after them and employd in Carrying the Govern[ou]rs friends up and Down in Hammocks and not Content with them he employs the Planters Blacks on the Same Acc[oun]t. If these things on enquiry prove true and you diligent and Impartiall in making it cause the Govern[ou]r to refund the Charge we paid for Such Blacks for we Suppose they were hired as if working at the Fortifications. We must add this it is more proper to be mentiond under the next head that the Govern[ou]r has built a Shed of Four hundred foot long for no other use than that he may ride therein in his Sloop[?] and be coverd from the weather that it Cost above three hundred Pounds and that he has caused [?] great | The goats could be kept from destroying the young wood, as the Court had been told they might, and were frequently, if not every night, pounded by the blacks. They were so accustomed to it that there was no trouble in driving them. To be sure they were worth increasing, since they were kept at little or no charge, and by the goodness of their flesh, and being great breeders, were much more profitable than sheep. The increase very speedily added to their value, whether the present information was right or not. The several sorts of fowls were also greatly diminished. The Court had been informed the late Governor had contributed very much thereto by buying up so many sorts of chickens and eggs that the people were afraid the very breed would be lost. He had also killed many of the calves, because the beef was not delicate enough. What truth there was in this, the Council was to be assured of on enquiry. The Court's main reason for mentioning these things was to desire and press the Council to be better husbands for the Company, since such management would be destructive to the very island. The want of the monthly accounts of the table kept the Court in the dark as to the expenses there. Yet the Court had been told that never was there such profusion in expenses ever known as in the late Governor's time, especially in shipping time at the plantation house. The Governor had kept a magnificent table for Captains, supercargoes and others, at which times none of the Company's servants, and sometimes not so much as the Chaplain, had been admitted to his table, whether at the Fort or plantation. The Court told the Council this so that it never be put in practice by them, and that they enquire how far it was true as to him. The plantations had suffered extremely by the blacks being taken off from looking after them, and employed in carrying the Governor's friends up and down in hammocks. Not content with these, he had employed the planters' blacks on the same account. If these things on enquiring proved true, and the Council were diligent and impartial in making it appear, the Governor was to refund the charge the Court had paid for such blacks, since the Court supposed they were hired as if working at the fortifications. The Court must add that it was more proper to be mentioned under the next head that the Governor had built a shed of four hundred foot long for no other use than that he might ride therein in his age and be covered from the weather, that it cost above three hundred pounds, and that he had caused a great Interpretations The Court's commentary on the goats revealed the working integration of the slave labour force into the management of the live stock. The slaves drove the goats into pounds each night, preventing the animals from destroying the young wood that supplied the island's timber and fuel needs. The arrangement converted what would otherwise have been a labour intensive supervision into a routine evening task, with the animals trained to the pattern. The economic case for the goats, set out by the Court in terms of their cheap maintenance, prolific breeding and superior flesh against sheep, presented the goat as the optimal livestock for the island's conditions. The historic commercial rationale of the wool, traceable to the Carmanian consignment under the Surat Council despatch of 30 Jan 1678 from Swally Marine on the George, had given way to a domestic provisioning argument by the time of the present letter. The complaint that the late Governor had bought up so many chickens and eggs that the people feared the breed would be lost identified a specific abuse of the Governor's purchasing power. The standing rule for the Governor's table, established under the founding instructions of 19 Dec 1673 and continued through the despatch of 20 Feb 1678, had provided that the Company plantation supply the table with fruit, herbs and fresh provisions. The despatch of 24 Mar 1680 had raised the expectation to a working commercial level, with the plantation and fishery between them to fully bear the cost of the table. Boucher's practice of buying up small stock from the inhabitants had reversed this arrangement, with the Governor purchasing from the population rather than the plantation supplying the table. The arrangement drew down the breeding stock of the inhabitants while feeding the Governor's hospitality. The Governor's magnificent table for Captains, supercargoes and others, with Company servants and even the Chaplain on occasions excluded, identified the working misuse of the Company's resources for personal hospitality to the visiting shipping. The expense fell on the Company through the consumption of the table's supplies, while the social benefit accrued to the Governor through the networks formed with the ship's officers. The arrangement converted what should have been an institutional hospitality, attended by all officers of the establishment, into a private salon at Company expense. The exclusion of the Chaplain was particularly telling, since the Chaplain's place at the Governor's table had been a standing condition of the office from the engagement of William Swindle from 1673 at £50 0s 0d salary, £25 0s 0d schoolmaster and £25 0s 0d gratuity with diet at the Governor's table, and continued through the engagements of Edward Winni from early 1676, Joseph Church under the despatch of 24 Mar 1680, and Mr John Wynn before his return. The complaint that the plantations had suffered extremely because the blacks were taken from their proper work to carry the Governor's friends up and down in hammocks revealed the working diversion of slave labour from productive employment to personal service. The blacks had been imported and maintained on the island for the Company plantation, the fortifications, the fishery and the other services to which they were appointed. The use of the slaves as hammock bearers, both Company slaves and those of the planters, displaced labour from the productive economy to the comfort of the Governor and his circle. The Court's direction that Boucher refund the charge for such blacks, with the working assumption that they had been hired as if working at the fortifications, applied the principle that the Company would not pay for labour diverted to personal use. Speculations The Governor's shed of four hundred feet, costing above three hundred pounds and built for no purpose other than to allow him to ride covered from the weather in his age, identified a particular instance of capital diversion to personal use that the Court treated as so striking it could be mentioned almost in passing. The figure of £300 0s 0d compares with the cost benchmarks elsewhere in the established record. The Caesar invoice of 13 May 1679 for the cobbling supply totalled £10 8s 8d. The Scipio Africanus invoice of 20 May 1683 for the Governor's house glazing totalled £19 2s 0d. £300 0s 0d was a sum at which the entire trades infrastructure of the island could be supplied. Boucher's investment of that sum in a covered riding shed represented a working misappropriation of the Company's building capacity to private comfort. The arrangement revealed how the slow accumulation of small abuses (the chickens, the eggs, the calves, the hammock bearers, the magnificent table) had been overshadowed by a single capital project of striking proportion. The Court's reference to the late Governor's killing of calves because the beef was not delicate enough suggested that Boucher had used his control over the table to extract not only quantity but a particular quality of provisioning. Calf meat was significantly more tender than the beef of fully grown cattle. The arrangement diverted the breeding pipeline of the herd to the immediate satisfaction of the table, with each calf killed representing the loss of a future bullock or cow. The pattern matched the cattle diminution identified in the previous paragraph, where eleven bullocks and seven cows had disappeared between October and December without explanation. The new Council was therefore tasked with reconstructing the working herd from a population that had been actively consumed at its breeding stage rather than allowed to mature. | |
22 | great deal of our Timber Deals therein and in the Stables and other Conveniencys for his Asses To be Sure the Charge of Building & other workmanship would mount to a good Sum Enquire Strictly into the whole of this Affair and what Damage has been done is thereby in the Timber Deals & Charge of workm anship and let him knowe he had no Authority from us to Act in this manor and that you are Order'd as we hereby do order you to make him refund the Expence & Damage. The before mentioned Sad coast in our carelefsnefs about our Plantations and live Stock We rest aspired will be now remedyd and Repaired by the Confidence We have in all our new Council and Particularly M[r] Mashborne whom we have Appointed overseer of them and who is well versed therein and as he had a good Character Some time ago when in that office we hope he will continue Praising it now and that we Shall yearly feel the good Effects of His Skill Diligence & Honest Application We have at his Instance Allowd him to buy Severall Seeds & Plants for Trees and Hedges and Severall other Seeds for Garden trade Bettering the Ground & Improving the Husbandry also divers Implements for the Same purpose together with other Utensils of Wood and Iron as p[er] List Sent us an Acc[oun]t how the Seeds and Plants thrive and which most and what you Shall annually want with proper directions about them W[ri]te also as you have Opportunity to all P[ar]ts of India for any Seeds or Plants from thence proper for S[t] Helena By the Rochester you may write to Bencoolen the Coast & Bay desiring the Deputy Govern[ou]r & Council of Bencoolen to forward your Letters to the other two places advice us also of the Same that we may give directions accordingly We do earnestly recommend to youll to encourage the Improvem[en]t of the Vines at Helena that So if possible quantitys of Wine may be made may be made for the benefit of the Inhabitants whichw[ill] be far more wholesome than Arrack or any of your destillations from Potatoes &c for it is Generally observed by all P[ar]ts of India where Arrack is made It is while new very prejudiciall to the People who covet to drink it because Cheaper and Kills abundance of Boys with the dry Belly ache and to be Sure what Distilld at S[t] Helena is not like to be more wholsome as only makes Arrack tollerable wholesome as the most experienced affirm. But if you [w]ould | The Governor had caused a great deal of the Company's timber and deals to be used therein, and in the stables and other conveniences for his uses. To be sure the charge of building and other workmanship would amount to a good sum. The Council was to enquire strictly into the whole of this affair, and what damage had been done thereby in the timber, deals and charge of workmanship. The Council was to let him know he had no authority from the Court to act in this manner, and that the Council was ordered, as the Court hereby did order, to make him refund the expense and damage. The before mentioned bad case in the charge of the plantations and live stock, the Court trusted, would now be remedied and repaired by the confidence the Court had in all our new Council, and particularly in Mr Mashborne, whom the Court had appointed Overseer of them, and who was well versed therein. He had a good character some time ago when in that office, and the Court hoped he would continue to gain it now, and that the Court should yearly feel the good effects of his diligence and honest application. The Court had, at his instance, allowed him to buy several seeds and plants for trees and hedges, and several other seeds for garden trade, bettering the ground and improving the husbandry, also divers implements for the same purpose, together with other utensils of wood and iron, as per list laid down. An account of how the seeds and plants thrived, and what most and what the Council shall annually want, with proper directions about their work also, as the Council had opportunity, to all parts of India for any seeds or plants from thence proper for St Helena. By the Rochester the Council might write to Bencoolen, the Coast and Bay, desiring the Deputy Governor and Council of Bencoolen to forward the Council's letters to the other two places. The Council was also to advise the Court of the same, so that the Court might give directions accordingly. The Court did earnestly recommend to the Council to encourage the improvement of the vines at Helena, that, so if possible, quantities of wine might be made for the benefit of the inhabitants and be far more wholesome than arrack, or any of the Council's distillations from potatoes, which is critically observed at all parts of India where arrack is made. It is while new very prejudicial to the people, who covet to drink it because it stupefies and kills a burdensome thirst with the dry belly ache, and to be intolerable to the head. And St Helena is not like to be more wholesome there, only makes arrack tolerable wholesome as the most experienced affirm. But if [...] Interpretations The Court's instruction that the Governor refund the expense and damage caused by his diversion of Company timber and deals to private buildings established the working principle of personal accountability for misappropriation of materials. The arrangement followed the same logic as the earlier direction that Boucher refund the charge for hammock bearer slaves hired as if working at the fortifications. The Court was treating the misuse of Company resources as a recoverable debt rather than a disciplinary matter. The mechanism of refund operated through the Governor's accounts in London, where the conditional gratuity gave the Court the financial lever for enforcement without the need for formal proceedings. The appointment of Mashborne as Overseer of the plantations and live stock identified the working continuity appointment within an otherwise wholly new Council. Mashborne had previously held the same office, had given good character in it, and had been specifically named earlier in the present letter as the source of the information about the two hundred goats in the valleys when he had left St Helena. The arrangement placed Mashborne in the third position on the Council at sixty five pounds a year salary and thirty pounds a year gratuity, the same as the second member, with the plantation portfolio held by a man who knew the working state of the agricultural infrastructure from prior service. The pattern read as the Court's deliberate placement of institutional memory at the operational level of the establishment. The systematic acquisition programme for seeds, plants, hedging materials and husbandry implements, with the working chain extending through Bencoolen as the principal forwarding station to the Coast and the Bay, revealed the working horticultural ambition of the new administration. The pattern paralleled the earlier despatches in the established record. The despatch of 18 Dec 1674 by the London had carried a large supply of seeds. The Bantam connection had supplied plants and seeds by 1675. The Johanna invoice of 20 Mar 1678 had carried trees and plants in four chests including pear, apple, plum, cherry, peach, apricot, mulberry, gooseberry, currant, barberry, quince, raspberry, medlar, nectarine, fig, vine, filbert, chestnut, walnut, damask rose and seedling trees. The present arrangement extended the programme through the inter-station communication chain established under the seamen supply clauses of 1680, with the same routing serving both administrative and horticultural traffic. The Court's promotion of vines and wine making at the island, set against the standing complaint about arrack and other distilled spirits, identified a working public health policy operating through the supply chain. The despatch of 16 May 1679 had recorded the medical opinion that arrack was useful in case of attack and for encouraging the men. The arrack consignments from the Coast had begun with one butt on the Nathaniel and one on the Society under the Coast despatch of 23 Jan 1679, with further arrack subject to a Honourable Company order. The dry belly ache referred to in the present passage was the working term for lead colic, the painful gastrointestinal condition associated with consumption of new spirit distilled through lead pipes or stored in lead lined vessels. The Court's argument that wine was more wholesome than arrack distilled from potatoes reflected the contemporary medical understanding of the difference between fermented and distilled beverages, with wine treated as nourishing and arrack treated as toxic. Speculations The Court's specific instruction that the seeds and plants be sourced from all parts of India through the inter-station chain, with the Council writing to Bencoolen on the Rochester and Bencoolen forwarding the letters to the Coast and the Bay, suggested that the Court was establishing a routine documentary channel for the horticultural programme alongside the existing supply chain. The arrangement gave Mashborne, in his capacity as Overseer of the plantations, a direct line to the Indian Ocean stations without requiring each request to be routed back through London. The mechanism read as a practical concession to the eighteen month or longer round trip that any London routed request would require, with the Council in effect deputed to manage the horticultural traffic at the operational level subject to annual review through the General Letter. The Court's particular concern with new arrack, identified as while new very prejudicial to the people, suggested that the principal harm came from spirits consumed shortly after distillation rather than from arrack as a category. The pattern fitted the working economics of local distillation on the island, where new spirit could be produced quickly and sold cheaply through the unofficial channels that the laws and constitutions of 30 March 1685 had attempted to control through household seal licensing of liquor at a fine of twenty shillings per licence. The arrangement revealed the working tension between the supply of arrack as a commercial commodity from the Coast (Bengal arrack at 118 and a half rupees and 118 rupees per butt under the Coast invoices of 28 Jan 1679) and the production of local arrack from potatoes, with the imported product subject to documentary control and the local product evading the licensing regime. | |
23 | Should not arrive at the making of Wine yet the[?] Grapes will be of Some Advantage to the Inhabitants in p[oin]t of health Refreshment We are pleas'd to find So good Progrefs made in the planting of wood Fencing in of Lands and Settling the Propertys of the Freeholders and Shall be glad when all is ended We refer you to former Letters for our Directions as to this and to the Leas[in]g out any of our Lands The Sending us yearly Acc[oun]ts of our Revenues The List of our Slaves how Employed and where, the Acc[oun]t of the Annuell Expence of the Island in the Severall Branches of it Such as our Covenant Servants Soldiers with the Stay of each and the like of any others to whom you allow charges The Amount of Expences at our Table either at the Fort or Plantation reckoning what had out of the Stores or Plantation at the Markett price what the Charge of Cloathing the Blacks the Charge of the Bouts and all other Items that make up the Annuall Expence are more fully expref[s] =ed in the 6 Parr[r] of our Letter by the Susanna Sometimes in the Corpor[a]te Papers in the brackett[s] You See we Curtail these things being unwilling to Swell this Letter too much it being already grown out into a greater length than we were aware of the extracts of our Letters as before directed will guide you herein and point out to you Severall other p[ar]ticulars at present omitted here We have received the View of Sale of the Plantations you have bought as adoved by the John & Elizabeth and tho there were Some Profit upon them as mentiond in the 28 Parr[r] and this Govern[ou]r Boucher ought to be Commended for But we Should be glad to hear there be will recovered to da [...] which Says it could be no great Damage to the Island the 19 Parr which Says it could be no great Damage to the Island or the Comp[an]ys Interest if all the lands of it were in our hands with the 16[th] Par[r] of the next Letter by the Heene which Says it is better for the Comp[an]y to leas out their Lands than keep it without bringing in a farthing Profit and certainty there he is in the right We take Notice of this for your Caution that you may be more carefull to consider and Repprefse what you write and not Say and unsay at pleasure yet we don't by that mean you Should continue in a Mistake when it appears to you to be So In the 43 Par[r] we are promised to have an Acc[oun]t of our Revenues in all their Severall Branches and other Matters Directed by the Abingdon to which that is an Answer but find nothing done although in the 26 Par[r] of the Heene Letter Notice is taken of M[r] Alexanders Sending these things the year or more before and that to do so in perusing our Letters which plainly Shews the great carelefsne[s]s of the then Govern[men]t [...]nd | The grapes should not arrive at the making of wine, yet the grapes would be of some advantage to the inhabitants in point of health and refreshment. The Court was pleased to find so good progress made in the planting of wood, fencing in of lands, and settling the properties of the freeholders. The Court should be glad when all was ended, and referred the Council to former letters for directions as to this and to the leasing out of any of the Company's land. The sending to the Court of a yearly account of the revenues, the list of the slaves with their employment and location, the account of the annual expense of the island in its several branches, such as the covenant servants and soldiers with the pay of each, and the like of any others to whom the Council allowed wages. The amount of expenses at the Company's table, either at the Fort or plantation, reckoning what had been drawn out of the stores or plantation at the market price. What the charge of clothing the blacks, the charge of the boats, and all other things that made up the annual expense, was more fully explained in the [...] paragraph of the Court's letter by the Susanna, sent to the Council in copies. The Council was to consult the papers in the packets, since the Court was unwilling to swell the present letter too much, it being already grown out into a greater length than the Court had been aware of. The extracts of the Court's letters, as before directed, would guide the Council herein, and point out the several heads in any place at present omitted. The Court had received the account of sale of the plantations the Council had bought, as advised by the John and Elizabeth, and found there was some profit upon them as mentioned in the twenty eighth paragraph. For this, Governor Boucher ought to be commended. The Court should be glad to hear there was real revenue to the Company arising from them, which would mean it could be no great damage to the island if the lands of all were in the Company's hands, considering the Company's interest, as said in the sixteenth paragraph of the next letter by the Herne. That letter said it was better for the Company to leave out their wood land than keep it without bringing in a farthing's profit. There the Council was certainly in the right. The Court took notice of this for the Council's caution, so that the Council might be more careful to consider its replies before writing, and not say and unsay at pleasure. Yet the Court did not, by this, mean the Council should continue in a mistake when it appeared to the Council to be so. In the forty third paragraph the Council had promised to send an account of the revenues in all their several branches and other matters directed by the Abingdon, to which that letter was an answer. But the Court found nothing done, though in the twentieth paragraph of the Herne's letter notice was taken of Mr [...]'s sending those things the year or more before, and that to do so on perusing the Court's letters plainly showed the great carelessness of the then Governor Interpretations The Court's reference to the grapes, distinguished from the wine, identified the working horticultural value of the vine as a fresh fruit supply for the inhabitants in addition to its potential commercial value as a wine source. The earlier passage had recommended vines for wine making against arrack. The present paragraph extended the case, with the grapes themselves treated as a wholesome refreshment even if the quantity were insufficient for proper wine making. The arrangement revealed the working hedging of the agricultural policy, with each plant evaluated against multiple end uses to maximise the return on the horticultural investment from London. The annual return now demanded from the Council comprised six distinct elements. The first was the revenues of the island. The second was the list of slaves, with their employment and location. The third was the expense of the island in its several branches, including covenant servants and soldiers with the pay of each, and any others receiving wages. The fourth was the expense of the table at the Fort and plantation, valued at the market price of stores or plantation supplies consumed. The fifth was the charge of clothing the blacks. The sixth was the charge of the boats, with all other things that made up the annual expense. The arrangement extended the documentary discipline of the consultation book to the working annual budget of the establishment, with each charge category itemised against its corresponding revenue branch. The pattern matched the four point procedure of the despatch of 24 Mar 1680 in its mechanism of separate accounting for separate categories, with the present version expanded from stores alone to the whole working expenditure of the island. The Court's reference to the sale of plantations bought by the Council, with some profit reported under the twenty eighth paragraph of the earlier letter, identified a working transaction in land that the Boucher administration had executed correctly. The Court's commendation of Boucher on this point, contrasted with the broader condemnation of his administration, revealed the Court's method of treating each item of conduct on its merits. The principle that profit from the sale of Company plantations could be reduced to a working revenue stream extended the land reservation policy of the despatch of 14 Mar 1684, which had declared all unallotted land reserved to the Company's own use. The present reference suggested that the Company had moved beyond passive reservation to active sale, with the Council acting as the working land agent on the Court's account. The dispute between two of Boucher's letters, the one by the John and Elizabeth asserting some profit on the plantations bought and the next by the Herne asserting that it was better to leave out the Company's land than keep it without a farthing's profit, identified the working pattern of contradiction that the Court treated as evidence of the Boucher administration's unreliable correspondence. The Court's instruction to the Council to consider replies before writing, and not to say and unsay at pleasure, applied the principle that each statement to London became part of the working documentary record against which subsequent statements would be tested. The arrangement revealed the working evidentiary expectation, with consistency over time treated as the test of honest administration. Speculations The Court's specific instruction that the table expense be valued at the market price of stores or plantation supplies consumed identified a working transfer pricing rule applied to the Governor's table. Goods produced on the Company plantation, or drawn from the Company stores, had no cash cost when consumed at the table. The market price valuation imposed a notional cost on the consumption, allowing the Court to measure the working economic burden of the table against the revenue produced by alternative disposal of the same supplies. The arrangement read as the working accounting response to the magnificent table complaint of the earlier paragraph, with the new Council required to account for hospitality consumption at the same value it would have realised through sale to the shipping or to the inhabitants. The Boucher administration's pattern of asserting profit in one letter and recommending divestment in the next, on the same plantation transactions, suggested an opportunistic correspondence in which each letter was drafted to suit the immediate political moment rather than to convey a consistent assessment. The arrangement paralleled the contradiction between the eighteenth paragraph of the earlier letter, where Boucher had claimed Bazett was a stranger to the Italian way of bookkeeping, and the postscript of the same letter where Bazett had denied the charge and asserted it was the way they had formerly practised. The pattern, repeated across different subjects, identified the Boucher correspondence as documents drafted without internal review or working consistency check, with the Court reading the contradictions as evidence of an administration in which no member tested the Governor's statements against the operational facts. | |
24 | and Clerk too that it was not done again We must not dismifs this Par[r] without one other Remark That Alexander by the Govern[ou]rs order took an Abstract of our Letters to See what was to be Sent us Now if he had Examind to See the Clerk had done well he Should it was right But was Seems most likely he left all intirely to the Clerk that was wrong and we Expect you do better. You will See in the 7[th] Par[r] of the Letter received by the Heene what is wrote about fencing in our great wood that it will not quit cost consider of it and do what is best for us. it is therein also Said that the redwood trees which are propere[?] to build houses are but very fee[?] now and it is the Nature of those Seldom to produce Young ones This Seems very Strange to us do you try to Refsre [Resore?] one of our peice of Ground is not heartily try another for it is very Necesary to have usefull timber and in quantitys on S[t] Helena because of the great Charge in Sending Supply's We told you have good Maiz or Indian Corn that it will thrive well if planted in Stoney pleaces is much better than Yams because it takes much lefs sweep[?] and is proper to feed the Poultry besides the Stalk is very useful if this be So in[c]ourage the increase of it. Fourthly touching our Fortifications Buildings and Garrison Stores We Shall refer you to former Letters touching the Buildings of all kinds wherein you will See our Intentions which we recommend to you to take care be Speedily Strongly & Frugally performed and when So done to be Always well lookt after and repaired as often as their is Occasion There being now Peace We are not So much in hast to have any remaining part of the Fortifications Speedily finisht as thereby to take off any of our Blacks from the Necesary works of raising Yams and other Affairs relating to the Plantation much lefs to flay Eight [s]ix pence a day for the Planters Blacks and y[e] those expected we would have you hasten what remains to be don a[s] soon and as well as you can but fail to finish the Necesary Storehouses w[hi]ch we would have built Strong and Commodious one for Arrack and | The Clerk too should have caught the error, so that it might not be repeated. The Court would not dismiss the paragraph without one further remark. Alexander, by the Governor's order, had taken an abstract of the Court's letters to see what was to be sent to the Court. If he had examined the Clerk's work to verify it was correct, all would have been well. But it seemed most likely he had left the matter entirely to the Clerk, who fell short, and the Court expected better. The Council would see in the thirty third paragraph of the letter received by the Herne what had been written about fencing in the great wood, that it would not cost much. The Court directed the Council to consider what was best for the Company. The letter had also said that the redwood trees, the most suitable for building houses, were now very few, and that the species rarely produced young ones. The Court found this surprising. The Council was to try to raise them, and if one piece of ground proved unsuitable, to try another. Useful timber in quantity was very necessary on St Helena, given the great charge of sending supplies from England. The Council had told the Court that good maize or Indian corn would thrive well if planted in stony places, that it was much better than yams because it required much less pruning, and that it was suitable for feeding the poultry. The stalk was also very useful. If this was so, the Council was to encourage its increase. Fourthly, touching the Company's fortifications, buildings and garrison stores. The Council was referred to former letters touching the buildings of all kinds, in which it would see the Court's intentions. The Court recommended the Council to take care that the work be speedily, strongly and frugally performed, and once done, to be regularly inspected and repaired as often as occasion required. Since peace had been concluded, the Council was not in such haste to finish any remaining part of the fortifications. Speed in that work would only divert the blacks from the necessary cultivation of grain and other plantation affairs, and risk further expense from hiring the planters' blacks by the day. The Court expected the Council to complete what remained as soon and as well as it could, but in particular to finish the necessary storehouses. The Court would have built strong and commodious storehouses for arrack Interpretations The Court's specific complaint against Alexander, that he had ordered the Clerk to draw an abstract of the Court's letters but had not himself examined the Clerk's work, identified the working failure of supervision at the documentary control point. The abstract operated as the summary against which the Council's compliance would be tested. A flawed abstract would propagate errors into every subsequent action. The arrangement revealed that the Court treated the supervision of clerical work as a non-delegable function of the senior officer, with the failure to examine treated as equivalent to the failure to perform. The reference to redwood trees as the species most suitable for building houses, with the observation that they had become very few and that the species rarely produced young ones, identified the timber crisis of the island. The endemic redwood, native to St Helena, had been the principal building timber from the founding instructions of 19 December 1673, when artillery, weapons and stores transferred to the Company had included whatever the Crown held of the trees. The continuous building programme over forty years, traceable through the Johanna invoice of 20 March 1678, the Society invoice of 26 March 1680 and the Scipio Africanus invoice of 20 May 1683, had drawn down the standing redwood stock to the point where the Court now treated the species as in working danger of extinction. The Council was directed to attempt deliberate cultivation, with experiment across different ground if the first attempt failed. The Court's reasoning on the fortifications, with peace having reduced the urgency of completion, identified the working trade-off between defensive readiness and agricultural production. The blacks formed the principal labour pool of the island. Each man employed on the fortifications was a man not employed in raising grain or attending the plantation. The hiring of the planters' blacks at a daily wage to supplement the Company's own labour added a further cost. The arrangement matched the standing economy traceable through the despatch of 24 March 1680, where the strategic commitment had been made to reduce most of the military force into free planters and rely on the planter militia for defence. The present passage extends the same logic to the construction programme, with capital projects deferred in peacetime to release labour for production. The instruction that buildings, once erected, be regularly inspected and repaired as often as occasion required, identified the maintenance discipline expected of the establishment. The standing risk in the moderate climate of the island, with strong winds and salt air, was that buildings would deteriorate between cycles of major repair. The Court treated routine inspection as the operative preventive measure, with repair carried out at the first appearance of need rather than allowed to accumulate. The arrangement matched the procedural pattern imposed throughout the present letter, where early intervention was preferred to retrospective remedy. Speculations The Court's particular concern that the storehouses for arrack be built strong and commodious, even at the cost of deferring other fortification work, suggests that the existing arrack storage had proved inadequate either through capacity, security or quality of construction. Arrack had been supplied to the island in butts from the Coast since the Coast invoices of 28 January 1679 on the Society and Nathaniel, with further consignments traceable through the Bantam invoice of 28 January 1685 from Francis Bowyear. The commodity represented a substantial value per unit, was vulnerable to theft, and required protection against both spoilage and pilferage. The Court's prioritisation of the arrack storehouse over fortification work indicates that the secure custody of this commodity had become a working concern in its own right, perhaps reflecting losses or wastage under the Boucher administration that paralleled the cattle and goat losses identified earlier in the letter. The Court's specific identification of the cost of hiring the planters' blacks by the day, as an objection to driving the fortification work to early completion, points to a working market in slave labour on the island in which the planters hired out their slaves to the Company at a daily rate. The arrangement reveals a parallel economy alongside the formal Company labour system, with the planters earning income from their slaves' labour and the Company drawing on the supplementary workforce when its own labour was insufficient. The cost of this hired labour appeared in the Company accounts as a separate charge, distinct from the maintenance cost of the Company's own slaves. The earlier complaint that Boucher had employed the planters' blacks as hammock bearers on the same account as Company slaves identified the same labour market being abused for personal rather than productive ends. | |
25 | and all other Liquids one for India Goods one for Europe Com =modity[s] and a fourth for Naval Stores then for Building the Necefsary rooms or Warehouses for Lime Cut Stone or other Materi =alls fit to be houed[?] after the Necefsary work Shops for Carpenters or other Artificers and for the Barracks and other Buildings for the Military if any of these yet remain to be done. The late Governour Boucher in the Explanation of the Plan which he calls a Prospective drawne of the works done and intended at S[t] Helena Sent by the John & Elizabeth Says that his reason of projecting all those Buildings &c The Storehoufe Warehoufes Guardhoufe and workshops So near the Fort was that the Governor has them always under his Eye and that of a good Guard and we approve of his So doing Provided they be Strong Commodious and frugally performed as he promised they Should. You will easily observe we are willing to be at any reasonable Charge for Supplying all the wants of the place It will be incumbent on you to take care nothing be made that is Superfluous and this charge of Building has Lain for Severall years heavy upon us We hope you will Speedily put an end to it & Contract the Expences of the Island into as much Narrower Compafs. We have by the Rochester Sent all the Carriages desired by the Heenes List for the Great Guns and given Strict orders they be made according to the Dimensions therein desired But the old Carriages when unfit for Service to the best use you can for our Interest or sell them. We have not this Seafon Sent the Eight Long Demi Cannon Guns with Feild Carriages for the new West Battery as desired in Said List Being Advised there are Guns on the Island will Serve for that Battery and that you have not hands ene fully to mannage the Great Guns you have wherefore remove Some of them accord =ingly. If on your Examination you Shall be of opinion the Said Demi Cannon or any other Guns are Necefsary at that Battery Let us know it that we may Send them by the first Ship Whatever old broken or useless Guns or other heavy Iron or worn out Stores Shall be found on the Island do[?] Send the Particulars by the first that we may order a Bencoolen Ship to call for Such heavy Iron to | The Court would have built strong and commodious storehouses for arrack and all other liquids, one for India goods, one for Europe commodities, and a fourth for naval stores. Then for buildings, the necessary rooms or warehouses for lime, cut stone or other materials, fit to be housed, after the necessary workshops for carpenters or other artificers, and for the barracks and other buildings for the military, if any of these yet remain to be done. The late Governor Boucher, in the explanation of the plan which he called a prospective drawn of the works done and intended at St Helena, sent by the John and Elizabeth, gave the reason for placing all those buildings, the storehouse, warehouses, guardhouse and workshop, so near the Fort, namely that the Governor might have them always under his eye. That was of a good effect, and the Court approved of his so doing, provided they were strong, commodious and frugally performed, as he had promised they should. The Council could easily observe the Court was unwilling to bear any reasonable charge for supplying all the wants of the place. It would be incumbent on the Council to take care that nothing be made that was superfluous, since the charge of building had lain for several years heavy upon the Court. The Court hoped the Council would speedily set up and put an end to it, and contract the expense of the island into a much narrower compass. The Court had, by the Rochester, sent all the carriages desired by the Herne's list for the great guns, and given strict orders they be made according to the dimensions therein desired. The old carriages, when unfit for service, were to be put to the best use the Council could for the Court's interest, or sold them. The Court had not this season sent the eight long demi-cannon guns with field carriages for the new west battery, as desired in the list. Being advised there were guns on the island that would serve for that battery, and that the Council had not hands sufficient to manage the great guns it had, the Court therefore removed some of them accordingly. If on the Council's examination it should be of opinion the demi-cannon, or any other guns, were necessary at the west battery, the Council was to let the Court know it, so that the Court might send them by the first ship. Whatever old broken or useless guns, or other heavy iron, or worn out stores, should be found on the island, the Council was to advise the particulars by the first ship, so that the Court might order a Bencoolen ship to call for such heavy iron. Interpretations The Court's specification of four distinct storehouses (arrack and other liquids, India goods, Europe commodities, naval stores) reveals the working segregation of stores by category that the new building programme was to formalise. Each category carried different risks of spoilage, theft and damage, requiring different storage conditions. Liquids required containment against leakage and ventilation against vapour. India goods (textiles, spices, rice, paddy) required protection against damp and vermin. Europe commodities (the bulk of the Society invoice of 26 March 1680 type cargo, including cloth, ironwork, tools, books, food and drink) covered a broad range of materials. Naval stores (pitch, tar, canvas, twine, cordage) required dry storage against fire risk. The arrangement provided the working physical infrastructure for the abstracted account of goods sold by species and category that the Court had required in the earlier paragraph on the storekeeper's monthly returns. The Court's approval of Boucher's placement of the Company's buildings near the Fort, on the ground that the Governor might have them always under his eye, identified the working principle of operational supervision through physical proximity. The arrangement matched the founding instructions of 19 December 1673, which had sited the chief magazine about the middle of the country, and the despatch of 20 February 1678, which had sited the chief magazine about the middle of the island. The present configuration had concentrated the working buildings around the Fort itself, with the Governor's residence, the storehouse, the warehouses, the guardhouse and the workshop forming a single supervised complex. The arrangement reveals the working maturation of the establishment from the dispersed pattern of the founding period to a concentrated administrative quarter. The Court's instruction that the old gun carriages, when unfit for service, be put to the best use the Council could find or be sold, identified the working principle of residual value extraction from worn out military stores. The carriages were the principal wooden component of the artillery installation, supporting and aiming the iron guns. When the carriages decayed, the guns themselves remained serviceable. The arrangement reveals that even decayed military equipment carried some residual value, either as material for repair of other carriages or as scrap timber for sale. The same principle applied in the next paragraph to old broken or useless guns and other heavy iron, where the Council was directed to advise the Court of the particulars so that a Bencoolen ship could be ordered to call for the scrap. The Court's decision not to send the eight long demi-cannon guns for the new west battery, on the ground that guns already on the island would serve and that the Council had insufficient hands to manage the great guns it had, identified the working manpower constraint on artillery deployment. Each great gun required a trained gun crew. Where the Council lacked sufficient gunners, additional guns added nothing to the working defensive capacity. The arrangement reflects the standing pattern from the despatch of 24 March 1680 of strategic reduction of the military force into free planters, with reliance on the planter militia for defence. The smaller garrison meant that defensive capacity was determined by the men available rather than by the guns mounted. Speculations The Court's specific direction that broken guns and heavy iron be collected at the island for collection by a Bencoolen ship, rather than left to rust or sold locally, suggests that the Company maintained a working circular trade in scrap metal between its stations. Iron was scarce and expensive in the Indian Ocean. A consignment of scrap iron despatched to Bencoolen could be recast or reworked locally for ship's fittings, tools or building purposes, with the residual value substantially exceeding any return obtainable through local sale on St Helena. The arrangement reveals the integration of the island into the wider Indian Ocean material economy, with even discarded stores serving a productive purpose elsewhere in the Company's network. The Court's tacit accommodation of Boucher's clustered building plan, even while condemning the Boucher administration in almost every other respect, identifies a particular case where the Court accepted the working rationale of a previous decision on its merits. The justification given by Boucher (that the Governor might have the buildings always under his eye) supplied a working supervisory benefit that aligned with the Court's emphasis on close oversight throughout the present letter. The arrangement reveals the Court's working method of separating the institutional design of the previous administration from the personal conduct of the previous Governor, with the design retained and the personnel replaced. | |
26 | to Serve her as Kintlage by which means the Same may turn us to Some Acc[oun]t. If we can procure a Surgeon and Gunner Able Sober & ingeni =ous you may Expect them and in that cafe of those who now Officiate therein are fit and willing to Serve under them they may or Else remain as Planters in the Island or go to Bencoolen or to return home as they Shall like best. Some of the Soldiers on this Ship Say they are Bricklayers and can make Tyles if you find it So detain two or three of them with you If we can procure Two or three Artists at Tylemaking We Shall Advise by the Pacckett but Don't you under pretence of this take any others of our Soldiers because they are intended for and much wanted at Bencooling In perusing the four List of Stores Expended from the 25 March 1710 to the 25 March 1713 We find Severall things Liable to Objections and we Expect you in deavor to Remedy them because by the bes[t] enquiry we can make we Suffer thereby V[i]z[t] The Small Guns which he calls Falcons he charges 5 pound of Powder for each Discharge in warm[?] &c this we are told is too much and in the Totall amounts to a Considerable quantity We likewise Charges in one of the four Acc[oun]ts Two hundred & Six pounds weight of Powder as expended in the Guards and at Funerals and in another Acc[oun]t One hundred Sixty five pounds for the Same. It Appears to us this Chargeis only for the Small Armes We allow no further that notwithstanding our Orders to the Contrary There has been a great Expence of Powder on Acc[oun]ts of Salutes more than we Directed for every Ship of ours that came in or departs Annually Seven or nine Guns and even the Fleet went away In July 1712 there is Three hundred Eighty five pounds weight of Powder charged as expended and One hundred thirty four Guns fired of which Six and twenty of your Great Guns on the place. These we think too much and on this future Expect better husbandry As to Englefh men of Warr who to be Sure will or at Least have Stood upon Quarter We leave that to your discretion to Act as Occasion requires But as to any one or other Ships of force from Foreign Rules for affsene[?] thing that Superfluity If any of them Stand on a Quardo[?] keep you to her Orders and let us know who disputes with you after having told them what those Orders are | Such heavy iron would serve as kintledge, by which means the same would turn to some account. If the Court could procure a Surgeon and Gunner, able, sober and ingenious, the Council might expect them. In that case, those who now officiated, were they fit and willing to serve under them, might either remain as planters on the island, or go to Bencoolen, or else return home, as they liked best. Some of the soldiers on the present ship said they were bricklayers, and could make tiles. If the Council found it so, it was to detain two or three of them. If the Council could procure two or three artists at tilemaking, the Court would advise by the Calcutt. But the Council was not, under pretence of this, to take any others of the Company's soldiers, since they were intended for, and much wanted, at Bencoolen. On perusing the four lists of guns and stores expended from the twenty fifth of March 1710 to the twenty fifth of March 1713, the Court found several things liable to objection, and expected the Council should remedy them. By the best enquiry the Court could make, the Company suffered thereby. The small guns called falcons were charged a pound of powder for each discharge on alarms, which the Court was told was too much. In the total it amounted to a considerable quantity. The Council was likewise charged in one of the accounts two hundred and six pounds weight of powder, as expended on the guards and at funerals, and in another account one hundred and forty five pounds for the small arms. The Court considered these charges only for the small arms. The Court was able to observe further that, notwithstanding orders to the contrary, there had been a great expense of powder on account of salutes, more than the Council was directed for every ship of the Court's that came in or departed. Generally, seven or nine guns at every fleet went away. In July 1712, three hundred and eighty five pounds weight of powder was charged as expended, and one hundred and thirty four guns fired, of which six and twenty of the great guns on the place. These the Court thought too much, and for the future expected better husbandry. As to a flag, if men of war, who do see fire, will, or at least have stood upon ceremonies, the Court left it to the Council's discretion to act as occasion required. But as to the Council's own or other ships, the Court was for some rule, and if anything that superfluity of any of them stand on a hundred. The Council was to send the Court advice, and let the Court know who disputes with the Council after having told them what the Court's orders are. Interpretations The Court's reference to heavy iron serving as kintledge identified a working secondary use for unserviceable iron stores. Kintledge was the technical term for permanent ballast laid in the hold of a ship, distinct from temporary ballast that might be replaced at each port. Iron made excellent kintledge by reason of its density, occupying less space than stone or shingle for the same weight. The arrangement reveals that the Company's broken guns and worn stores could be despatched on a Bencoolen ship not only for their scrap value at the destination, but in their use as ballast on the voyage itself, with the same material serving two purposes in succession. The principle of residual value extraction, identified in the earlier paragraph on the old gun carriages, extends here to the structural use of iron in shipping. The Court's contingent appointment arrangement for the Surgeon and Gunner, by which the existing incumbents could elect either to remain as planters on the island, to go to Bencoolen or to return home, identified the working flexibility offered to officers displaced by new appointments. The arrangement parallels the standing soldier-to-planter conversion policy traceable through the despatch of 24 March 1680 and the codified marriage land grants of the same despatch. The three way election (planter, Bencoolen service, or repatriation) extends the policy to specialist civil officers, with the existing investment in their local knowledge or property preserved through the planter option while the formal office passed to the new appointee. The Court's specific detection of irregular powder consumption, set out by reference to the four lists of guns and stores expended over the three year period from twenty fifth March 1710 to twenty fifth March 1713, identified the working method of forensic audit applied to the powder accounts. The three gun salute rule had been established by the despatch of 20 February 1678 to conserve powder, with no firing at healths or other needless occasions, and an annual return of powder expended required. The salute schedule had been refined by the despatch of 1 August 1683 in response to the firing of 1,300 guns reported by Captain Beck, at three guns for company ships, up to seven for friendly Europeans, and none for interlopers. The present figures (three hundred and eighty five pounds weight of powder and one hundred and thirty four guns fired in a single month) represent breach on a scale comparable to the Beck episode of 1683, with the Court invoking the same standing rule against the same recurring abuse. The Court's distinction between salutes to men of war (left to the Council's discretion as occasion required) and salutes to the Council's own or other ships (subject to a working rule), identified the working diplomatic gradation of artillery courtesy. A man of war carrying the colours of a friendly nation required some accommodation under the protocols of the international sea, where ceremonial courtesy operated as the working evidence of peaceful intent. Company shipping and ordinary merchant vessels did not require the same treatment. The arrangement preserved the powder economy in the routine case while permitting flexibility in the diplomatic case. Speculations The Court's careful distinction between the two hundred and six pounds of powder charged as expended on the guards and at funerals, and the one hundred and forty five pounds for the small arms, suggests that the Court suspected one charge had been used to conceal the other. By presenting the two figures in a single sentence and treating them collectively as a problem, the Court signalled its working judgement that the categorisation was suspect, perhaps with powder consumed in salutes being charged to guards and funerals to avoid the standing salute rule. The arrangement reveals the working pattern of forensic suspicion applied to the powder accounts, with the Court treating the categorisation itself as a potential mechanism for evading the documentary discipline. The detail that twenty six of the one hundred and thirty four guns fired in July 1712 were of the great guns on the place, with the remainder presumably from the smaller falcons, indicates that the salute breach extended beyond the routine to include the heaviest pieces of the island's defensive battery. The use of great guns for salutes consumed disproportionate quantities of powder relative to smaller guns. The pattern matches the working observation in the previous paragraph that the Council had insufficient hands to manage the great guns it already had. The arrangement suggests that the great guns, deployed inadequately for defensive purposes, were being used for ceremonial firing on the assumption that the powder cost would not be scrutinised. The Court's audit of the powder accounts exposed precisely this misuse, with the great gun salute count supplying the working evidence of the Boucher administration's failure to observe both the salute rule and the gun crew constraint. | |
27 | We allow the Number of Guns fired on the days of Publick Solemnity Such as the Queens Birth day & on Monday &c but cant do So for others Such as Twenty Guns at M[r] Mashbornes and the Same at M[r] Harkesons funerall one & twenty Guns at M[r] Mashbornes Wedding and the Same at the Govern[ou]rs Second Wife are too many a Smaller Number ought to Serve hereafter We expect they Shall. It is not the Charge We so much find fault with for that is not Great as to these but to put a Stop to all needlefs Charges and Super fluity and thereby introduce more frugall Mannageme which was always Convenient but now become absolutely Necesary by defaceing for o much our Island has Suffer'd by Cape Will Mannage =ment Stood us in even beyond former times Notwithstanding Cap[t] Bouchers afsirmation of Saving a great Expence Another observation we must make is That by what appears to us no body has Examined the Gunners Acc[oun]ts of Expences of the Govern[ou]r & Councill had we Suppose they could have Pyld them and otherwise enterd the Notice in Consultation nor have his Acc[oun]ts of Expences been laid before the Counc[i]l monthly, as we Order'd or oftner that while things were fresh in memory if any Errors might be observed & rectifyd, If they had it ought to have been Enterd in the Consultation Book which as before mentiond Should contain an historical Register of Mans afsaces that come before you and what you do thereupon &c that we cant beleeve their fre =quences and uncarcity out of Stores the Charges ought to be approov'd or =disowned and recarity out of Stores the Charges ought to be approov'd or =disowned and weakly out of Stores the Charges ought to be approov'd or ng Some of them as Seems to us Shoud not so p[ar]ticularly Sixty Seven Swords fifty nine Bells of muthers and fifty Lether Bucketts & another Bend & many other things if they ought it Seems great Caralefsnefs to Suffer them to be Spoil. However on the [...] the And as to the method of them are right and must be yearly Sent us If they had been past in Consultation and So or be upon advicing[?] by the Council they could there Come up to our orders. Let M[r] Cleeve know We expect from him yearly an Acc[oun]t how all our Timber u[s]ed on the Island is applyd and what remains and also that he Send us yearly what he thinks further Necefsary and for what purposes We mention this the rather because we hear was Govern[ou]r Boucher would not let him knowe That we order'd him to be taken into our Service only M[r] Marsden wrote him So from hence and that there may be no Mistake give him Coppy of all We and the 31 Par[r] of our Letter by the Sus[anna] in by which he will See what we Expect from him to do and by this means he will be independ ant or not Look on himself as under you on the contrary we require that he follow your Orders and likewise give us an Acc[oun]ts for he tells us That when he proposed to Govern[ou]r Boucher that this Stuff Should not be embezled but put to Serviceable Uses he turn'd him out of our Service. | The Court allowed the number of guns fired on the days of public solemnity, such as the Queen's birthday and from Monday and the like, but could not do so for others such as twenty guns at Mr Mashborne's, and the same at Mr Harkers' and funeral, and twenty guns at Mr Mashborne's wedding, and the same at the Governor's. So heavy must our too many or smaller numbers ought to serve, hereafter the Court expected they shall. It was not the charge the Court so much found fault with, for that was not great as to these but to put a stop to all needless charges and superfluity, and thereby introduce some present frugality. Which was always desirable but now became absolutely necessary, considering for so much our island had of late by loose and ill management cost us in war beyond former times. Notwithstanding Captain Boucher's affirmation of saving a great expense. Another observation the Court must make was that, by what appeared to the Court, no body had examined the Gunner's accounts of expense by the Governor and Council held, the Court supposed they could have signed them, and otherwise entered the notice in consultation, nor have his account of expenses being laid before the Council monthly, as the Court ordered, or oftener, that whilst things were fresh in memory, any errors might be sooner discovered. If they had it ought to have been entered in the consultation book, which, as before mentioned, should contain an historical register of all our affairs, that one before the Council could see what the Council did thereupon. The charges the Court could not believe were depended on, and necessarily out of those, the charges ought to be approved or rejected, some of them as seems to the Court should not be particularly stated. Seven swords, fifty nine balls of matches and fifty for the buckets, and another bench of many other things, if they signed it, seems great carelessness to suffer them to be spilt, however, on the matter the Council, and as to the method of them are right, and must be yearly sent us. If they had been past in consultation, and so to be from time to time signed by the Council, they could have come up to the Court's orders. Let Mr Cleeve have an excerpt from him yearly an account how all our timber used on the island is applied, and what remains, and also that he send the Court yearly what he thinks further necessary, and for what purposes. The Court mentioned this the rather because Governor Boucher would not let him know that the Court ordered him to be taken into the Court's service. Only Mr Marsden carried him so from hence, and that there may be no mistake, give him copy of all and the thirty first paragraph of our letter by the Susanna, by which he would see what the Court expected from him. The Council, by this means, would not depend on, or not look on himself as under the Council. On the contrary, the Court required that he follow the Council's orders, and likewise gave the Council an account of his behaviour. That when he proposed to Governor Boucher that the stuff should not be embezzled, but put to serviceable uses, he turned him out of the Court's service. Interpretations The Court's specific accounting of the salute breach, identified through twenty gun firings at the weddings of Mr Mashborne and the Governor, at Mr Mashborne's funeral, and at Mr Harkers' [...] funeral, revealed the working pattern by which the salute rule had been converted from a ship's protocol into a personal courtesy for the senior establishment. The standing rule established by the despatch of 20 February 1678 had limited firing to three guns for arriving company ships, with no firing at healths or other needless occasions. The despatch of 1 August 1683 had reaffirmed the rule in response to the firing of 1,300 guns reported by Captain Beck. The present figures reveal the same recurring abuse, now extended to private family events of the Council members themselves, with twenty guns per occasion representing several pounds of powder consumed in each ceremony. The Court's distinction between days of public solemnity, such as the Queen's birthday, where some firing was permitted, and private family occasions, where it was not, identified the working line between institutional and personal observance. The Queen's birthday was a working point of allegiance to the Crown, drawing on the King's prerogative reserved in the letters patent of 16 December 1673 and the standing prayer for the King in the religious provisions of the laws and constitutions of 30 March 1685. The salutes on such days affirmed the public character of the establishment under the Crown. The salutes at weddings and funerals served no equivalent purpose and represented the diversion of Company powder to personal celebration. The complaint that no body had examined the Gunner's accounts of expense identified the working failure at the operational point of powder control. The Gunner was responsible for the magazine, the issue of powder for firing, and the working register of consumption. Without monthly examination by the Governor and Council, the Gunner's accounts could not be challenged on the spot when issues were fresh, and abuses could accumulate until they appeared in the annual return to London. The arrangement parallels the working failure with the stores accounts identified earlier in the present letter, with the same diagnostic pattern (absence of regular Council examination, absence of consultation entry, absence of London review) repeating across the establishment. The case of Mr Cleeve, dismissed by Boucher when he proposed that timber stuff not be embezzled but put to serviceable uses, identified the working penalty imposed by the previous administration on officers who resisted the misappropriation of Company materials. The pattern matches the exclusion of Mr Bazett from the stores and accounts, the dispossession of Mr Tovey from his wife's plantation, and the diversion of Company timber and deals to the Governor's stables and the four hundred foot covered riding shed. The Court's instruction that Cleeve report directly to the Court each year, with the Council giving an account of his behaviour, restored him to the establishment under London's protection. The arrangement reveals the working method by which the Court could reinstate displaced officers through direct designation, bypassing the Governor's authority to remove them. Speculations The Court's reference to the working consumption of seven swords, fifty nine balls of matches, fifty for the buckets and another bench of many other things, treated as items that should have been particularly stated in the accounts, suggests that the Gunner's returns were generic rather than specific. By recording stores expended in summary categories without identifying the working purpose, the Gunner could conceal misuse beneath the appearance of legitimate consumption. The seven swords are particularly striking. Swords did not expend in the manner of powder or matches; they were durable goods. The classification of seven swords as expended over a defined period implies either loss, theft, conversion to private use or recategorisation of items that should have appeared in the stores accounts as transferred to particular individuals. The arrangement reveals the working method by which a vague accounting category could be used to dispose of physically intact equipment without documentary trace. The Court's instruction that Cleeve report yearly on the timber used on the island, what remained, and what further was thought necessary, identified the working timber crisis flagged in the earlier paragraph on the redwood trees. The native species had become very few and seldom produced young ones, and the import of timber from England carried a great charge. The personal designation of Cleeve as the officer responsible for the timber account, with direct correspondence to London bypassing the Council, indicates that the Court treated the timber position as serious enough to warrant a specialist working overseer outside the regular Council establishment. The arrangement parallels the appointment of Mashborne as Overseer of the plantations and live stock, with both positions reflecting the Court's working response to specific resource failures that had emerged under the Boucher administration. | |
28 | Do you take Care that Some of the Blacks that are most docile tractable & ingenious be brought up under him to learn to do Joyners & Carpenters work and let M[r] Cleeve know when we are afsured he has made good workmen of them We will Consider him by a Suitable gratuity. In perusing the papers in the Pacchetts we have thought fit to take Notice of the following particulars V[i]z[t] The List of Lands whether free or hired that had been mea[s]ured plotted and Enterd in their Register Book & to whom belonging with the Names of Such P[er]sons whose Lands had not been mea =sured when the John and Elizabeth left S[t] Helena we approove in P[ar]t But it is deficient in this that no body Signs it nor was it been by what appears approov'd in Council for the future Send the List yearly Signd by the Councell that we may thereby See who are free who are Leas-holders and for what Number of Acres of each. This is often usefull Sometimes Necefsary for us to know. The Same Complaint of want of Signing we must make of the List of our Covenant Servants & Military be nor is there Sallary pay or wages put to any of them which must never hereafter be omitted. The List of Souldiers received by the Abingdon is well done because Signd by the Clerk but the Notice there of paying the Surgeon Six Shillings a head Should have also been mentiond in the Generall Letter. The Account of Plantations bought and Sold Shou'd have been Signd Especially considering we have no Acc[oun]t to Examine with the Articles are right. We find in the Pachett a List of Land Leasd out Since Govern[ou]r Bouchers Arrivall which we take Notice of that you may Send Annually what he leas't out It may be picht out here from the Consultation book of the Entry then be Always made but we expect it from you Signd as very Little time will do it. All these Lists together with that from the Chaplain & others hinted at in this Letter may be prepared & Signed of before the Hurry of Sending our Fleet at lies heavy upon you So that they may be ready to put up on very Little warning and by haveing them timely before you may be duly Considered and Settled and | The Council was to take care that some of the blacks that were the most docile and ingenious be brought up under Mr Cleeve to learn to do joinery and carpenters' work. The Council was to let Mr Cleeve know when the Court was assured he had made good workmen of them. The Court would consider him by a suitable gratuity. On perusing the papers in the packets, the Court had thought fit to take notice of the following particulars. The list of lands, whether set or hired, that had been measured, plotted and entered in the register book, and to whom belonging, with the names of such persons whose lands had not been measured when the John and Elizabeth left St Helena, the Court approved in part. But it was deficient in this, that no body signed it, nor had it been by what appeared approved in Council. For the future the Court directed it to be sent. The list was to be yearly signed by the Council, so that the Court might thereby see who and how many were leaseholders, and for what number of acres each. This was often useful, and sometimes necessary for the Court to know. The same complaint of want of signing the Court must make of the list of the covenant servants and military, neither was there a soldier's pay or wages put to any of them, which must never hereafter be omitted. The list of soldiers received by the Abingdon was well done, because signed by the Clerk. But the notice there of paying the Surgeon six shillings a head should have also been mentioned in the General Letter. The account of plantations bought and sold should have been signed, especially considering the Court had no account to examine. Otherwise the article was right. The Court found in the packet a list of land leased out since Governor Boucher's arrival, of which the Court took notice. The Council might send annually what it leased out. It might be picked out from the consultation book, if the entry then be always made, but the Court expected it from the Council signed. Very little time would do it. All these lists, together with that from the Chaplain mentioned in the Council's letter, may be prepared and signed of before the hurry of sending the ships off. That lies heavy upon the Council, so that they may be ready to put upon, very little command, and by having them timely before, may be duly considered and settled Interpretations The training of selected slaves under Mr Cleeve in joinery and carpentry identified the working response to the skilled labour shortage on the island. The standing timber crisis, addressed in the earlier paragraphs on the redwood trees and on Cleeve's direct accountability for timber, required not only the supply of timber but the skilled labour to convert it into useful buildings and furnishings. By selecting docile and ingenious slaves for apprenticeship under the senior tradesman, the Court was creating a working pool of trained craftsmen within the existing labour force, rather than importing skilled English tradesmen at significant additional cost. The promise of a suitable gratuity for Cleeve, conditional on producing competent workmen, applied the same conditional incentive structure that governed the Council's own gratuities under the new establishment. The Court's repeated insistence on the signing of every list and account identified the working evidentiary discipline expected of all documentary returns. A list of leaseholders, a list of covenant servants and military, a list of soldiers, an account of plantations bought and sold, a list of land leased: each carried no working weight unless signed by the responsible officer or approved in Council. The signature operated as the working act of attestation, fixing personal responsibility on the signatory for the truth of the document. The pattern matches the earlier procedural rule, set out in the consultation procedure paragraphs of the present letter, that minutes were to be signed by every member present, with objections recorded by name and reasons. The signed list extended the same principle to the operational returns of the establishment. The reference to the Surgeon being paid six shillings a head identified a working capitation rate for medical attendance on the soldiers arriving by the Abingdon. The standard arrangement, traceable through the engagement of Francis Moore as Surgeon under the founding instructions of 19 December 1673 at £25 0s 0d salary and £5 0s 0d gratuity per annum with diet at the Governor's table and a plantation, had been an annual salary covering all medical work. The capitation rate represents a different arrangement, with payment tied to the number of patients treated rather than to the period of service. The arrangement reads as a particular fee for the inspection or treatment of a specific cohort of arriving soldiers, perhaps for fitness or vaccination work, separate from the standing salary. The Court's instruction that all the lists be prepared and signed before the hurry of sending the ships off identified the working logistical constraint on the documentary discipline. The annual departure of homeward shipping concentrated the Council's correspondence into a narrow window. The arrangement of preparing and signing lists in advance, so that they were ready to be sent at short notice, addressed the standing risk that documents prepared in haste would contain errors, would be unsigned, or would be omitted altogether. The pattern reads as the working time management response to the procedural failure that had produced unsigned or incomplete returns from the Boucher administration. Speculations The Court's specific approval of the list of soldiers received by the Abingdon on the ground that it had been signed by the Clerk, contrasted with the rejection of unsigned lists from other officers, suggests that the Court treated clerical signature as sufficient where the document was a working factual return rather than a deliberative or supervisory record. The clerk had personal knowledge of the soldiers' names and details from the muster rolls; his signature attested the accuracy of the transcription. By contrast, the list of leaseholders or the account of plantations bought and sold required signature by an officer in a position to verify the substantive correctness, not merely the transcription. The arrangement reveals a working two tier signature regime, with clerical attestation acceptable for factual transcription and officer attestation required for substantive content. The provision that the lists might be picked out from the consultation book, if the entry was always made there, suggests that the Court was willing to accept the consultation book itself as the primary record, with the annual returns operating as working extracts rather than as separate documents. The arrangement reveals the consultation book as the working master record from which all other returns derived. The earlier procedural rules requiring every order, account of execution, and decision to be entered in the consultation book had created the documentary foundation. The present concession allowed the Council to economise on duplicate working effort by sourcing the annual returns from the existing consultation entries, provided those entries were complete and signed. | |
29 | and if more than one Conveyance presents Duplicates may be also prepared Aforesaid when wanted. Pray enquire particularly into the following Complaint that hath been laid before us V[i]z[t] That Since the gunst[?] have been mounted at Mundens point Battery the Battery at Ruperts valley hath been Demolisht which have given the Planters great difsatisfa[c]tion for that they Say an Enemy might if resolute Land at that valley the Beech being Commodious for a Boats Coming a Shore That Mundens point cannot Sufficiently Command that pleace nd if the Enemy comes a Shore they have Liberty to range and nothing to oppofe them How far this is true in part or in whole let us know with your opinion for our further Orders or, if you See it absolidely Necefsary do in the Interim what you think best. On perusing the Consultation Book besides what before mentiond We have thought fit to direct as follows V[i]z[t] That there be annually Sent us a Coppy of all Wills proved & Enterd with you as is done from all P[ar]ts in India That you let us know what is Said now of the Land lett to M[r] Harkeson Sineed in & Desird Should not be measurd because Barren far we can find no report of it tho M[r] Burrell and M[r] Eaton were Ordered the 9 December to Examine whether her desires Should be granted That you dismifs Edward Collier Grandchild of Heleon Israel from being a Souldier if as the Consultations Says he was but fourteen years of age and was hired that his pay might be a help to the Grandfather to lefsen his Debt to the Company or if out of Compafsion you Should See fit to continue him that you never again make a Second president of this kind. That hereafter when ever any Persons come before the Councel to prove their Titles to the land they claim and do make proof thereof to your Satisfaction it be accordingly Enterd into Consul =tation but reasonis because We find Severall of the People who produced their Deeds your Consultations Say they have a just right and Title thereto but for others of them there is no mention made whether they hold a just Title or no yet in the Lists of the Inhabitants received by the John & Elizabeth and the other by the Heene where you mention the Lands they hold there it Stands that they have So much purchas'd Land which Suppofes their Titles to be ascertained. We | If more than one conveyance presented, duplicates might also be prepared, as already when wanted. The Council was to enquire particularly into the following complaint that had been laid before the Court, namely, that since the guns had been mounted at Mr Marsden's point battery, the battery at Rupert's Valley had been demolished, which had given the planters great dissatisfaction. For they said an enemy might if resolute land at that valley, the beach being commodious for a boat's coming ashore. The Court desired that Marsden's point cannot sufficiently command that place, nor if the enemy comes ashore they have liberty to range, and nothing to oppose them. How far this was true, in part or in whole, the Council was to let the Court know, with its opinion for our further orders. Or, if the Council see it absolutely necessary, do in the interim what the Council thought best. On perusing the consultation book, besides what was before mentioned, the Court had thought fit to direct as follows. That there be annually sent to the Court a copy of all wills proved and entered with the Council, as was done from all parts in India. That the Council let the Court know what land Mr Hodgeson had fenced in and desired should not be measured because barren. For the Court could find no report of it, though Mr Burrell and Mr Goodson were ordered the ninth of December to examine whether his desires should be granted. That the Council dismiss Edward Collier, grandchild of John Greenfields, from being a soldier. As the consultation says he was but fourteen years of age, and was [...] that his pay might be a help to the grandfather to lessen his debt to the Company. Or if out of compassion the Council should see fit to continue him, that the Council never again make a second precedent of this kind. That hereafter, when any persons came before the Council to prove their titles to the land they claimed, and did make proof thereof to the Council's satisfaction, it be accordingly entered into the consultation, but reasons because the Court found several of the people who produced their deeds in the Council's consultations say they had a just right and title thereto. But for others of them there was no mention made whether they had a just title or no. Yet in the list of the inhabitants received by the John and Elizabeth and the others by the Herne, where the Council mentioned the lands they held, there it stands that they have so much purchased land. Which supposed their titles to be ascertained. Interpretations The complaint about the demolition of the Rupert's Valley battery, with the mounting of guns at Mr Marsden's point treated as the operative substitute, identified the working defensive geography of the island. Rupert's Valley provided a commodious landing place for boats coming ashore from a hostile fleet. The defensive arrangement required either direct fire on the beach or the capacity to enfilade any landing party from a flanking position. The complaint asserted that the new battery at Marsden's point could neither command the valley nor prevent a landed enemy from ranging across the country. The Court's request for the Council's opinion, with discretion to act in the interim, reflected the standing principle that the working defensive disposition was a matter of local knowledge to be settled on the spot, subject to London review. The arrangement matches the earlier attention to Lemon Valley in the despatch of 20 February 1678, identified as requiring the most careful attention against enemy landing. The annual transmission of copies of all wills proved and entered with the Council, modelled on the practice in India, identified the working civil jurisdiction of the Council in matters of inheritance. The standing civil register on the island, traceable through the marriage, burial and birth registry of the founding instructions of 19 December 1673 and continued through the despatch of 20 February 1678, had not previously extended to formal probate. The present direction adds wills to the documentary returns, with the Council acting as the working probate authority in addition to its other roles. The arrangement extends the Court of Judicature established by the despatch of 14 March 1684 and the laws and constitutions of 30 March 1685 into the testamentary sphere, with the Governor as sole judge sitting once every three weeks now competent in probate as in other causes. The case of Edward Collier, grandchild of John Greenfields, identified the working tension between regular pay establishment and compassionate provision. At fourteen years of age Collier fell below the standard age for soldier service. The standing rule, traceable through the despatch of 20 February 1678 prohibiting boys from being listed, had established the principle that the soldier's pay attached to a competent adult man. Collier's enrolment had operated as a working device for transferring Company pay to the grandfather, indirectly reducing the grandfather's debt to the Company. The Court's instruction to dismiss Collier, with discretion to continue him out of compassion, preserved the formal rule while permitting a single exception. The condition that no second precedent be made revealed the working concern that compassion in one case would establish a working entitlement in others. The Court's specific concern that some inhabitants on the list received by the John and Elizabeth and the Herne appeared as holders of purchased land without any documented proof of title, identified the working evidentiary gap in the plantation registration regime. The by-laws of 20 March 1680 had established the formal plantation registration in the register book on the island, with biennial general courts of planters and annual duplicates sent to England. The Court's direction that titles, once proved to the Council's satisfaction, be entered in the consultation provides the working evidentiary trail by which a holding could be reconciled with a documented title. The arrangement reveals the working maturation of the registration system, with each title now tested through Council adjudication rather than accepted on bare assertion. Speculations The Court's particular insistence that wills be annually copied to London, in the same manner as from all parts in India, suggests that the Court treated the testamentary disposition of estates on the island as carrying systemic risk. Without London oversight, the working probate process could be exploited to direct estates to particular beneficiaries by collusion between the Council and the heirs or executors. The transmission to London established a working external check on probate decisions, with the Court able to identify patterns of unusual disposition across years. The arrangement also protected against the working risk that an inheritance dispute might arise long after the death, with the absence of a London record leaving the local determination as the sole evidence. The pattern matches the standing documentary discipline imposed throughout the present letter, with redundancy of records serving as the working safeguard against local manipulation. The Court's request that the Council enquire whether Mr Burrell and Mr Goodson had examined Mr Hodgeson's request to leave certain barren land unmeasured, identified a particular working failure in the operation of the registration regime. The standing rule under the by-laws of 20 March 1680 required every plantation to be registered, with the penny per acre transfer charge serving as the working quit rent of the East Greenwich socage tenure. Land excluded from measurement on the ground of barrenness escaped both the registration and the quit rent. The arrangement reveals the working incentive for inhabitants to seek exemption for less productive ground, with the Council expected to police the boundary between genuine barrenness and convenient exclusion. The Court's discovery that no report of the matter had been made, despite an order of the ninth of December having been given, reveals the standing pattern of incomplete follow through in the Boucher administration, with directions issued in Council but not executed by the named officers. | |
30 | We would not hinder persons buying Lands one of another But recommend to you to revive the antient Stand =ing Law of the Island and as well as you can to Accomadate the matter that we may have one or like means Such a Number of Acres or other ex bonds for we ought not to Render that Law of no Effect because then the Standing Militia of the Island will be too much diminisht. That you annually keep up the Orders mentiond in the Advertisement Enterd in the Consultation of the 7[th] of March for the Inhabitants to give in writeing Signd an Acc[oun]t of their Familles Land & Cattle Blacks and also the Acc[oun]t in writeing to the proper Officer of all their Peace Cattle turnd out upon our Common ground or wast Land as it is Sometimes called That you Encourage the Fishery all you can for what fover is gotten Costs very Little being Chiefly Labour That you Employ a proper Number of our Slaves and others in our pay therein takeing care the fish be immediately Salted & well cured by this means the Blacks will have a good Supply of more healthing food than bare yams & you else be furnishd our Ships when they want & to Sell to the Inhabitants which is more Necefsary now than ever because of the great Decrease of the Live Cattle &c also see the Conditions mentiond in the Consultation of the 12[th] May for the Inhabitants and Souldiers makeing use of our Boat to Catch fish withal and think it was prudently and Charitably done to encourage them on that Occasion. Take great care of the Afses to encrease the breed & make them tame and fit for Service Send us an Acc[oun]t how many you have of Each Sort. We understand that Cap[t] Roberts during his Government at S[t] Helena had made a good Progrefs in carrying the Water to Convenient pleaces for watering the grounds in the dry Season of the year and that if he had Stayd a while longer he had Accomplisht it this Seems to us So absolutely Necefsary that we recommend it Earnestly to you to use y[ou]r utmost Endeavours to Effect it. The | The Court would not hinder persons buying lands one of another. But the Court recommended to the Council to revise the ancient standing law of the island, and as well as the Council could to accommodate the matter, so that the Court might have one and the same means such a number of acres or other ends, since the Court ought not to render that law of no effect, because then the standing militia of the island would be too much diminished. That the Council annually keep up the orders mentioned in the advertisement entered in the consultation of the seventh of March for the inhabitants to give in, in writing signed, an account of their families, lands and cattle and blacks. And also the account, in writing, to the proper officer of all their fleet cattle turned out upon the Commons or common land, as it is sometimes called. That the Council encourage the fishery all the Council can. For whatsoever was got cost very little, being chiefly labour. The Council was to employ a proper number of the Company's slaves, and others in the Company's pay, therein, taking care the fish be immediately salted and well cured. By this means the blacks would have a good supply of more healthful food than bare yams, and the Council also be qualified to furnish our ships when they want it, and to sell to the inhabitants. Which is more necessary now than ever because of the great decrease of the live cattle. The Court approved of the conditions mentioned in the consultation of the twelfth of May for the inhabitants and soldiers making use of our boat to catch fish withal, and thought it was prudently and charitably done to encourage them on that occasion. The Council was to take great care of the asses to increase the breed, and make them tame and fit for service. The Council was to send the Court an account how many of each sort it had. The Court understood that Captain Roberts, during his government at St Helena, had made a good progress in carrying the water to convenient places for watering the grounds in the dry season of the year, and that, had he stayed a while longer, he had accomplished it. This seems to the Court so absolutely necessary that the Court recommended it earnestly to the Council to use the Council's utmost endeavours to effect it. Interpretations The Court's reservation of the ancient standing law of the island, against the unrestricted buying and selling of land between persons, identified the working defensive purpose of the land system. The by-laws of 20 March 1680 had calibrated the militia and cattle obligations to the size of holding, with two English persons aged sixteen years or upwards, one able to bear arms, and two cows on every twenty acre holding, and one Englishman able to bear arms and one cow on every ten acre holding. Where holdings consolidated through purchase into larger units held by fewer planters, the working number of armed men attached to the land decreased, and the standing militia of the island contracted accordingly. The Court's recommendation that the Council accommodate the matter so as to retain the working effect of the law reveals the standing tension between the property right of free alienation, recognised in the absolute tenure rule under Article 3 of the by-laws of 20 March 1680, and the defensive purpose of the militia obligation under Article 1. The annual return of family, land, cattle and blacks by each inhabitant, with a separate account of cattle turned out upon the commons, identified the working census mechanism of the island. The standing demographic return, traceable through the despatch of 1 August 1683 with its forty shilling fine on refusal or false return, had established the inhabitant household as the working unit of administrative measurement. The present arrangement extends the return to the commons, identifying the working land use category outside the registered plantations where livestock grazed under collective right. The arrangement reveals the working dual character of land use on the island, with registered plantations subject to the penny per acre quit rent under the by-laws of 20 March 1680 and the commons operating as a shared resource requiring separate accounting. The Court's promotion of the fishery as a working cheap food source, with the slaves and Company labour employed in fishing and the catch immediately salted and cured, identified the response to the great decrease of the live cattle complained of in the earlier paragraphs of the present letter. Fish replaced the cattle that had been lost or consumed. Yams, the standing staple of the slave diet, provided bulk but lacked the protein content of fish or meat. The Court's identification of yams as bare, in contrast to the more healthful food of fish, applied the contemporary medical understanding that animal protein was essential to the working health of the labour force. The arrangement also positioned the fishery as a working revenue stream, with surplus catch sold to the inhabitants and to the shipping. The Court's commendation of the arrangement, recorded in the consultation of the twelfth of May, by which the inhabitants and soldiers could use the Company boat to catch fish, identified the working extension of the fishery to a broader population. The standing fishery had operated since the founding instructions of 19 December 1673, when the three boats left by Captain Munden formed a common fishery with fish distributed equally. The present arrangement returned the Company boat to a partly common use, with the inhabitants and soldiers fishing for their own consumption alongside the Company's commercial operation. The Court's framing of the arrangement as prudently and charitably done reveals the working acknowledgment that the small extension of access cost the Company little and produced both direct food supply and the social benefit of inhabitant goodwill. Speculations The Court's particular concern that the asses be increased in number and made tame and fit for service identifies a working transport problem on the island that the asses were intended to address. The standing pattern of carrying goods and persons up and down the country, which the Boucher administration had abused through the use of slave hammock bearers, required a non-human transport solution. Asses bred and trained on the island would carry loads where the steep terrain made cart travel impractical, and would relieve the slaves from the working labour of hammock carriage. The arrangement reveals the working substitution of animal labour for human labour in personal transport, with the asses serving the same function for which the hammock bearers had been irregularly used. The Court's request for an account of how many of each sort the Council had suggests that the working ass population had been left unrecorded under the previous administration, consistent with the broader pattern of livestock neglect identified throughout the letter. The Court's specific commendation of Captain Roberts for his progress in carrying water to convenient places for watering the grounds in the dry season, with the note that had he stayed longer he would have accomplished it, identifies a particular case of constructive infrastructure work cut short by the change of government. Roberts had been a previous Governor whose tenure had ended before the working completion of the irrigation system. The Court's recommendation that the new Council take up the project where Roberts had left it reveals the working continuity of infrastructure investment across changes of administration. The pattern reads as the institutional counterpart to the appointments of Mashborne as Overseer of the plantations and Cleeve in charge of timber, with both men chosen by reason of their prior knowledge of work begun under earlier Governors that needed to be brought to completion under the new establishment. | |
31 | The late Governour Cap[t] Boucher haveing desird to come home and another being Constituted in his place We give him leave so to do But he must first Settle with you the Acc[oun]ts of what Committed to his care or has come to his hands Either from hence or from the East Indies or for w[hi]ch he has drawn Bills on us Since his entering on the Governm[en]t If any thing remains due to us on the Ballance let an Acc[oun]t Currant be Stated and Signd by him and you and do you the Gov[ernour] & Council now Constituted receive the Said Ball- ance from him and then give him proper discharges when he has Complyd on his p[ar]t and also made good to us the Damage before herein mentiond This we Think is absolutly Necefsary to be first done before he goes off the Shoré because all the Proofs of his Side & ours are there to be Set =tled in order to making up Acc[oun]ts when this is done Order the Cap[t] of any Ship in the Road he Choops to take Passage on to receive him on board and treat him as Civilety in the voyage to England and that he may have no just reason for Complaint do you your p[ar]ts in Speedyly Settling all Acc[oun]ts with him If there Should be a Ballance due from him more than he can pay on S[t] Helena then So Soon as the Acc[oun]t Currant is Stated & Signd by him that he agrees thereto & Witnefsed take his Bond for that remainder Three of our Honour & to pay the Same here to the Comp[an]y and let the Comanders or Mates or other Officers who are returning for England be Witnefses thereto & So the Acc[oun]t Currant one of those Bonds Send by the Ship he takes Pafsage on a Second by another good Ship and keep the Third by you But Send a Coppy of it by a Third Conveyance. London the 5[th] We are Your Loving Friends March 1713 We have advanced to M[r] Mans W[m] Humfreys Rob[t] Brisco Soggis[?] of S[t] Helena twenty Pounds out R. Gough Rob[t] Nightingale of his Sallary &c to be the same as Geo. Shepherd W[m] Eleseworth[?] usually allowd to others & to your John Gould Jos[?] Wordsworth Acknowledge, and to M[r] Mashbornes Fifty W. Edneliscar[?] John Cooke Pounds to M[r] Tovey Forty pounds on Henry Loll[?] John Elwick [...] of his Account Wm Dawsonne[?] J Ward Jun[?] [...] Sus[?] Thomas Heath Nath[l] Hope Charles Cees Margin Notes: 4 P[ar]r 14 | The late Governor, Captain Boucher, having desired to come home, and another being constituted in his place, the Court gave him leave to do so. But he must first settle with the Council the account of what was committed to his care, or had come to his hands, either from here or from the East Indies, or for which he had drawn bills on the Court since his entering on the government. If any thing remained due to the Court on the balance, an account current was to be stated and signed by him. The Governor and Council now constituted were to receive the balance from him, and then give him proper discharges, when he had complied on his part, and also made good to the Court the damage hereinbefore mentioned. This the Court thought was absolutely necessary to be first done before he went off the shore, since all the proofs of his side and the Council's would be there to be had, in order to making up the account. When this was done the Council was to give order to the captain of any ship in the road that he proposed to take passage on, to receive him on board, and treat him with civility on the voyage to England, so that he might have no just reason for complaint. The Council was to do its part in speedily settling all this with him. If there should be a balance due from Boucher more than he could pay at St Helena, then, so soon as the account current was stated and signed by him, the Council was to agree with him, and witness the same, to take his bond for that remainder. In the bond he was to promise to pay the same here to the Company, and the Commanders, Mates or other Officers who were returning for England were to be witnesses thereto. The account current was one of those bonds, sent by the ship he took passage on. A second was to be sent by another good ship, and the third was to be kept by the Council. But a copy of all was to be sent by a third conveyance. London, the fifth of March 1713. The Court were the Council's loving friends. The Court had advanced to Mr Mansprag of St Helena twenty pounds out of his salary at the same rate as usually attended to others to that course of advantage, and to Mr Mashborne fifty pounds. And to Mr Tovey forty pounds on the same account. William Hunfreys R. Gough [...] Shepherd John Gould W. Stanley [...] Henry [...] William Dawsonne Thomas Heath Robert Brisco Robert Nightingale William [...]worth Joseph Woodworth John Cooke John Elwick J. Ward Junior Nathaniel Hayne Charles Cleeve Interpretations The procedure imposed on Captain Boucher for settling his accounts before leaving the island identified the working financial discipline applied to the discharge of a previous Governor. The account current operated as the working closing statement of the Governor's financial position with the Company, recording every sum committed to his care, received from the East Indies or drawn on the Court through bills of exchange. The balance, once established, was either remitted by Boucher to the Company on the spot or, where insufficient cash was available, secured by a bond payable in London. The arrangement reveals the working preference for closing the books at the point of departure, with the Council and the departing Governor jointly present, since the proofs and counter-proofs of the disputed items were there to be had on the island and would scatter once the parties separated. The witnessing of the bond by Commanders, Mates or other Officers returning to England identified the working evidentiary requirement for international debt instruments. The bond, executed at St Helena and payable in London, required witnesses competent to testify in either jurisdiction. By taking ship's officers as witnesses on a homeward voyage, the bond carried witnesses already proceeding to the place of payment, with the working evidence of execution available in London at the same time as the bond fell due. The arrangement parallels the standing practice for charter parties and bills of lading, which followed the ship to the port of destination, and applies the same principle to the personal debt of a departing officer. The triple conveyance of the account current, with one copy travelling with Boucher on his passage ship, a second copy on another good ship and a third held by the Council, with a fourth copy by a separate conveyance, applied the working redundancy principle to the financial settlement. The arrangement matches the triple-receipt system established by the despatch of 19 December 1673 on the John and Alexander, where three receipts had been taken for every supply to a Company ship, one kept on the island and two sent home. The redundancy protected against loss at sea, against tampering in transit, and against the working risk that any single document might be challenged or denied. By distributing the same instrument across four conveyances, the Court ensured that no single misfortune could leave the financial settlement unevidenced. The instruction that the captain of Boucher's passage ship receive him on board and treat him with civility, so that he might have no just reason for complaint, identified the working principle of dignified discharge for a former Governor. Even where the previous administration was being formally repudiated, the personal treatment of the departing officer remained governed by working courtesy. The arrangement parallels the discharge of Captain Keynion under the founding instructions of 19 December 1673, where Keynion had been discharged with civility, fresh provisions and a signed certificate. The pattern reveals the working separation between institutional accountability, applied through the account current and the bond, and personal courtesy, applied through the conditions of passage. The Court's express concern that Boucher have no just cause of complaint suggests an awareness that ill treatment on the voyage could become the basis of a London grievance after arrival. Speculations The Court's specific provision that the account current be settled before Boucher went off the shore, on the ground that the proofs on his side and the Council's would be there to be had, suggests that the Court anticipated Boucher would contest particular items once removed from the island. The proofs comprised the consultation entries, the stores records, the bills of exchange documentation, the timber accounts and the working evidence of the damage previously mentioned. By compelling settlement on the spot, with both parties present and all documents accessible, the Court closed the working window in which Boucher could later deny or reinterpret items by reference to records he no longer had to hand. The arrangement reveals the working litigation strategy of the Court, fixing the account at the point where contradiction was most difficult and binding both parties to the joint signature. The graduated advance payments to Mr Mansprag (twenty pounds), Mr Mashborne (fifty pounds) and Mr Tovey (forty pounds), all charged against their salaries on the island, identified the working London side payments made to officers proceeding to St Helena. The advances served as outfitting allowances, allowing the men to equip themselves for the voyage and the new establishment without drawing on personal resources. The amounts reflect the working rank and circumstance of each man, with Mashborne, returning as third member and Overseer of the plantations, receiving the largest advance, perhaps because of a family travelling with him under the standing rule by which the Company would carry wives and children of officers at its charge. The arrangement reveals the working integration of London side personnel administration with the island salary structure, with advances charged forward against salaries earned and recovered through deductions from the running pay account on the island. | |
32 | Our Governour and Council of S[t] Helena London y[e] 4[th] Feb[ruar]y 1714 Our last to you was by the Rochester dated the 5[th] of March 1713 which being receiv'd wee wont send its Duplicate Since that time Wee have had the following Letters from the Island V[i]z[t] of the 31[st] March 1714 by the Abingdon of the 5[th] of May by the Stretham of the 29[th] May by the Marlborough and of the 28 June by the Recovery with the Coppys of the preceding Letters which Should have been Duplicates that is to say Should have been Signd by the Govern[ou]r and Council and henceforward Wee direct they be because a Letter Signd gives it a better Authority and is a better Voucher to prove every part of its contents when necessary so to do than if it be only a Copy Wee have likewise your Letter of the 31 July last brought us by the Master of M[r] Sliwells Vefsell the Mercury Sloop By the aforementioned Ships Wee have receivd Letters from M[r] Thomlinson our Chaplin W[m] Free M[r] Cleve the Carpenter and a Petition from Joseph Thomlinson To all these wee Shall give answer for so far as wee think proper under the following Generall heads and add the further necefsary orders Remarks observations Prohibitions and Cautions in their proper Places The Letter by the Susannah which you say cannot be found and as you hear was carried away by the late Governour Boucher wee now send Copy of for y[ou]r information and obeservance In our Instructions to you of the 5[th] of March aforesaid you will find Wee ordered you to draw out extracts of all the Companys Letters to S[t] Helena relateing to every distinct branch of the Affairs under your care wee expect by the next to hear that it is compleated for so far as you Margin Notes: To Send Duplicates To Coppy out all the Acc[oun]ts | To the Governor and Council of St Helena. London, the fourth of February 1714. The Court's last to the Council was by the Rochester, dated the fifth of March 1713. Since that had been received, the Court would not send a duplicate. Since that time the Court had received the following letters from the island, namely of 31 March 1714 by the Abingdon, of 5 May by the Stretham, of 29 May by the Marlborough and of 28 June by the Recovery, with the copies of the preceding letters. These should have been duplicates, that is to say should have been signed by the Governor and Council. Henceforward the Court directed that they be so, because a letter signed gave it a better authority and was a better voucher to prove every part of its contents when necessary so to do, than if it were only a copy. The Court had likewise the Council's letter of 31 July last, brought by the master of Mr Sewell's vessel the Mercury sloop. By the aforementioned ships the Court had received letters from Mr Thomlinson the Chaplain, William Tree, Mr Cleve the carpenter, and a petition from Joseph Thomlinson. To all these the Court should give answer so far as the Court thought proper under the following general heads, and add the further necessary orders, remarks, observations, prohibitions and cautions in their proper places. The letter by the Susanna, which the Council said could not be found and had been carried away by the late Governor Boucher, the Court now sent a copy of for the Council's information and observance. In the Court's instructions to the Council of 5 March 1713 aforesaid, the Council would find the Court had ordered the Council to draw out extracts of all the Company's letters to St Helena relating to every distinct branch of the affairs under the Council's care. The Court expected by the next to hear that it was completed so far as the Council Interpretations The Court's direction that all letters be signed by the Governor and Council, rather than sent as unsigned copies, identified the working evidentiary distinction between an authenticated despatch and a working transcription. A signed letter operated as a voucher capable of proving its contents in any subsequent dispute, whether financial, judicial or administrative. An unsigned copy provided only the text without the working attestation by the parties responsible. The arrangement parallels the procedural rule established in the despatch of 5 March 1713, where the Court had required all returns and lists to be signed by the responsible officer or approved in Council. The present extension applies the same principle to the duplicate despatches themselves, with the working redundancy of triple conveyance only effective if each conveyance carried an attested document. The systematic catalogue of recent correspondence (the letters of 31 March 1714 by the Abingdon, of 5 May by the Stretham, of 29 May by the Marlborough, of 28 June by the Recovery and of 31 July by Mr Sewell's Mercury sloop) identified the working pattern of homeward communication established under the new establishment. Five letters in four months represent a substantial increase in cadence over the Boucher administration, where the Court had complained in the despatch of 5 March 1713 that the entire correspondence from 12 March 1712 had amounted to only fifteen sheets, which might have been written in a week with ease. The arrangement reveals the early operational effect of the new Council's procedural discipline, with the working documentary flow restored to the level the Court had been demanding. The receipt of separate letters from Mr Thomlinson the Chaplain, William Tree, Mr Cleve the carpenter and Joseph Thomlinson identified the working extension of direct correspondence to officers and inhabitants below the Council level. The standing rule, traceable through the despatches of the founding period, had treated the Governor and Council as the working channel for all communication with London. The present pattern, with the Chaplain, the carpenter and named inhabitants writing directly, reveals the working operation of the personal designation principle established in the despatch of 5 March 1713 for Mr Cleve, who had been directed to report yearly on the timber on the island independently of the Council. The arrangement extends the same principle to other officers, with London able to receive intelligence outside the Council's filter. The disappearance of the Susanna letter, carried away by the late Governor Boucher, identified a particular case of documentary obstruction by the previous administration. The Boucher Council had been unable to find the letter when required, since Boucher had taken the document with him on his departure. The Court's reconstruction of the despatch from its own London copy, sent to the new Council for information and observance, restored the working documentary chain that Boucher had attempted to sever. The arrangement parallels the standing redundancy principle that ran through the entire administrative system, with the London office capable of supplying any missing document from its retained copies and thereby defeating any local attempt to suppress particular instructions. Speculations The Court's specific direction that letters be signed because a signed letter gave better authority and was a better voucher than a copy, suggests that the Court anticipated future disputes in which the working contents of the despatches might be denied or challenged. The voucher language operated within a working legal framework, where the signed document could be produced in evidence and the signatures testified to. An unsigned copy carried no such weight. The arrangement reveals the Court's working preparation for the eventual accounting with Boucher, where the surviving signed despatches from the new Council would form the documentary case against him, alongside the account current and bond procedures established in the despatch of 5 March 1713. The Court was building the working evidentiary record for litigation rather than merely correspondence. The departure of Captain Boucher with the Susanna letter in his possession, sufficient to leave the Boucher Council unable to find it, indicates that Boucher had removed records selectively rather than indiscriminately. The letter by the Susanna of 20 March 1712 had been the principal despatch establishing the Court's procedural complaints and the working framework for the new Council's discipline. By taking that despatch with him, Boucher deprived the new Council of the working text against which to test the previous administration's compliance. The arrangement parallels the earlier pattern of selective disclosure within the Boucher Council, where Tovey had been kept ignorant of the contents of the Court's letter by the Abingdon. The selective removal of the Susanna letter extended the same working method to the documentary archive itself, with critical instructions taken away by the departing Governor rather than left for examination. | |
33 | you had the Letters which wee Suppose are the whole except that by the Susannah and on receipt thereof with this that you will add these thereto ranging every Clause & order negative or positive each under its proper head and then from the whole draw out a full extract or contents of every Article as to the substance of it which enter in a proper book to lye on the Council Table for your and our Governour and Councils for the time being their Notice and Direction in all time comeing and Leave therein blank Spaces to add any new orders under each head that may hereafter be received from hence. This if carefully performed as wee expect it shall be will take up some time in the collecting compiling & methodising but when once done will be of great use to you and all y[ou]r Successors. Wee recommend this matter & care of our Governour more particularly he taking to his Asistance, the Secretary and any others if necefsary By which means wee hope he and they will be very carefull in Doeing it for as he has not any p[ar]ticular charge upon him to take up his time as the Accomptant and others have he will have the more leisure in the intervals of Shipping to compleat this necefsa =ry work and yet have all necefsary regard to the generall affairs of the Island under his charge which must not be neglected you will Sometimes find the Parragraphs in our Generall Letters very large occasioned by our reasoning (and expostulations on the mistakes or wilfull fail =ures therein complained of but the Rule therein laid down is usually but Short and it is that Rule or order wether negative or positive wee principally aim at to be collected with Short memorandums annexed of the reasons for giving it when the whole is drawn out it must be [ex]amined Margin Notes: The Govern[ou]r to make the Abstract | The Council had the letters which the Court supposed were the whole, except that by the Susanna. On receipt thereof, with this letter, the Court directed the Council to add the Susanna letter to the others. Every clause and order, negative or positive, was to be ranged under its proper head. From the whole, the Council was then to draw out a full extract or contents of every article, as to the substance of it, which was to be entered in a proper book. The book was to lie on the Council table for the Governor and Council, and also for the Court's Governor and Council, being their notice and direction in all time coming. Blank spaces were to be left under each head to add any new orders that might hereafter be received from London. This, if carefully performed as the Court expected it should be, would take up some time in the collecting, compiling and methodising. But once done, it would be of great use to the present Council and all its successors. The Court recommended this matter to the care of the Governor more particularly. He was to take to his assistance the Secretary, and any others if necessary, by which means the Court hoped he and they would be very careful in doing it. For as he had not any particular charge upon him to take up his time, as the Accountant and the others had, he would have the more leisure in the intervals of shipping to complete this necessary work, and yet have all necessary regard to the general affairs of the island under his charge, which must not be neglected. The Council would sometimes find the paragraphs in the Court's General Letters very large, occasioned by the Court's reasoning and expostulations on the mistakes or wilful failures therein complained of. But the rule therein laid down was usually but short, and it was that rule or order, whether negative or positive, the Court principally aimed to be collected, with short memorandums annexed of the reasons for giving it. When the whole was drawn out, it must be examined Interpretations The proposed book of extracts identified the working transformation of the General Letters from a sequential correspondence into a thematic operational manual. The standing General Letter was organised by despatch and date, with each letter addressing whatever matters had arisen between the previous despatch and the present one. The arrangement made it laborious for the Council to identify the working rules applicable to any particular branch of administration, since the relevant orders lay scattered across forty years of correspondence. The proposed extract book, with every clause and order ranged under its proper head, reorganised the same body of instructions by subject, with the working rule on any matter accessible at a glance under its head. The arrangement reveals the working maturation of the establishment from a young settlement governed by current despatches to a mature administration requiring systematic reference to accumulated standing rules. The provision for blank spaces under each head to accommodate new orders identified the working open ended character of the proposed compilation. The book was not a static codification but a working instrument continuing to receive additions as new despatches arrived. The arrangement permitted the compilation to remain current without requiring a fresh transcription each year. The pattern parallels the working open architecture of the consultation book itself, where entries continued to be made on each meeting day, with the bound volume serving as the working record of the administration's running business. The proposed extract book applied the same principle to the standing instructions, with the two books operating together as the working pair of administrative records. The Court's specific recommendation that the Governor undertake the compilation, with the Secretary and others to assist as necessary, identified the working allocation of the project to the senior office. The standing portfolios of the Council, set out in the establishment of 5 March 1713, gave the second member the bookkeeping and accountant work, the third the overseership of the plantations, the fourth the storehouse, and the fifth the secretaryship. Each carried a working operational charge that occupied the holder. The Governor alone held no specific portfolio of routine business and therefore had the working leisure in the intervals of shipping to undertake the systematic compilation. The arrangement reveals the working logic of the new establishment, with the Governor freed from routine administrative work in order to apply himself to the standing oversight, of which the extract book was the foundational documentary instrument. The Court's distinction between the long reasoning and expostulations in the General Letters, and the short rule or order embedded within them, identified the working separation between the rhetorical and operative content of the despatches. The reasoning supplied the working context, the complaints, the precedents and the policy justification. The rule, once distilled, occupied a single sentence. The Council's task in compiling the extract was to identify and capture only the operative rule, with a short memorandum of the reasons annexed for context. The arrangement reveals the working understanding of the General Letter as a hybrid document, with the rules suitable for compilation surrounded by the context required for their immediate communication. The compiled extract preserved the rules in operational form, with the original despatches retained as the working source for the reasoning if it later became necessary. Speculations The Court's specific provision that the extract book lie on the Council table, for the use of the present Governor and Council as well as the Court's Governor and Council in time to come, suggests that the Court anticipated significant turnover in the establishment over the working life of the document. The Council under the establishment of 5 March 1713 would not be the same Council in ten or twenty years. The extract book was designed to outlive the personnel that compiled it, with the working institutional memory transferred from individual officers to a documentary instrument. The arrangement reveals the working response to the lesson of the Boucher administration, where Boucher had departed taking the Susanna letter with him and leaving the new Council without the working text of critical instructions. The extract book, once compiled, would survive any future Governor's departure, since its function was to summarise and reorganise material that no single officer could carry away. The Court's direction that the work be undertaken in the intervals of shipping, with the Governor's leisure between fleet arrivals identified as the appropriate working window, suggests that the Court understood the working rhythm of the island's administrative year. The arrival of a fleet generated intense activity around landing, refit, victualling, despatch handling and homeward correspondence. Between fleets, the Council had relatively quieter periods in which sustained intellectual work could be undertaken. The arrangement reveals the working response to the standing complaint that the Boucher Council had prepared its correspondence in haste at the moment of shipping departure, with errors and omissions consequent on the working pressure. By assigning the extract project to the inter fleet intervals, the Court was using the quieter periods productively while protecting the busy periods for the operational work that could not be deferred. | |
34 | examined by you the Council in Consultation and then send us an Attested Coppy thereof for our Inspection to see if the whole Answers our Intention put in the Margin the date of the Letters and by what Ships received and the number of the Parragraphs from whence the Severall Particulars are drawn by this means you may the more readily on any occa sion turn to the place if there should be a doubt of the full meaning of y[e] Extracts or any of them and those who shall examine it here will be in like manner the better enabled to Search and see if the collection be complea[t] and nothing omitted. To prevent in all times comeing the emb ezling or any other Lofs of the Generall Lett[ers] which have been or shall be sent to Sent to y[e] Helena Let a proper Office be appointed for y[e] Secretary or Clerk of the Council with convenient prefses and drawers wherein to put them and all other books Papers Records Accounts and writeings belonging to us or the Generall Affairs of the Island each sort by themselves Take care that within a convenient time after the Receipt of our Pacchetts from hence our Generall Letters and any other necefsary Papers relating thereto be fairly entred in a book to be kept for that purpose and well examined and the examiner and Copyer Set their names at the end of each Entry and when it is so done let the Council call for it at their next meeting and after perufse make an Entry in the Consultation that they find it So This will in some measure Supply the want of an Originall Letter w[hi]ch through carelefsnefs or knavery may be lost or Conveyed away. And the better to prevent such Lofs of Lett[ers] or of any Consultation books, Books of Registers of Margin Notes: To fitt up a Secretarys Office | The extract was to be examined by the Council in consultation. Once examined, an attested copy was to be sent to the Court for inspection, so that the Court could see whether the whole answered its intention. In the margin of each entry, the Council was to put the date of the letter, the ship by which it had been received, and the number of the paragraph from which the particular item had been drawn. With these references, the Council could readily turn to the source whenever there was any doubt about the full meaning of an extract. Whoever examined the extract later would, in the same way, be better able to search and confirm that the collection was complete and nothing had been left out. To prevent the embezzlement or any other loss in future of the General Letters which had been or should be sent to St Helena, a proper office was to be set up for the Secretary or Clerk of the Council, with suitable presses and drawers in which to put them and all other books, papers, records, accounts and writings belonging to the Company or to the general affairs of the island. Each kind was to be kept separately. The Council was to make sure that, within a convenient time after the receipt of each packet from London, the General Letters and any other necessary papers connected with them were properly entered in a book kept for that purpose, well examined, with the examiner and copyist setting their names at the end of each entry. When that was done, the Council was to call for the book at its next meeting. After looking it over, the Council was to make an entry in the consultation that the matter had been so dealt with. This would, to some extent, replace any original letter that might, through carelessness or dishonesty, be lost or carried away. To prevent the loss of letters, or of any consultation books or books of registers Interpretations The proposed Secretary's office with its presses and drawers marked the working physical infrastructure for the documentary discipline being imposed on the new establishment. The standing problem, identified through the disappearance of the Susanna letter of 20 March 1712 under the previous administration, was that the Company's papers had been kept without secure custody, accessible to anyone who chose to remove them. By creating a dedicated office under the Secretary, with each category of document held in its own press or drawer, the Court established the working architecture for archival security. The arrangement reveals the working maturation of records management on the island, from a loose practice in which papers passed between officers without a fixed home to a formal archive with a named custodian and physical storage. The book of entries for incoming General Letters identified the working transcription discipline imposed on the receipt side of the correspondence. Each General Letter, once it reached the island, was to be copied into a dedicated book under the Secretary's supervision, with the examiner and copyist signing their names at the close of each entry. The arrangement created a working second copy of every despatch within the island's own records, independent of the original document held in the office. The pattern paralleled the triple conveyance principle established for outgoing letters, where each despatch travelled by three ships and a fourth conveyance carried a copy. The present arrangement applied the same redundancy logic to the local records, with the entered copy serving as the working backup against loss of the original. The marginal references to the date, ship and paragraph number of the source letter, attached to each extract entry, identified the working citation system for the operational manual. The extract book operated as a reference instrument, but its entries had to be traceable to the original despatches in case of dispute over their meaning. By recording the source citation in the margin, the Council ensured that any operative rule could be checked against the working context in which it had originally been given. The arrangement reveals the working evidentiary discipline applied at the level of the individual rule, with the working chain of authority running from the extract back to the General Letter, and from the General Letter back to the Court of Directors that had issued it. The Council's call for the entry book at its next meeting after the receipt of a packet, with a consultation entry recording that the entry had been examined, identified the working closing loop of the documentary procedure. The arrangement made the consultation book the working final authority on the proper receipt and registration of each despatch. By recording in the consultation that the General Letter had been examined and entered, the Council created a working chain of attestation: the receipt of the letter, the copying into the entry book, the signatures of the examiner and copyist, and the Council's collective acknowledgment in consultation. Each step left a working evidentiary mark, with the cumulative record making it difficult for any single document to disappear without trace. Speculations The Court's specific phrasing about preventing the embezzlement or any other loss of letters which had been or should be sent to St Helena suggests that the Court treated the disappearance of the Susanna letter under the Boucher administration as a deliberate act rather than mere carelessness. The word embezzlement carried working overtones of dishonest appropriation, not accidental misplacement. By framing the new archival arrangements as a defence against embezzlement, the Court signalled its working judgement that the previous loss had been wilful. The arrangement reveals the Court's working response to a specific institutional failure, with the physical infrastructure of the new Secretary's office designed to make a repetition of the Susanna incident structurally impossible. The provision that the examiner and copyist sign their names at the end of each entry identified a working personal accountability mechanism within the clerical staff. The arrangement spread the responsibility for accurate copying across two named officers, with both signatures required to authenticate the entry. The pattern reads as the Court's recognition that a single copyist could be suborned or careless without check, while a system requiring two signatures created a working internal verification at the point where errors or deliberate alterations were most likely to occur. The arrangement parallels the Italian way of bookkeeping with its double entry method, where each transaction appeared twice and any discrepancy revealed the underlying error. The double signature applied the same principle to the transcription of incoming letters, with the redundancy serving as the working defence against both error and bad faith. | |
35 | of Lands wether Free Hold or Lease Hold Registers of Wills or any other Publick Reco =ords or other Writings of what nature soever let a Schedule be drawn out of all that are now remaining and when it hath been examined and found Right, let the Secretary or Clerk of the Council as you usually call him sign it thereby to own his charge which the Govern[ou]r for y[e] time being and Council must have in their Professiton let him keep a Duplicate for himself and do you send a Copy of it to us by double Conveyances Let this Schedule be called over and the Severall Articles therein once a year inspected to see all are Safe and whenever a new Clerk is chosen let him be charged in like manner This method will put a Stop to the future Lofs of any Writings under such Clerks charge if Strictly observ'd as we hereby require it Be li[t] that it may not be forgott do you fix a day certain for taking the examination which if you think most proper. wee. wickon on the 29 of September a good time. or if a Sunday the preceeding or Succeeding day because you have then no Shipping upon your hands when new books are begun let them be added to the Schedule. Whenever the Storekeeper has compleated his Acc[oun]ts for the Currant year and begins new books Let the former be brought to y[e] Fort and Lodged in the Clerks Office in a proper repository and he Charged therewith take constant care to prevent all the papers being damaged by ratts mice wetts or any other way. Haveing Laid down these four Generalls [r]u[le]s Margin Notes: To Examine Clerks Office at Michaelmas The Secretary to keep the Old Wee[?] hou[s]e books | The Council was to draw out a schedule of all the registers of lands, whether freehold or leasehold, registers of wills, and any other public records or writings of whatever nature that remained on the island. Once the schedule had been examined and found correct, the Secretary or Clerk of the Council, as the Council usually called him, was to sign it. By signing, he took these papers into his charge. The Governor for the time being, and the Council, were to keep this schedule in their possession. The Clerk was to keep a duplicate for himself, and the Council was to send a copy to the Court by double conveyance. Once a year the schedule was to be called over and the several articles inspected, to confirm that all the papers were safe. Whenever a new Clerk was chosen, he was to be charged with the papers in the same way. This method, if strictly observed, would put a stop to any future loss of writings under the Clerk's charge, and the Court hereby required that it be observed. So that the annual check was not forgotten, a fixed day was to be set for the examination. The Court suggested the twenty ninth of September as a suitable date, or the Sunday immediately before or after, since the Council would then have no shipping to attend to. As new books were begun, they were to be added to the schedule. Whenever the Storekeeper had completed his accounts for the current year and began new books, the former books were to be brought to the Fort and lodged in the Clerk's office in a proper repository, with the Clerk charged with their custody. The Council was to take constant care to prevent the papers being damaged by rats, mice, wet or any other cause. Having laid down these four general rules Interpretations The schedule of records identified the working inventory mechanism for the island's documentary holdings. The standing problem was that no one in the establishment had a complete record of what papers existed, or where they were kept, with the result that any particular document could go missing without anyone noticing. The schedule, once drawn up, examined and signed, supplied the working baseline against which subsequent checks could be made. The arrangement created a documentary instrument whose function was to track the existence of other documentary instruments, with the Clerk's signature attesting his receipt of the listed items. The pattern parallels the storekeeper's stores account, where the holder of physical goods signed for what he had received and could be called to account for any shortfall. The Clerk now held the same position with respect to papers. The annual inspection on a fixed day identified the working calendar discipline applied to records management. The standing risk in any custodial arrangement was that the annual check would be deferred or forgotten under the pressure of operational business, until eventual loss made the check meaningless. By fixing the inspection to a specific date in the quiet season, with the twenty ninth of September chosen as the working anchor, the Court ensured that the check became a routine event independent of the Council's discretion. The September date fell between the principal homeward sailings of the Indian Ocean fleet, in the working window the Court had identified for the extract book compilation. The arrangement reveals the working integration of the documentary discipline into the natural rhythm of the administrative year. The transfer of the Storekeeper's completed books to the Clerk's office once new books were begun identified the working separation between active and archival records. While the Storekeeper's books remained in current use, they sat at the storehouse under his personal custody, supporting the daily operation of the stores. Once superseded by new books, they passed from operational instruments to historical evidence, and their working home became the Clerk's office in the Fort. The arrangement parallels the modern separation between the working records of an active office and the archive of completed records, with each category requiring different security and access arrangements. The Court's specific instruction that the papers be protected from rats, mice, wet or any other cause of damage identified the working physical risks to documentary preservation in the moderate climate of the island. The arrangement requires that the proper repository in the Clerk's office be designed for archival storage, with the presses and drawers specified in the earlier paragraph providing the working defence against vermin and the building structure providing the defence against damp. The pattern parallels the warehouse design specified earlier in the despatch of 5 March 1713, where storehouses for arrack, India goods, Europe commodities and naval stores were each to be built strong and commodious to their proper purpose. The Clerk's office now received the same working attention as the commercial storehouses. Speculations The Court's suggestion of the twenty ninth of September, or the Sunday before or after, for the annual inspection identified a working calendar choice tied to the working calendar of the Anglican year. The twenty ninth of September was Michaelmas, the feast of Saint Michael and All Angels, one of the four quarter days of the English calendar on which rents fell due and accounts were balanced. The arrangement aligned the annual records inspection with the working accounting cycle of the wider English administrative year, with the same date triggering both the quarterly settlement of accounts and the annual check of the records on which they rested. The proposal that the Sunday before or after Michaelmas might serve in the alternative reveals the working flexibility to fit the inspection around the consultation cadence, since Sundays were normally clear of formal business. The Court's express provision that whenever a new Clerk was chosen he be charged with the records in the same way identified the working transition mechanism between Clerks. The arrangement created a discrete documentary handover event, with the new Clerk signing for receipt of the listed papers and the previous Clerk thereby discharged from custody. The pattern parallels the procedure imposed on Captain Boucher's departure by the despatch of 5 March 1713, where the account current required the joint signature of the departing and incoming officers before the working documentary chain could be considered complete. The Clerk's records handover applied the same principle at the operational level, with each transition formalised by the same evidentiary discipline that had been required at the level of the Governor's office. | |
36 | Rules we come to answer y[ou]r Letters under our Establisht Generall heads and Shall first take notice that the Rochester had been twenty three Days at the Island before y[ou]r Lett[er] the Mercury Sloop was sent away so that considering most of you were not Strangers to the Island and consequently did not require much time to inform y[ou]r Selves of y[e] nature and State of it y[ou]r Letter to us is very Short and doth not give us so particular an Acc[oun]t of our Affairs as we could wish and might have reasonably expected. Wee expect this defect be Supplyd in the next touching the Rochesters Dispatch you will see our thoughts under the head of Shipping. The Letter by the Abingdon in Answer to ours by the Susannah contains in it so much insolence as deserves no answer nor is it fit to be taken notice of but with the utmost indignation and that the Pen man may possibly be informd of in due time tho wee have never seen him but once since he came to England for he left the Ship in the Channill and did not come to London till months after however in the Course of this Letter wee may touch upon some particulars under one or other of the Generall heads following. First concerning Shipping Sent out & returned. Since our last it has pleased God That the following Ships are Safely retoured to us V[i]z[t]. The London from Bombay but last from Fort S[t] George pretending a recerip[t] for putting into Galway the 20[th] of April last arrived here the 6[th] of June. The Abingdon from Bencoolen the 13[th] of June. The Stretham Margin Notes: Govern[ou]r Bouchers Officiall Ships at Home | Having laid down these four general rules, the Court came to answer the Council's letters under the established general heads. The Court first took notice that the Rochester had been twenty three days at the island before the Council's letter by the Mercury sloop was sent away. Considering that most of the Council were no strangers to the island, and consequently did not require much time to inform themselves of its nature and state, the Council's letter to the Court was very short. It did not give so particular an account of the Court's affairs as the Court could have wished, and might reasonably have expected. The Court expected this defect to be supplied in the next letter. Touching the Rochester's despatch, the Council would see the Court's thoughts under the head of shipping. The letter by the Abingdon, in answer to the Court's letter by the Susanna, contained in it so much insolence as deserved no answer, nor was it fit to be taken notice of, but with the utmost indignation, and so that the demands of the Council might possibly be informed of in due time. The Court had never seen Boucher but once since he came to England, for he had left the ship at the Channel and had not come to London till months afterwards. However, in the course of the present letter the Court might touch upon some particulars under one or other of the general heads following. First, concerning shipping sent out and returned. Since the Court's last letter it had pleased God that the following ships had safely returned, namely the London from Bombay, but last from Fort St George, pretending a necessity for putting into Galway on the twentieth of April last, arrived here on the sixth of June. The Abingdon from Bencoolen on the thirteenth of June. The Stretham Interpretations The Court's complaint that the new Council had taken only twenty three days to despatch its first homeward letter, with the Rochester lying at the island for that period, identified an early procedural lapse on the part of the new establishment. The standing complaint against the Boucher administration in the despatch of 5 March 1713 had been the opposite: too few letters, and those sent in haste at the moment of shipping departure with errors and omissions. The Court now identified a converse risk, that the new Council, despite the procedural discipline imposed on it, might also fall into hasty preparation by failing to make full use of the time available. The arrangement reveals the working balance the Court expected, with the time of a ship in the road treated as a working window for thorough preparation rather than a final deadline. The Court's framing of Boucher's reply by the Abingdon as so insolent as to deserve no answer identified the working judicial approach to correspondence that fell below the standard of legitimate dispute. The Court distinguished between substantive disagreement, which required substantive response, and insolent correspondence, which forfeited the right to reply by reason of its tone. The arrangement reveals the working evidentiary purpose of the silence. By refusing to engage with the substance of the Abingdon letter, the Court preserved its working position on the previous complaints intact, with Boucher's reply not joined in argument. The pattern parallels the litigation principle that a party who declines to traverse an allegation may be taken to admit it. Boucher's pattern of leaving the Abingdon at the Channel rather than coming up to London, with months passing before he presented himself, identified a particular avoidance strategy by the departing Governor. The standing arrangement under the despatch of 5 March 1713 had required Boucher to settle his account current at the island before departure, with proofs there to be had. The bond procedure had been designed for any unpaid balance, with payment due in London. By delaying his arrival at London, Boucher could postpone the working settlement procedures that would expose him to the Court's scrutiny. The arrangement reveals the working continuity of the Boucher administration's documentary obstruction, with the same pattern that had produced the missing Susanna letter and the unsettled accounts now extending to the personal presence required for the closing settlement. The London's claim of a necessity for putting into Galway, on the twentieth of April, on her homeward passage from Fort St George via Bombay, identified a working irregularity in the homeward voyage. Galway lay on the west coast of Ireland, off the principal route from St Helena to the Thames or the Downs. A diversion to Galway, especially one claimed as a necessity rather than acknowledged as a free choice, suggested either weather damage requiring local repair or the working operation of an at sea sale, in which homeward cargo was transferred to Irish merchants outside the Company's monopoly. The arrangement parallels the standing concern with private trade in homeward goods, addressed in the private letter to the Governor by the Surat Merchant of 14 March 1684, where commanders, officers and ships' companies were known to sell goods at sea to private vessels. Speculations The Court's particular phrasing about Boucher's reply, that it contained so much insolence as to deserve no answer, suggests that the Court had taken positive offence at the personal tone of the letter rather than merely the content. The earlier despatch of 5 March 1713 had described the Boucher correspondence as either evasive or carrying the mark or signs of a heated temper. The Abingdon reply, written after Boucher had received the despatch announcing his replacement, evidently raised the temperature further. By treating the insolence as deserving no answer, the Court drew a working line between administrative correspondence that could be debated and personal abuse that fell outside the working terms of administrative engagement. The arrangement preserves the Court's dignity by refusing the working ground on which Boucher had chosen to fight, while leaving the original substantive complaints unmet. The London's putting into Galway on the twentieth of April, with arrival at the Thames not until the sixth of June, indicates a six week delay attributed to the Galway diversion. A genuine necessity, such as storm damage requiring repair, would normally have been refitted within days at any well found port. Six weeks suggests either substantial structural damage or an extended stay in port for purposes other than repair. The arrangement matches the working pattern of at sea sales, where homeward ships made unscheduled landfalls on the Irish coast to transfer goods to local merchants before reaching the Thames, where the Customs and the Company's own scrutiny would have detected the unauthorised cargo. The Court's specific use of the word pretending in describing the necessity claim signals the Court's working scepticism of the master's explanation. | |
37 | Stretham from Fort S[t] George and Lichfield from Bombay the 16 July & the Marlborough from Fort S[t] George and Loyall Blife from China the 6[th] of August. The King Williams from the Bay the 5[th] of Sept[ember] and the Recovery from Fort S[t] George the 9[th] of that Month The Ships by us sent out and designed this year for all parts of the East Indies are as follows V[i]z[t] Tons The Kent 350 Cap[t] Laurence Minter for Bencoolen but first to touch at Madafs The Nathaniel 250 Cap[t] Jonathan Negus for Mocha The Dartmouth 450 Cap[t] Tho[mas] Allen for China & Madeafs The Derby 470 Cap[t] W[m] Fitzhugh for the Bay The Heathcote 430 Cap[t] Joseph Folson for the Coast & Bay The Mary 450 Cap[t] Rich[ard] Holden for the Coast & Bay The Stanhope 470 Cap[t] Wentworth Geo Fitz The Queen 300 Cap[t] John Marten for Bombay The Cardonell 300 Cap[t] William Mawson for S[t] Helena & Bencoolen The Kent Sailed out of the Downes the 5[th] of November the Nathaniel the 23 D[itto]. The Dartmouth the 30 December the three Coast and Bay Ships had their last Dispatches from us the 1[?] January and ever since have waited only for a fair Wind to put to Sea The Bombay Ships wee intend to Dispatch in March. This comes to you by the Cardonell enclos'd you will find her Invoice and Bill of Lading and therein an Acc[oun]t of what Goods [S]tores Margin Notes: Ships sent out Ships sent out | The Stretham came from Fort St George, and the Litchfield from Bombay on the sixteenth of July. The Marlborough came from Fort St George, and the Loyall Bliss from China on the sixth of August. The King William came from the Bay on the fifth of September, and the Recovery from Fort St George on the ninth of the same month. The ships sent out by the Court and designed this year for all parts of the East Indies were as follows. The Kent 350 tons Captain Laurence Minter for Bencoolen, but first to touch at Madras The Nathaniel 250 tons Captain Jonathan Negus for Mocha The Dartmouth 450 tons Captain Thomas Cleare for China and Madras The Derby 470 tons Captain William Fitzhugh for the Bay The Heathcote 430 tons Captain Joseph Folson [destination obscured] The Mary 450 tons Captain Richard Holden for the Coast and Bay The Stanhope 470 tons Captain Wentworth Gee [destination obscured] The Queen 300 tons Captain John Martin for Bombay The Cardonell 300 tons Captain William Mawson for St Helena and Bencoolen The Kent sailed out of the Downs on the fifth of November, the Nathaniel on the twenty third of the same month, and the Dartmouth on the thirtieth of December. The three Coast and Bay ships had their last despatches from the Court on the fourteenth of January, and ever since had waited only for a fair wind to put to sea. The Bombay ships the Court intended to despatch in March. The present letter came to the Council by the Cardonell. The Council would find enclosed her invoice and bill of lading, and an account of what goods Interpretations The schedule of homeward arrivals identified the working pattern of fleet returns from the eastern stations in 1714. Five homeward ships arrived between June and September from Bombay, Fort St George, the Bay, China and Bencoolen. The arrangement reveals the working geographic shape of the Company's trade as it touched St Helena, with the island serving as the last common point for shipping from every English presence east of the Cape. The pattern matched the earlier homeward fleet of 1713 described in the despatch of 5 March 1713, with comparable ship counts and the same network of stations. The continuity of the shipping pattern across the change of administration confirms that the operational rhythm of the eastern trade was independent of the particular Governor in charge at the island. The outward schedule identified the working capital deployment for the 1714 season. Nine ships were despatched, with tonnage from 250 to 470 and combined burthen exceeding 3,500 tons. The mix of destinations covered Bencoolen, Madras, Mocha, China, the Bay, the Coast and Bombay, with one ship (the Cardonell) designated for St Helena and onward to Bencoolen. The arrangement reveals the working strategic geography of the Company's eastern operations, with each principal station receiving its allocated shipping for the season. The largest ships were sent to the Bay and to China, where homeward cargoes of textiles and tea respectively carried the highest unit values. The smaller ships were sent to St Helena and Bombay, where the working stations required maintenance shipping rather than principal trading vessels. The Court's specific note that the three Coast and Bay ships had received their last despatches on the fourteenth of January and had since waited only for a fair wind identified the working constraint on the outward fleet. The Court could complete its London side preparation, but the actual departure depended on the working weather conditions in the Channel. The arrangement reveals the standing pattern of the late winter and early spring departure window for the outward voyage. Ships needed to be clear of the Channel by the equinox to make the working run south before the summer hurricane season. The Bombay ships, scheduled for March, allowed an additional six weeks for completion of their preparation while still falling within the standing seasonal window. The Cardonell identified herself as the working vessel for the present despatch, sailing for St Helena directly and continuing to Bencoolen. The arrangement reveals the standing role of the smaller Bencoolen ships as the working channel for inter station communication. The Court's correspondence to St Helena travelled outward on a Bencoolen ship, with the same ship carrying onward despatches for the Sumatra station. The pattern matched the earlier despatches by the Heddington and Heathcote under the previous correspondence cycle, with the smaller working vessels serving the documentary as well as the commercial purposes of the Company's chain. Speculations The Court's classification of the Cardonell at 300 tons, the same as the Queen despatched for Bombay, identifies a working differentiation between vessels of the same nominal burthen by reason of their destinations. The Queen carried a single principal cargo to Bombay, with the working voyage organised around the homeward freight of Indian goods. The Cardonell carried a primary cargo to St Helena, with a secondary onward consignment to Bencoolen. The arrangement reveals the working flexibility of the Company's smaller ships, capable of serving either as principal traders or as inter station carriers depending on the season's commercial requirements. The Court's despatch of the present letter by the Cardonell reflects this dual role, with the working administrative business of St Helena combined with the commercial business of Bencoolen on a single voyage. The Court's detailed citation of arrival and departure dates for both inward and outward shipping suggests that the Court treated the working chronology of the fleet as material intelligence for the Council. The Council needed to know precisely when each homeward ship had arrived so that it could trace the working chain of letters and despatches from St Helena to London. By providing arrival dates, the Court enabled the Council to verify that its own outgoing letters had reached London in the expected sequence, and to identify any working gap in the documentary chain. The arrangement parallels the standing redundancy principle of triple conveyance, with the Council's knowledge of London arrivals providing the working check that no homeward despatch had gone missing in the working passage from the island. | |
38 | Stores and other Necefsarys are on board her Wee have also put in the Pacckett her Charterparty to which after you have made use of for so far as concerns you do you send with the Ship to Bencoolen. Wee have ordered the Ship to touch at Madera outward bound and to take in twenty five Pipes of Wine for the Service of the Island being Sensible it is more wholsom than Arrack do you sell it with a Suitable Advance thereon to answer our Risco charge and a tollerable Profitt what you use for the Service of our table let it be done with frugality you may now depend upon it that all our Ships from the Coast and Bay will bring you their full one p[er] Cent in Arrack & Sugar and other necefsary provifion for the use of the Island wee this year write to them to diminish in the Arrack and increase in the quantitys of Rice Sugar &c. these are the Generall words so that you may make your Calculates accordingly wee hope our People at Bombay and Bencoolen will also send one p[er] Cent of the Tonnage they Dispatch in the like Comoditys for they have the same Orders as we formerly advised and as the Charterpartys Endorsment of the Cardonell (which is the same with all other our Ships) will show you and you may now depend on it that during the Peace all Ships homeward bound will be ordered to call in at S[t] Helena for Refreshments in their return for England The Cardonell is also to take in at the Maderas Fourteen Pipes more of Wine for Bencoolen and M[r] Joseph Hayward Merch[an]t Margin Notes: Send y[e] Cardonells Charterparty to Bencoolen 25 pipes of Madera Wine at 21 receivd[?] | Stores and other necessaries were on board her. The Court had also put in the packet her charter party, which, after the Council had made use of for so far as concerned the island, the Council was to send with the ship to Bencoolen. The Court had ordered the ship to touch at Madeira outward bound, and to take in twenty five pipes of wine for the service of the island. The Court was sensible it was more wholesome than arrack. The Council was to sell it with a suitable advance thereon to answer the Court's risk, charges and a tolerable profit. What the Council used for the service of the table was to be done with frugality. The Council might now depend on it that all the Court's ships from the Coast and Bay would bring the island their full one per cent in arrack, sugar and other necessary provisions for the use of the island. This year the Court had written to them to diminish the arrack and increase the quantities of rice and sugar. But these were the general words, so that the Council might make its calculations accordingly. The Court hoped its people at Bombay and Bencoolen would also send one per cent of the tonnage they despatched in the like commodities, for they had the same orders as formerly advised. As the charter parties' endorsements of the Cardonell, which was the same with all other the Court's ships, would show, and the Council might now depend on it, that during the peace all ships homeward bound would be obliged to call in at St Helena for refreshments in their return for England. The Cardonell was also to take in at the Madeiras fifteen pipes more of wine for Bencoolen, and Mr Joseph Hayward, merchant Interpretations The twenty five pipes of Madeira wine identified the working substitution programme replacing arrack with a fermented beverage less harmful to the inhabitants. The earlier despatch of 5 March 1713 had set out the medical case at length, with the dry belly ache (lead colic) identified as the working consequence of distilled spirit consumption. The Court's choice of Madeira reflected the established trade route, with the Atlantic island serving as the natural outward stop for Company shipping rounding to the Cape. The wine was a fortified beverage of medium alcoholic strength, well suited to long sea voyages and to the moderate climate of St Helena, where it would keep without deterioration. The arrangement supplied the working alternative to arrack and to local potato distillation, both of which the Court had condemned as harmful in the previous despatch. A pipe was a wine cask of approximately one hundred and twenty six gallons, the standard unit for the Madeira trade. Twenty five pipes for St Helena, with a further fifteen pipes for Bencoolen, identified a working consignment of about 3,150 gallons for the island and 1,890 gallons for the eastern station. The pricing arrangement, with the Council instructed to sell the wine with a suitable advance to cover the Court's risk, charges and a tolerable profit, applied the same two tier retail logic established in the previous despatch. Wine sold to the inhabitants would generate revenue. Wine consumed at the Governor's table would be a working charge against the establishment. The standing one per cent levy on the tonnage of homeward shipping from the Coast and Bay, payable in arrack, sugar and other necessary provisions, identified the working tribute mechanism by which the island was provisioned from the Indian Ocean stations. Each ship calling at St Helena delivered one per cent of her working burthen in goods for the island's use. The arrangement converted the working passing trade through the island into a standing source of supply, with the cost spread across all homeward shipping rather than borne by a single dedicated supply vessel. The pattern parallels the annual provisioning from the Coast, the Bay and Surat traced through the consolidated record from the despatch of 20 February 1678 through the suspension by the despatch of 26 January 1684 and the resumption noted in the despatch of 23 January 1685. The Court's specific instruction to diminish the arrack and increase the rice and sugar in the one per cent levy identified the working policy adjustment in the supply mix. The arrangement applied the same anti arrack policy at the procurement level that the wine substitution applied at the retail level. By reducing the supply of arrack from the Coast and Bay, the Court was tightening the working availability of distilled spirit on the island, while simultaneously increasing the supply of staple food (rice) and the working sweetening agent (sugar). The pattern reveals the integrated supply side and demand side strategy against the standing problem of intemperance identified in the previous despatch. Speculations The Court's announcement that during the peace all ships homeward bound would be obliged to call in at St Helena for refreshments identified a particular policy change tied to the working diplomatic situation. The Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 had ended the War of the Spanish Succession, removing the working military threat that had previously made calling at St Helena a matter of voluntary choice. With peace established, the Court could now make the call mandatory, since the working risk of capture during the diversion was substantially reduced. The arrangement reveals the working economic logic of the new compulsion. With more ships calling, the one per cent levy generated more goods for the island; the anchorage duties generated more revenue; and the island was confirmed in its working role as the principal mid Atlantic refit station for the eastern trade. The Court's reservation that the increased rice and sugar were general words against which the Council should make its calculations, rather than specific quantities, suggests that the Court was leaving working flexibility to the Indian Ocean stations in allocating their one per cent levy. The Coast and Bay councils knew the local prices and availability of arrack, rice and sugar from their own working markets, and could adjust the mix accordingly. The arrangement reveals the working balance between London direction (the broad policy of reducing arrack and increasing rice and sugar) and operational discretion (the precise quantities to be loaded on each ship). The pattern parallels the standing approach to inter station administration, where general orders set the working policy and the stations implemented them through their local knowledge. | |
39 | Merch[an]t there has Orders to Lade both Stells on board and Consigne them accordingly but if the Ship should not be able to take in the whole Forty Pipes he is then to Ship what he can and Consigne it to both places in proportion if you should understand that the whole Quantity is not Laden take care to send a proper person on board the Ship to Search wether the Ship is fully Laden or could take in more or wether the Captain has not encroached on our Tonnage & Laden Wine on his own Account and in either case give us a particular Account by the first opportunity. We hope Cap[t] Mansone will bring you some Vine Plants we having Wrote to do so to do and to M[r] Hayward to procure them for him and to give him directions how to preserve them in the Voyage. We are sorry to find that not withstanding our earnest recommendations to you to hasten away the Rochester she should remaine with you twenty one days for we find by your Letter she Arived the 8[th] and was not Dispatcht till the 29 July you say you in need you Asisted the Cap[t] with your Launch & Longboat for her quicker and easier unlad =ing but their having been some few days a great swell was the reason she was not Dispatcht sooner wee believe had you well considered the 4[th] Parr[r] of our Instructions to you and which you carried with you you would (for we are sure you should) have done Margin Notes: Vine Plants him. Reprimand for not protesting ag[ains]t y[e] Rod[r] Stay[?] | Mr Joseph Hayward, merchant, had orders to lade both stalls on board and consign them accordingly. But if the ship should not be able to take in the whole forty pipes, he was to ship what he could and consign it to both places in proportion. If the Council should understand that the whole quantity was not laden, the Council was to take care to send a proper person on board the ship to search whether the ship was fully laden, or could have taken in more, and whether the Captain had not encroached on the Court's tonnage and laden wine on his own account. In either case the Council was to give the Court a particular account by the first opportunity. The Court hoped Captain Mawson would bring the Council some vine plants. The Court, having written to do so, had also written to Mr Hayward to procure them for him, and to give him directions how to preserve them on the voyage. The Court was sorry to find that, notwithstanding its earnest recommendations to the Council to hasten away the Rochester, she had remained with the Council twenty one days. The Court found by the Council's letter she had arrived on the eighth and was not despatched till the twenty ninth of July. The Council said it had assisted the Captain with its launch and longboat for her quicker and easier unlading, but that owing to some few days of a great swell, she was not despatched sooner. The Court believed that, had the Council well considered the fourth paragraph of the Court's instructions which the Council had carried with it, the Council would, since the Court was sure it should have done Interpretations The forty pipes of Madeira wine combined the twenty five pipes for St Helena and the fifteen pipes for Bencoolen, with Joseph Hayward as the Madeira merchant responsible for loading both consignments. The arrangement reveals the working role of the resident merchant at the intermediate port, with Hayward acting as the Company's local agent for the Madeira leg of the voyage. The instruction that he ship in proportion if the full quantity could not be loaded preserved the relative allocation between St Helena and Bencoolen, with neither station favoured over the other in the case of a working shortfall. The Council's instruction to send a proper person on board the Cardonell to search whether the captain had encroached on the Court's tonnage with wine laden on his own account identified the working anti private trade discipline applied at the point of receipt. The captain held the formal authority to determine the lading of his ship, with the working opportunity to substitute his own goods for the Company's cargo if the Council did not check. The arrangement reveals the standing concern with at sea private trade, traceable through the private letter to the Governor by the Surat Merchant of 14 March 1684, where commanders, officers and ships' companies had been known to sell goods at sea to private vessels. The working check at St Helena, where the ship was opened for unlading, supplied the operational moment at which any unauthorised cargo could be detected. The vine plants identified the working extension of the Madeira wine programme to local production on the island. The Court had recommended the improvement of the vines at St Helena in the previous despatch, with the aim of producing local wine more wholesome than arrack. By arranging for Madeira vine cuttings to be brought on the same ship that carried the wine, the Court was supplying the working planting material for the local programme alongside the imported product. The arrangement reveals the working dual strategy of immediate supply (wine in pipes) and long term substitution (vine plants for local cultivation), with both tracks operating in parallel. The Council's twenty one day delay in despatching the Rochester identified the first major procedural complaint against the new administration. The Court's instructions of 5 March 1713 had been emphatic that the ship be unloaded and despatched with the utmost speed, with the demurrage clause in the charter party applying after five working days. The Council's explanation, that some few days of a great swell had prevented the boats from working between ship and shore, paralleled the protest mechanism the Court had warned against in the previous despatch. The arrangement reveals the working continuity of the same operational problem under the new administration, with the same explanation offered as had been offered by Captain Lesley in respect of the Thistleworth and recorded in the previous correspondence. Speculations The Court's specific reference to its fourth paragraph of instructions, which the Council had carried with it on the outward voyage, suggests that the Court had anticipated precisely this excuse and had included pre emptive guidance in the despatch. By citing the paragraph number from a document the Council had read and presumably understood, the Court was building the working evidentiary case that the delay had been avoidable. The arrangement parallels the working forensic method applied to the Boucher administration in the despatch of 5 March 1713, where each unanswered order had been traced to its originating despatch and to its paragraph number. The same documentary discipline was now being applied to the new Council, with the cited paragraph operating as the working benchmark against which the Council's conduct was measured. The Court's note that Captain Mawson would bring vine plants from Madeira, with both the Court and Hayward jointly responsible for ensuring their preservation on the voyage, indicates that the Court treated the vine programme as a working botanical experiment requiring specialised handling. Vine cuttings deteriorated rapidly in the salt air and confined conditions of a sea voyage, with the working survival rate depending on careful packing in damp moss or earth and protection from extremes of temperature. The arrangement reveals the working extension of horticultural exchange across the Company's network, with Madeira supplying vine material to St Helena in the same way that Surat had supplied Carmanian goats under the despatch of 30 January 1678, and Bantam had supplied plants and seeds by 1675. The pattern reveals the maturation of the inter station botanical traffic from incidental exchange to systematic procurement. | |
40 | done otherwise look over it and you will see wee Directed you how to mannage in case any boat were half a Day or more without being able to come to the Brane[?] as was the case of Cap[t] Lesley and what Notice to take of such Casuall delays that we might not bear all the Charge the same reason holds if the Captain had not boats Sufficient which seems to be the Case of the Rochester for you say you afsisted him with yours and the Launch you should in any or all these or other causes of delay have made a protest as (for his not unlading in ten working days) that paragraph Directed and then in his Answer he would have given the reason why he did not if he gave the whole the case had been Stated by his own Shewing if he failed in any particular which would have been for our advantage to have Shown you should by a reply have sett that in a true light and you so have done as you ought and answered our intention and orders before mentiond whereas by what appears to us at present wee have nothing to object to the Owners Demand of Seven days Demorage for you don't so much as p[ar]ticul =arize how many and which Days or part of Days the great swell hindered consider further the Abingdon was unladden in twelve working days and she was Fifty Tons bigger than this so that you have not done what wee can see done so well for us in this Instance as y[ou]r Predecefsors. tho you have more afsistance in the Council then there was at that time and the Susannah was | The Council should have done otherwise. On looking the instructions over, the Council would see the Court had directed it how to manage in case any boat were half a day or more without being able to come to the crane, as had been the case with Captain Lesley, and what notice to take of such casual delays, so that the Court might not bear the whole charge. The same reason held if the Captain had not boats sufficient, which seems to have been the case of the Rochester. The Council said it had assisted him with its own boats and the launch. The Council should, in any or all these or other causes of delay, have made a protest, as that paragraph directed, for the ship's not unlading within ten working days. Then, in his answer, the Captain would have given the reason why the ship had not been unladed. If he gave the whole, the case would have been stated by his own showing. If he failed in any particular, it would have been to the Court's advantage to have shown by reply that the Council had done as it ought, and had answered the Court's intention and orders before mentioned. By what appeared to the Court at present, it had nothing to object to the Owners' demand of seven days demurrage. The Council had not so much as particularised how many of the days, or which, or part of days, the great swell had hindered. To consider the matter further, the Abingdon had been unladed in twelve working days, and she was fifty tons bigger than the Rochester. The Court could not see anything done so well by the present Council as by its predecessors, even though it had more assistance in the Council than there had been at that time. The Susanna was Interpretations The protest procedure identified the working defensive document the Court had required the Council to execute in any case of delay beyond the standing ten working day allowance. The standing arrangement, set out in the previous despatch, treated the protest as the Council's working pre emptive response to a captain's claim for demurrage. Once the Council protested at the captain's failure to unlade within the working time, the captain had to answer particular by particular, with the working burden of proof shifted to him. The Council's omission of any protest, in the case of the Rochester, left the Owners' demurrage claim unanswered on the working record, and consequently liable to be allowed by the Court in London by default. The seven days demurrage claim by the Owners identified the working financial exposure of the Council's procedural failure. Seven days at the demurrage rate fixed in the charter party would have produced a calculable sum payable by the Company to the Owners, with the Court bearing the cost of the Council's omission. The arrangement reveals the working operation of the demurrage clause as a transfer of liability, with the Company paying for any working delay caused by the Council's failure to despatch the ship within the ten day allowance. The Council's bare assertion that some few days of a great swell had hindered the boats, unsupported by particular dates and durations, did not amount to the working evidentiary defence required to defeat the claim. The Court's comparison with the Abingdon, unladed in twelve working days and fifty tons bigger than the Rochester, identified the working benchmark against which the Rochester's twenty one day delay was measured. The arrangement reveals the Court's working method of testing operational performance against comparable cases. A larger ship had been unladed in less time under the previous administration. The present Council had taken nearly twice as long with a smaller ship. The standing comparison defeated the Council's working explanation by reference to specific weather conditions or to particular operational difficulties, since the conditions and difficulties had been comparable in the prior case. The Court's note that the present Council had more assistance in the Council than its predecessors identified the working personnel comparison underlying the operational complaint. The Boucher administration had been characterised by the exclusion of Bazett from the stores and from the accounts, leaving the working operational burden on fewer functioning members. The new establishment of 5 March 1713 had a full five member Council with distinct portfolios, plus the Writer Edward [...], all working in concert. The Court's complaint that more hands had produced worse results than fewer hands reveals the working disappointment with the early performance of the new establishment, with the procedural discipline imposed in London not yet translating into operational efficiency on the island. Speculations The Court's express statement that it had nothing to object to the Owners' seven days demurrage demand, in the absence of any working particularisation by the Council, suggests that the Court was preparing to settle the claim and charge the cost against the Council. The arrangement reveals the working financial consequence of the Council's procedural failure. By failing to protest with particulars, the Council had created a working presumption in favour of the Owners that the Court could no longer rebut in London. The standing pattern parallels the working evidentiary discipline applied throughout the Court's correspondence, with silence or vagueness treated as concession on the point at issue. The Court's specific comparison with the Abingdon's twelve working day discharge, despite her larger tonnage, indicates that the Court had researched the comparable case before composing the present rebuke. The arrangement parallels the working forensic method applied to the Boucher administration in the previous despatch, where each unanswered order had been traced to its originating paragraph and ship. The same documentary discipline was being applied to the new Council, with comparable performance benchmarks drawn from the working historical record to test the present claim of operational difficulty. The pattern reveals the Court's working refusal to accept any local explanation that could not be reconciled with comparable cases from the same establishment. | |
41 | was Dispatched by them in the ten days time yet she was but fifty Tons lefs than this We are the Longer upon this Subject because it was one of the first Charges we gave you and Ordered you to lay aside any other businefs that might interferr therewith wee hope this Stumbleing at the threshold is not an ill omen and that your future Actions will give us a better Specimen of y[ou]r endeavours inclination and Ability for our Service. The Advices about our Ships importing with or exporting from you and when the news of Ships at the Cape outward or home =ward bound or of their being at or Departure from or for any Ports in the East Indies must be continued in all times comeing as formerly Directed This often necefsary but allways usefull to us to have these Accounts finding something of failure in you already of observeing our orders as before mentiond we recite this matter here again but at the same time must add that we expect all our Orders directions Cautions and prohibitions heretofore or now or henceforwards sent or to be sent you, be Esteemed as so many Standing Rules for all time and therefore you must have the same regard unto them as if exprefs anew in every p[ar]ticular Letter untill they be repeald or alterd by us or our Succefsors in which case the last orders only are to be for so far binding do you look upon this as a generall direction for the Present and future and tho mentiond here under the head of Shipping yet to run thro all other branches of our affairs under y[ou]r care and Margin Notes: Allwayes to Send Advert[?] of Ships | The Susanna had been despatched by the previous Council in the ten day time, yet she was only fifty tons less than the Rochester. The Court dwelt longer upon this subject because it was one of the first charges given to the Council, with directions to lay aside any other business that might interfere with it. The Court hoped that this stumbling at the threshold was not an ill omen, and that the Council's future actions would give a better specimen of its endeavour, inclination and ability for the Court's service. The advice about the Court's ships, importing with or exporting from the Council, and when, the news of ships at the Cape outward or homeward bound, or of their being above departure from or for any ports in the East Indies, was to be continued in all times coming as formerly directed. The Court had this often necessary, but always useful information. Finding something of failure in the Council already in observing the Court's orders as before mentioned, the Court recited the matter here again. The Court at the same time expected that all its orders, directions, cautions and prohibitions, sent before, now, or hereafter, were to be treated as so many standing rules for all time. The Council was to have the same regard to them as if they were expressed afresh in every particular letter, until they were repealed or altered by the Court or its successors. In which case the last orders only were to be considered binding. The Council was to look upon this as a general direction for the present and future. Although mentioned here under the head of shipping, the principle was to run through all other branches of the Court's affairs under the Council's care. Interpretations The Court's reference to the Susanna's despatch within the ten day allowance, despite her tonnage being only fifty tons less than the Rochester, completed the working comparative case against the new Council. The earlier despatch had already invoked the Abingdon's twelve working day discharge as one benchmark. The present reference to the Susanna supplied a second benchmark from the previous administration. Two prior comparable cases, both producing better performance than the new Council had managed, defeated any working defence the Council might construct from local conditions. The arrangement reveals the working depth of the Court's documentary research, with multiple comparators selected from across the historical record to test the operational claim. The Court's characterisation of the Rochester delay as a stumbling at the threshold identified the working symbolic weight the Court attached to the new Council's first act. The threshold was the working entry point of the new administration into operational responsibility on the island. The Council's failure on the first task, with the Rochester delay producing the seven days demurrage liability, created an early documentary record that would weigh against the Council in any subsequent assessment. The arrangement reveals the working pattern of cumulative judgement applied to a Council's tenure, with the early acts establishing the working presumption against which later acts were measured. The doctrine of standing rules identified the working constitutional principle of the Court's administration. Every order, direction, caution and prohibition issued by the Court remained in force until expressly repealed or altered. The arrangement built up a cumulative working code over time, with each new despatch adding to the body of standing rules rather than replacing what had gone before. The pattern parallels the previous despatch's reference to the doctrine that prior orders remained in force unless expressly repealed or altered. The present despatch extends the same principle with the working clarification that the rules applied across every branch of the Council's responsibility, not merely within the head under which they had originally been given. The Court's specific note that the last orders only were to be considered binding in the case of repeal or alteration identified the working temporal hierarchy among the standing rules. Where a later despatch modified an earlier rule, the later despatch governed. The arrangement reveals the working mechanism by which the cumulative body of standing rules remained operationally coherent over decades, with apparent contradictions resolved by reference to the most recent issuance. The pattern parallels the standard legal principle that the later in time prevails, applied to administrative orders rather than to statutes, with the Court of Directors serving as the working legislative authority for the island. Speculations The Court's deliberate placement of the standing rules doctrine under the head of shipping, while immediately extending its application to all other branches, suggests that the Court chose the shipping context as the working occasion for restating a general principle. The shipping head, having produced the immediate procedural failure with the Rochester, supplied the working illustrative case. By stating the doctrine in connection with a specific failure, the Court made the rule memorable through its association with the demurrage liability rather than treating it as an abstract proposition. The arrangement reveals the Court's working pedagogical method, with general principles attached to concrete failures so that the Council could not separate the principle from the cost of its breach. The Court's express invocation of itself or its successors as the only authority competent to repeal or alter the standing rules identified the working chain of authority for the island's administration. The standing principle excluded the Council from any working power of self regulation in respect of rules issued from London. The arrangement reveals the working constitutional position of the Council as the executive instrument of the Court rather than as a legislative body in its own right. The pattern parallels the standing structure traceable through the founding instructions of 19 December 1673, where the Court of Committees and the General Court in London had held the working power to make laws under the common seal, with the island Council acting under their direction rather than independently. | |
42 | and Mannagement. Secondly Concerning Goods or Stores sent from England or received from India What this Ship brings you the Invoice and Bill of Lading will inform you wee have ordered three boats to be taken in at Deal which our Comittee of Shipping took upon to be better for the Sea than what are generally made here Perhaps the Account of them may not come time enough to be mentiond in the Invoice and therefore we here give you the Notice that you may demand them of the Captain we have also sent you timber for a Crane a quantity of Deals and a Large Supply of Fishing tackle it remains incumbent on you to take care what ever you receive from hence or India be well look[t] after nothing suffered to be embezeled or Spoild but a true account kept of all that whatever is sent for the use of the Inhabitants be sold out according to the usuall Method And tho ours and no bad Debts made we fear there are some very Dubious occasioned by the late, ill administracion whatever shall be used for our imediate Service take care it be husband =ed to the best Advantage if in buildings or such like dead Stock if for the use of the Table that there be frugality in the Expences at all times and as you would or should do were you to bear the Charge thereof Do but peruse the Expence for some few years p[a]st and you must be convinced how great the Charge has been out of our Pockets wee Generally have Speaking sent every year a Ship with a Margin Notes: Acco[un]t of Goods by Cardonell | The principle was to run through all branches of the Court's affairs under the Council's care and management. Secondly, concerning goods or stores sent from England or received from India. The invoice and bill of lading would inform the Council what the present ship brought. The Court had ordered three boats to be taken in at Deal, which the Court's Committee of Shipping considered better made for the sea than those generally made on the island. The account of these boats might perhaps not arrive in time to be mentioned in the invoice. The Court therefore gave notice of them now, so that the Council might demand them from the Captain on arrival. The Court had also sent timber for a crane, a quantity of deals, and a large supply of fishing tackle. It remained incumbent on the Council to take care that whatever it received from London or from India was well looked after. Nothing was to be suffered to be embezzled or spoilt. A true account was to be kept of everything received. Whatever was sent for the use of the inhabitants was to be sold out according to the usual method and advance, with no bad debts incurred. The Court feared some of the present debts were very dubious, owing to the late ill administration. Whatever was used for the Court's own service was to be applied to the best advantage. If used in buildings, or in any other form of dead stock, the working principle was to make the most of it. If used for the table, the Council was to practise frugality in the expense, treating each occasion as if the cost fell on its own pocket. The Council was to look over the expense for the past few years, and it would see how great a charge had come out of the Court's pocket. The Court had generally sent a ship every year with Interpretations The three boats taken in at Deal identified a working procurement decision based on quality. The Court's Committee of Shipping had concluded that boats built on the English coast were better suited to the working conditions of the open sea than those constructed at St Helena. The arrangement reveals the working specialisation of shipbuilding by location, with the Kent yards supplying a class of vessel that the island's working capacity could not match. The pattern parallels the standing supply of naval stores from London (pitch, tar, canvas, twine) traced through the despatch of 5 March 1713, where the same logic applied: certain working materials and equipment were better produced at the source and shipped out, even at the cost of freight, than fabricated locally with inferior results. The reference to bad debts owing to the late ill administration identified the standing financial consequence of the Boucher era credit failures. The despatch of 5 March 1713 had described how stores under the previous Council had been delivered out blindfold, without considering who ought or ought not to be further trusted, with soldiers running into debts of ten to twenty and thirty pounds a man, and great sums drawn on the Court at London. The present reference confirms that the working consequence of those credit decisions had survived the change of administration, with a portion of the receivables now in working doubt and likely to be written off. The arrangement reveals the working time horizon of bad credit, with consequences extending well beyond the term of the administration that created them. The distinction between dead stock used in buildings and consumable expenditure at the table identified the working accounting categories applied to the Court's outward supply. Dead stock was capital expenditure: timber, deals, ironwork, lime, glass and other materials incorporated into permanent structures with a working life of years or decades. Table expenditure was consumable: food, drink, candles, fuel and the other working supplies of daily living. The two categories required different working management. Dead stock had to be applied to maximum permanent benefit, with the Council making the most of each capital item. Consumable expenditure had to be controlled by frugality, with each occasion treated as if the cost fell on the Council's own pocket. The arrangement parallels the modern accounting distinction between fixed assets and operating expenses. The injunction that the Council treat the table expense as if the cost fell on its own pocket identified the working psychological mechanism the Court invoked against the previous administration's profusion at table. The Court's complaint in the despatch of 5 March 1713 had described how Boucher had kept a magnificent table for Captains, supercargoes and others, with Company servants and sometimes the Chaplain excluded, and had killed many of the calves because the beef was not delicate enough. By directing the new Council to apply a personal frugality test to each item of consumption, the Court was creating a working internal discipline against the same abuse, with each Council member required to imagine the bill being presented to him personally before approving the expense. Speculations The Court's specific mention that the account of the three Deal boats might not arrive in time to be entered in the invoice, with the consequent advice that the Council demand them from the Captain on arrival, suggests that the Court anticipated the working possibility that the Captain might not deliver items unrecorded in the invoice. The standing risk in inter station shipping was that goods not on the formal invoice might be diverted to the Captain's own account, with the working evidence of their existence on board destroyed once the ship had unladed. By alerting the Council in advance, the Court armed the Council with the working knowledge required to insist on delivery. The arrangement parallels the working anti private trade discipline addressed earlier in respect of the wine consignment, with the same Captain's incentive to substitute personal goods for Company cargo identified across multiple commodity lines. The Court's reference to looking over the expense for some few years past, with the implicit promise that the Council would be convinced of the working scale of the loss, indicates that the Court had prepared a quantified review of the previous administration's outlay for use as the working benchmark. The earlier despatch of 5 March 1713 had cited the figure of nearly two thousand seven hundred pounds drawn on London by bills, without any account of how the money had been laid out. The present invitation to look over the expense suggests that further working figures had since been compiled, with the cumulative cost of the Boucher administration ready to be presented to the Council as the working measure against which its own performance would be judged. The pattern reveals the standing financial pressure under which the new Council operated, with the previous administration's losses framing the working accountability of the present one. | |
43 | a good Cargo of necefsarys of all Sorts for sale we have ordered our Ships to bring Supplys from the East Indies great Sums have been drawn on us from time to time not a Ship without advice of some Bills the Revenues of the Island including the lands lea[s]'d out makes or should make a good Sum of Mony Yearly consider now what we have for all this only a place of refreshment for our Ships for the benefit of the Mariners on board no particular advantage to the Company besides wherefore we hope you will conclude all is it as that you ought to take a constant particular care to lefsen this great Charge to us as much as possible and to that end to watch every Article of Expence to put a Stop to whatever is Superfluous to cutt off what is not necefsary and to exercise a becomeing frugality in whatever is unavoidable. Wee understand that Cap[t] Lesly delivered Ten baulks Short of the number by us sent on the Abingdon that when the Ship came back to S[t] Helena those baulks were seen on board and enquiry being made whose they were the boatswain owned they were the Companys and Short delivered outward bound that those baulks were after Sold to the Planters and that there is reason to fear some of our Deals went the same way finding no Account of this in the Generall Letter we enquired for the Bills of Lading to see if there was any exceptions therein the present Captain says he cant find the Bill of Lading and made of the charges of Margin Notes: To Exercis[e] Frugality And of Goods Short Delivered in the Abingdon | The Court had directed its ships to bring a good cargo of necessaries of all sorts for sale, with supplies also ordered from the East Indies. Great sums had been drawn upon the Court from time to time, with scarcely a ship arriving without advice of further bills. The revenues of the island, including the lands leased out, ought to yield a good annual sum. The island remained only a place of refreshment for the Court's ships and for the benefit of the mariners on board, with no particular advantage accruing to the Company beyond that. The Council was therefore directed to take constant and particular care to reduce this heavy charge as far as possible. Every article of expense was to be watched. Whatever was superfluous was to be stopped, whatever was unnecessary was to be cut off, and a becoming frugality was to be observed in whatever could not be avoided. The Court understood that Captain Lesly had delivered ten baulks short of the number sent on the Abingdon when that ship returned to St Helena. The baulks had been seen on board. On enquiry being made of their whereabouts, the boatswain had owned that they were the Company's and had been short delivered outward bound, with those baulks afterwards sold to the planters. There was reason to fear that some of the Court's deals had gone the same way, since no account of these could be found. The General Ledger was consulted to see whether there were any exceptions in the bills of lading. The present captain stated that he could not find the bill of lading, and had at the charge Interpretations The reference to the island as no more than a place of refreshment for the Company's ships defines the institutional purpose of St Helena in the Court's accounting framework. The lands leased out are identified as one of the two principal revenue streams alongside anchorage duties, both reaffirmed under the despatch of 4 February 1714 when the call at the island was made compulsory in the charter party endorsements of all homeward shipping during peacetime. The instruction to lessen the charge by frugality reflects the long-standing self-sufficiency policy traced through the despatches of 20 May 1683 and 1 August 1683, where the £40,000 0s 0d cost of the island without a penny of profit was cited as the principal grievance. A baulk in this context was a large squared timber, typically of Baltic fir, supplied as construction material. Earlier consignments had included 20 large fir baulks valued at £25 0s 0d on the Johanna in 1678, and 240 dram balks among the substantial Baltic timber on the Society in March 1680. Deals were sawn softwood planks of standard dimensions, also drawn from the Baltic trade, supplied in large quantities including 1,200 yellow dram deals on the Johanna in 1678 and 720 dram deals on the Society in 1680. Both were principal materials for the construction programme on the island. The incident of the ten missing baulks reveals a pattern of theft and resale by ship's officers, with the boatswain of the Abingdon admitting that the timbers had been short delivered outward and afterwards sold to the planters. The placement of the bill of lading as the documentary check fits the procedural discipline imposed under the despatch of 5 March 1713, where consultation entries, monthly accounts and signed warrants were required to defeat exactly this class of malpractice. The General Ledger was the central financial record against which the bills of lading were tested. The naming of Captain Lesly, in command of the Abingdon on the relevant voyage, anchors the complaint to a specific commander. The Abingdon's twelve-day discharge at St Helena had been cited in the despatch of 4 February 1714 as the benchmark against which the Rochester's twenty-one day delay was measured, placing the ship at the centre of two distinct categories of procedural complaint within the same correspondence cycle. Speculations The boatswain's open admission that the baulks were the Company's and had been short delivered outward suggests that the fraud was structured to operate through the gap between the outward bill of lading at London and the inward survey at St Helena, with the missing items disposed of in the local market where the planters were the buyers of construction timber. The Court's inability to find the bill of lading at the receiving end fits this pattern, since the destruction or non-production of the documentary record was the necessary cover for the theft. The Court's direction to enquire whether the deals had gone the same way reflects an inference rather than fresh evidence, drawn from the parallel character of baulks and deals as bulk Baltic timber consignments. The Court probably reasoned that a boatswain prepared to short-deliver baulks for sale to the planters would have done the same with deals on the same voyage, with the absence of any account of the deals at the receiving end treated as corroborating circumstance rather than as proof of a second theft. | |
44 | of it outward bound which he thinks is excuse Sufficient for him the owners to be sure will be ready enough to conclude all was delivered right if we have nothing in particular to charge them with and by this means we were in a fair way to lose the goods Short delivered had it not been for the aforesaid casuall information we mention this to show you what care ought to be taken and to prevent a Second Instance of such carelefsnefs or rather infidelity for if the then Council did not examine the particulars received a Shore by the Bill of Lading and Invoice but took all on trust they were unfaithfull to us if they did and made no mention of what wanting that we might have Justice done us by the Owners or had not caused the Captain to make Satisfaction it was as bad if they did indorse on the Bill of Lading what wanting and did not give us notice also in the Generall Letter or a paper in the Pacckett it was great carelefsnefs that in such cases of Papers in the Pacckets there should be a reference thereto mentioned in the Generall Letter to mind the Secretary or rather the Govern[ou]r and Councill that they and he may not omitt whatever therein contained for we think it is proper that the Governour or some one of the Councill should always examine the List of the Pacckets to see if all papers therein sent are therein mentiond and also to see that the [?] papers | The captain treated the loss of the bill of lading outward bound as sufficient excuse for himself. The owners, predictably, would readily conclude that all had been delivered correctly if the Court had nothing particular to charge against them. By this route the Court was in a fair way to lose the goods short delivered, had it not been for the chance information already mentioned. The point was raised to show what care ought to be taken, and to prevent a second instance of such carelessness, or rather of such infidelity. If the then Council did not examine the particulars received ashore against the bill of lading and the invoice, but took everything on trust, they were unfaithful to the Court. If they did examine the goods and made no mention of what was wanting, the Court might have obtained justice from the owners, or made the captain give satisfaction. The omission was as bad as if the Council had endorsed the bill of lading with what was short and then given no notice of the matter in the General Letter or in a paper enclosed in the packet. Such carelessness over papers in the packets was a serious failing. In every such case there should be a reference in the General Letter directing the attention of the Secretary, or rather of the Governor and Council, to the enclosed paper, so that no part of its contents might be overlooked. The Court considered it proper that the Governor, or one of the Council, should always examine the list of papers in the packets to see whether all the papers reported as sent were Interpretations The packet was the standard administrative unit for the transmission of correspondence between London and the island, comprising the General Letter, particular enclosures, accounts, invoices and other instruments collected under a covering list. The procedure described in this passage formalises a check that already operated in principle, with the list of papers serving as the working index against which the contents were to be verified on arrival. The Court's direction that the Governor, or one of the Council members, was always to perform the check personally locates documentary discipline within the senior establishment rather than with the Secretary or Clerk, in line with the procedural reforms of the despatch of 5 March 1713 that required the consultation book to be signed by every member present. The choice between unfaithful conduct and innocent carelessness frames the Council's potential liability for the missing baulks in legal terms. The Court set out the alternative findings: that the previous Council had failed to examine the goods against the documentary record, or that it had examined them and concealed the shortfall. The first construction made the Council unfaithful in the sense of breach of trust. The second left open recovery against the owners or the captain only if the shortfall had been entered on the bill of lading and reported home. The framing matches the standing rules doctrine under which every order and direction operated as a continuing rule until expressly repealed. The reference to obtaining justice from the owners or causing the captain to make satisfaction identifies the two recovery routes available to the Court under the charter party. The owners stood liable for goods entrusted to the ship under the bill of lading, while the captain stood liable personally for short delivery against his own signature. The Court's complaint reveals that both routes had been closed off in this instance by the captain's plea that the outward bill of lading could not be found, leaving the boatswain's admission as the only surviving evidence. The instruction that a reference be made in the General Letter to every paper in the packet establishes a documentary cross-check between the covering correspondence and its enclosures. The arrangement extends the procedural discipline reaffirmed under the despatch of 4 February 1714, which proposed the extract book as a thematic operational manual reorganising the General Letters by subject. The cross-reference rule operated as a safeguard against the selective removal of enclosures of the kind attributed to Boucher in respect of the Susanna letter of 20 March 1712. Speculations The Court's careful separation of the two unfavourable findings against the previous Council suggests that the present complaint was drafted with one eye on a future disciplinary proceeding. By setting out the alternative constructions in the General Letter itself, the Court preserved the option of pursuing either route against the responsible Council members without having to commit at this stage to a finding on which had occurred. The procedural insistence on the Governor's personal check of the packet list operated to deny that defence to any future Council, since the omission of a contents check would in itself become evidence of breach. The repeated emphasis on the list of papers as the controlling document suggests that the loss of the Susanna letter under the Boucher administration, documented in the despatch of 4 February 1714, was the working precedent driving the present reform. The Court's reconstruction of that despatch from its London copy had revealed the vulnerability of the island archive to selective removal, and the present rule converted the covering list from a clerical convenience into the principal procedural safeguard against repetition of that pattern. | |
45 | The papers reported as sent were to be actually sent accordingly. The Court had received that year by the Abingdon a large account drawn out by Mr Bazett. The account covered the inventory delivered over by Mr Mashborne, Storekeeper, to Mr Cock, together with copies of the invoices of goods since received from the island, from Bencoolen or from India, or bought at the island. Against some articles was written not received. An outward column also recorded the prices at which the particulars were, or were to be, sold out. The account was well drawn as to the main of it, but no one had signed it. The omission was to be rectified in future. The sum total of the account was £13,621 0s 0d. The account had begun after Mr Pyke's arrival on 5 August 1711 and reached only to March 1714. The bills since drawn upon the Court from St Helena, beginning with those of 1 December 1711, amounted to £8,950 0s 0d and upwards, besides £1,802 0s 0d drawn the July before. In less than three years the island had received from London or the East Indies, and by bills drawn payable in London, above £26,350 0s 0d, besides the profits on the sale of the goods, which must be very considerable. The Court found mentioned in Mr Bazett's account two sums for goods bought out of the ships amounting to near £1,760 0s 0d. The Court supposed that bills had been drawn for these sums, and if so they were to be deducted from the £26,350 0s 0d. The remains of goods in the stores, and Interpretations The handover account from Mr Mashborne to Mr Cock represents the formal transfer of the Storekeeper's office under the new establishment imposed by the despatch of 5 March 1713. Mashborne had been the only continuity appointment from earlier service under that despatch, retained as Overseer of the Plantations on grounds of documented good character. The present account suggests that he had also held the stores in the interval before Cock's installation, with Bazett (the Storekeeper named in the despatch of 5 March 1713 at £50 0s 0d salary and £20 0s 0d gratuity) drawing out the consolidated account as part of his accountancy function. The not received column anchored the documentary check against the bills of lading and invoices in the manner discussed in the previous passage. The figure of £26,350 0s 0d covering less than three years from Pyke's arrival on 5 August 1711 to March 1714 measures the running cost of the island after the change of administration. Set against the £40,000 0s 0d cost of the island without a penny of profit cited in the despatch of 1 August 1683, the present figure indicates a comparable annual outlay on supplies alone, before any allowance for the salaries of the new establishment or the cost of the slave consignments framed as economic investment under the despatch of 5 March 1713. The Court's reference to the very considerable profits on the sale of the goods identifies the stores as the principal revenue-generating mechanism through which the cost was to be recovered. The bills drawn upon London totalling £8,950 0s 0d from December 1711 onwards, with a further £1,802 0s 0d drawn the previous July, exceeded by a wide margin the £100 0s 0d annual ceiling on bills of exchange imposed by earlier correspondence and the working £40 0s 0d salary cap traceable through Joshua Johnson's appointment of 20 May 1683. The present passage records the figure without separate complaint, in marked contrast with the £2,700 0s 0d drawn by Boucher without account that was the subject of specific direction for refund. The acceptance of the larger sum probably reflects the Court's acceptance of the bills as properly drawn for goods received, as distinct from the misappropriations attributed to Boucher. The unsigned account was a documentary failing of the kind that the procedural reforms of the despatch of 5 March 1713 were specifically intended to defeat. The consultation book signed by every member present, the monthly accounts from each member on his distinct charge and the weekly duplicates signed by the Council together formed an interlocking system in which every financial instrument carried a signature for verification. The omission of a signature on the consolidated handover account left the Court with no individual against whom the figures could be tested. Speculations The Court's careful arithmetic, separating the £1,760 0s 0d of goods bought out of the ships from the £26,350 0s 0d gross supply, suggests that the Court was preparing the figures for use in a future profit-and-loss reckoning rather than merely auditing the past. The deduction of bills already drawn for ship-purchased goods from the gross supply produces the net charge for which the island stood accountable, with the stores' takings to be set against that figure as the test of whether the establishment was paying its way. The phrasing very considerable for the profits on sales indicates that the Court expected the net position to be substantially better than the gross supply figure suggested. The unsigned state of the account, set against the procedural insistence elsewhere in the General Letter on signatures and contents checks, suggests that the new Council was still struggling to operate the documentary discipline imposed under the despatch of 5 March 1713. The account had been drawn by Bazett alone, the new Storekeeper named in that despatch, but had not been countersigned by the Governor or other Council members in the manner required for warrants and consultations. The lapse probably arose because the account was treated as a handover record between two storekeepers rather than as an act of the Council, leaving it outside the working signature regime then being established. | papers be actually sent us accordingly We have this year received by the Abingdon a large Account which appears to be drawn out by M[r] Bazett of the Inventory delivered over by M[r] Marsden Storekeeper to M[r] Cock and of the Coppys of the Invoices of goods since received from hence or India or bought at the Island wherein wee find against some Articles wrote not received there is also mentioned in an outward Column the prizes at which the particulars were or were to be Sold out at this Account as to the main of it is well done but no body Signs it which is an omifsion that must be hereafter rectifyed the Sum totall of the said Account is £13621. it begun after M[r] Cocks Arrivall the 5[th] of August 1711 and reaches but to March 1713/14. the Bills since drawn on us from S[t] Helena beginning with those drawn the 1[st] December 1711 amount to £8950. and upwards besides One Thousand Eight hundred & two Pounds drawn the July before so that in lefs than three Years the East Indies Island has had from hence or the East Indies and by bills drawn payable here above 26350. besides the Profits on the Sale of the said Goods which must be very consid =erable we find mentiond in M[r] Bazetts not find mentioned in M[r] Bazetts said account two Sums for goods bought out of the Ships amounting to near £760. which we suppose bills were drawn for and if so are to be abated out of the said £26350. as is also the remains of Goods in the Stores and what their Margin Notes: Acco[un]t of Great Charges of S[t] Hellena 26350£ Short[?] in 3 years | |
46 | their Value may be wee cant judge for want of y[ou]r books but fear it can't be considerable because of the Quantity sent by the Rochester and that only part of what desired and more are wrote for yearly by all this you may see how vast a Charge S[t] Helena has been to us and what reason we have for prefsing frugality and a nice inspection into every Article of disbursem[en]ts mentiond in the foregoing Parragraph and why we order the Account of remains to be Annually sent to us we hereby do by our Summer Shipping taken to the 25[th] of March before Touching the disposall of the Timber & other Stores for own Account wee shall take the proper Notice under the heads to which they do Particularly belong You Will on reciveing our former Letters and among others that sent by you see we have Ordered an Account to be entred in the Consultation book at what rate the Severall goods received at S[t] Helena from hence or from India should be Sold out and what rules are to be observed in Writing them this we Expect to be from time to time complyd with and the said Setled Prices when adjusted in Council entred accordingly for a Guidance to the Store keeper in disposing of them as well as for our information And then the said Account which M[r] Bazett sent may be Spared on Supposition the Consultations and Books of Accounts be annually sent us for wee don't Margin Notes: To Sett y[e] prices of all goods in Consultation & enter it in y[e] Books | The value of the remaining goods in the stores could not be judged for want of the Council's books. The Court feared the value could not be considerable, because of the quantity sent by the Rochester and because only part of what had been desired and more was written for yearly. From all this the Council might see how vast a charge St Helena had been to the Court, and what reason there was for pressing frugality and a nice inspection into every article of disbursement mentioned in the preceding paragraph. For the same reason the Court ordered the account of remains to be sent home annually by the summer shipping, taken to 25 March before. Article 21. Concerning the disposal of the timber and other stores for the Court's account, proper notice would be taken under the heads to which they particularly belonged. Article 22. On receiving the Court's former letters, and among them that sent by the Council, the Council would see that the Court had ordered an account to be entered in the consultation book of the rate at which the several goods received at St Helena from London or from India were to be sold out, with rules for observing this in writing. The Court expected this to be complied with from time to time. The settled prices, when adjusted in Council, were to be entered accordingly for the guidance of the Storekeeper in disposing of them, and for the Court's information. The account that Mr Bazett had sent might then be spared, provided the consultations and books of accounts were annually sent home. The Court did Interpretations The 25 March cut-off for the annual account of remains aligns the island's financial year with the legal year then current in England, where 25 March (Lady Day) marked the beginning of the new year before the calendar reform of 1752. The arrangement allowed the summer shipping from London, which sailed in the months following Lady Day, to carry the closing account of the year just ended. The procedural fit reveals the working integration of the island's reporting cycle into the metropolitan accounting framework rather than into any local rhythm of harvest or trade. The Court's reorganisation of the reporting regime replaced Mr Bazett's separate consolidated account with two existing documentary streams: the consultation book and the books of accounts, both reformed under the despatch of 5 March 1713. The settled prices, once adjusted by the Council and entered in the consultation book, provided the Storekeeper with a binding price schedule for retail and the Court with a permanent record against which the books of accounts could be tested. The arrangement eliminated the duplication that the unsigned Bazett account had revealed, while concentrating the price-setting function within the formal procedure of the Council. The reference to the Rochester's consignment as the principal recent supply identifies the ship at the centre of the demurrage complaint in the despatch of 4 February 1714 as also the principal vehicle of the season's stores. The Court's observation that only part of what had been desired and more was written for yearly was sent reveals the working pattern of partial fulfilment, with the Council's annual requisitions exceeding the actual despatches and the shortfall feeding back into the price calculation through reduced retail stock. The arrangement gave the Court a working incentive to control the requisition list at the receiving end as well as the supply at the despatching end. The instruction that proper notice would be taken under the heads to which timber and other stores particularly belonged refers to the thematic structure of the extract book proposed under the despatch of 4 February 1714, which reorganised the General Letters by subject under proper heads. The cross-reference indicates that the General Letter under reading was itself being drafted by reference to the extract book heads, with each subject deferred to its own section rather than treated in the order in which it arose. Speculations The Court's suppression of the separately drawn account in favour of the consultation book and books of accounts suggests an effort to defeat the working temptation under which the Boucher administration had operated, where the existence of multiple parallel records allowed selective disclosure of the kind documented in the despatch of 5 March 1713. By collapsing the price record into the consultation book, the Court placed the retail mechanism under the same signature regime that bound the rest of the Council's proceedings, with no separate document available for selective transmission or concealment. The Court's choice of the summer shipping rather than the autumn shipping for the annual account of remains probably reflects a calculation about the working life of the figures. An account taken to 25 March and despatched by the summer shipping would reach London in the autumn, in time for the Court to settle its requisitions for the following season's outward despatches. An autumn despatch from the island would arrive too late for that cycle, leaving the Court to set the next year's supplies without the closing position of the previous year. The timing converted the account of remains from a retrospective record into a working input for the next round of procurement. | |
47 | Desire to Multiply your businefs without a reall necefsity the sooner this Account is Settled the better if it can't be done while Ships remain in the Road as to the 16[th] Parr[r] of the Abingdons Letter Aferts we must acquiesce but at the same time must take notice that the Ships from England do Seldom arrive with those from India and it is the Variety of perticulars in the Europe Cargoes which cause the most troubles in that Account those from India consist but of a few Articles and lefs hours time is Sufficient to cast up their Cost Charges and advance thereon for as to the Sugar, Arrack, Rice and every thing else but Callicoes and such like measured goods you may view and Settle them all in a day with ease and the Entry in the Consultation of the quantitys received and prizes at which to Sell them will take up another Rates on India Goods ought to be according to the usuall generall prizes they have been Sold at not only so much p[er] Cent Advance on Invoice but in that Evaluation don't take in the times of dearnefs and Scarcity nor only the cheapests the Medium between both is the best Rule observe that this Rule wee lay down on perusing the 9[th] Parr[r] of the Abingdons Letter which hints as if the Advance was only on the Price of[?] Invoice this is no true Method for Arrack except it be worse in quality then Lower it accordingly else do as above directed. Wee are positively afsured that the Late Gov[ernou]r Boucher traded very much and Sold the Goods | The Court did not desire to multiply the Council's business without real necessity. The sooner the account was settled the better. If the work could not be done while the ships remained in the road, as the sixteenth paragraph of the Abingdon's letter asserted, the Court must acquiesce. At the same time the Court took notice that the ships from England seldom arrived with those from India. The variety of particulars in the European cargoes caused most of the trouble with the account. Cargoes from India consisted of only a few articles, and less than a few hours' time was sufficient to cast up their cost charges and the advance thereon. As for the sugar, arrack, rice and everything else, except callicoes and similar measured goods, the Council might view and settle them all in a day with ease. The entry in the consultation of the quantities received and the prices at which they were to be sold would take up further space. The rates on India goods ought to be set according to the usual general prices at which they had previously been sold, not only at so much per cent advance on the invoice. The valuation was not to take in the times of dearness or scarcity, nor only the cheapest. The medium between the two was the best rule to observe. The Court laid down this rule on perusing the ninth paragraph of the Abingdon's letter, which hinted as if the advance was set only on the price of the invoice. The same method was to be followed for arrack, except where it was worse in quality, in which case it was to be lowered accordingly, in the manner already directed above. Article 23. The Court was positively assured that the late Governor Boucher had traded very much and sold the goods Interpretations The medium-price rule for the valuation of India goods at the stores establishes the institutional method by which the retail price on the island was to be derived from the wholesale market in India. The Court rejected both the percentage advance on invoice, which would have transmitted Indian price volatility directly to the island consumer, and the use of extreme high or low prices from a single sale, which would have allowed selective benchmarking. By requiring the average of recent general prices to govern, the Court tied the island retail rate to a stabilised market reference rather than to the cost of any particular consignment. The arrangement protected planters and soldiers from short-term scarcity while preserving the long-run advance over invoice cost on which the recovery of the island's establishment charge depended. The cargo categories named in this passage define the working composition of the annual Indian Ocean supply: sugar from Bengal or the Coast, arrack from Bantam or Java, rice from Surat or Bengal, and callicoes (printed or plain cotton cloths of Indian origin, measured by the piece for retail) representing the principal textile import. Callicoes were singled out as the most labour-intensive line because they had to be measured piece by piece for the entry of quantities and prices, in contrast with the bulk commodities that could be entered in lump quantities. The general rice and paddy supply on the Josiah of January 1685, suspended for 1684 by the order on the Oakland of 16 January 1684, sat within the same Indian Ocean provisioning framework as the cargoes now under valuation. The quality discount allowed for inferior arrack acknowledges the working variability of the East Indies regional product, with arrack distilled at different stations and from different bases (palm, rice or sugar) varying in strength and purity. The discount was an exception to the medium-price rule and required the Council's working judgement on each consignment. The arrangement matches the Court's anti-arrack policy under the despatches of 8 November 1678 and 5 March 1713, where new arrack consumed shortly after distillation had been identified as the principal cause of the dry belly ache, with the Madeira wine programme of 4 February 1714 offered as the substitute. The separation of European and Indian cargoes for the purposes of the account reflects the working difference between two supply systems. The European cargo carried hundreds of particulars graduated across many quality grades, requiring detailed line-by-line entry in the consultation book. The Indian cargo carried a handful of bulk commodities priced by the maund, the chest or the gallon. The Court's acknowledgement that European cargo valuation might not be completed while the ships remained in the road treats the demurrage-protest discipline reaffirmed under the despatch of 4 February 1714 as a separate matter from the price-setting function, with the latter permitted to extend beyond the discharge period of the ship. Speculations The Court's careful instruction to use the medium of past general prices rather than the cheapest probably reflects a working tendency by Councils to set low retail rates that benefited their members through purchase from the stores, with the loss falling on the Court rather than on the island establishment. By specifying the medium rather than the cheapest, the Court closed the working route by which a low benchmark price could be selected from a recent sale and then propagated through the consultation entry as the settled rate. The instruction operates as a counterpart to the Court's prohibition under the despatch of 5 March 1713 on Council members holding plantations of their own, with both rules targeting the same underlying conflict of interest at the senior establishment. The Court's reading of the ninth paragraph of the Abingdon's letter as hinting at a percentage advance on invoice suggests that the new Council had retained part of the Boucher pricing method even while removing the personnel responsible for the wider abuses. The remedy of express direction in the present letter probably reflects the Court's calculation that the new establishment, still settling into the documentary discipline of the despatch of 5 March 1713, required a positive rule on price setting rather than a general expectation of good practice. The same calculation underlies the worked example given for arrack, where the Court anticipated that a Council unfamiliar with the medium rule would otherwise apply the cheapest-price discount to all consignments rather than to the inferior ones alone. | |
48 | goods he bought as if they had been ours that is to say out of our Store room and till his were gone ours must not be disposed of that M[r] Alexander Sold Palm Wines brought out in our Ships from England for him at two Shillings Six pence the Pint this explains to us how Alexander came to be in so much favour yet your Letters mention our Madera Wines were Sold but at five Shillings the Gallon One reason for telling you this is to give you fair caution not to Copy after him and to afsure you that whoever doth abuse our Service in the like manner shall whenever wee know it upon find we will apply an Effectuall Remedy By former Letters wee directed that an open Markett should be kept for all persons that would Sell any thing out of the Ships and there every body had liberty to buy and we forbid even our very Council from going aboard to Engrofs Comoditys this wee mention again that that y[ou]r Rule may not be forgott nor the Inhabitants opprest or their necefsitys taken advantage of to raise the Price upon them Extravagantly tho we have and shall endeavour to send by order you all needfull Supplys for the Service of the Island. Take care if ever you should see it for our Service to buy goods out of any returning Ships that all you pay for be delivered into the Stores for M[r] Bazett writes us that 55 Gallons of Sweet Oyl bought of Cap[t] Cook of the Leopard were never delivered a Shore tho M[r] Pack by Cap[t] Harts ord[er] gave Cap[t] Cook Credit for it in the Acco[un]ts So great an influence had this Hart by the Governours favour and it is Suppos'd he carried it away With him unlefs he Margin Notes: No Goods to b[e] engrossed but in Open Market See y[e] all Goods Pay'd for Comp[any] on Shoar | Boucher had bought and sold goods as if they had been his own, that was to say out of the Court's store room, and till his own were gone the Court's were not to be disposed of. Mr Alexander had sold palm wines, brought out from England in the Court's ships for him, at two shillings and sixpence the pint. The arrangement explained how Alexander came to be in so much favour. The Council's letters mentioned that the Court's Madeira wines had been sold at only five shillings the gallon. The reason for telling the Council this was to give fair caution not to copy after Boucher and to assure the Council that whoever was found to abuse the Court's service in the like manner would have an effectual remedy applied whenever the Court knew of it. By former letters the Court had directed that an open market should be kept for all persons who would sell anything out of the ships, with everyone at liberty to buy. The Council was forbidden, even at the Court's own table, from going aboard to engross commodities. The rule was repeated, and was not to be forgotten. The inhabitants were not to be oppressed or their necessities taken advantage of to raise the price upon them. The Court would endeavour to send all needful supplies for the service of the island. Article 24. Care was to be taken, if ever the Council should see fit for the Court's service to buy goods out of any returning ships, that all that was paid for was actually delivered into the stores. Mr Bazett had written that 55 gallons of sweet oil bought of Captain Cook of the Leopard had never been delivered ashore. Mr Park, by Captain Hart's order, had given Captain Cook credit for it in the accounts, so great an influence had Hart by the Governor's favour. It was supposed Hart had carried it away with him Interpretations The passage extends the engrossing complaint that runs through the entire correspondence from the despatch of 20 May 1683, when Anthony Beale was discharged from the office of Deputy Governor and Husband and Storekeeper. The earlier prohibition had been directed against the Husband himself buying up incoming cargoes before the planters could trade. The Boucher abuse described here represents a more developed form of the same malpractice: the Governor inserting his private stock into the company stores as if it were Court property, with the Court's goods held back from sale until the private stock had been cleared. The arrangement converted the public stores into a guaranteed retail outlet for the Governor's private goods at retail margins, with the Court bearing the opportunity cost of delayed sales. Palm wines were the working term for arrack distilled from the sap of the palmyra or coconut palm, principally produced in southern India and Ceylon and traded through the Coast and Bombay. The price of two shillings and sixpence per pint represents a substantial retail markup against the bulk wholesale prices in the East Indies regional trade, and the contrast with the five shillings per gallon for the Court's Madeira wines (less than eightpence per pint) reveals the working profit margin attached to the private consignment. Alexander's status as a favoured commander is identified as deriving from his role as carrier for the Governor's private goods rather than from any administrative merit, with the Court's ships used as the working transport infrastructure for the private trade. Sweet oil was olive oil supplied from the Mediterranean for both dietary and medicinal use. The 55 gallons bought of Captain Cook of the Leopard but never delivered ashore reveals a separate fraudulent mechanism, where the credit was entered in the books by Mr Park on Captain Hart's order without the physical commodity being received. The arrangement converted the company's purchasing function into a paper transaction for the benefit of the receiving captain and his accomplice ashore, with no commodity ever reaching the stores. The transaction sits within the same family of abuses as the £2,700 0s 0d drawn on London by bills without account, documented under the despatch of 5 March 1713. The open market rule established by earlier despatches, traceable to the founding instructions of 19 December 1673 and reaffirmed at every major reorganisation since, was the principal institutional protection of the planters against engrossing by Council members. The present reaffirmation reveals that the rule had been subverted at the Boucher table, with the Court extending the engrossing prohibition beyond the Council going aboard to cover the Council holding tables at which engrossing could occur ashore. The arrangement gave the Court a working enforcement mechanism against any future variant of the same conduct. Speculations The Court's identification of Alexander's favour as derived from carrying private goods at retail margins on the Court's ships suggests that the patronage system at the Boucher table operated as a quasi-formal exchange, with the Governor distributing access to the stores' retail platform in return for favoured commanders carrying his private consignments. The arrangement linked the captains' private trade to the Governor's private trade through the medium of the company's transport and retail infrastructure, with both sides taking the margin and the Court bearing the opportunity cost. The Court's careful naming of Alexander, Cook, Hart and Park identifies each participant individually for the purposes of any future recovery proceeding under the friends' bond model of the despatch of 14 March 1684. The crediting of payment without delivery for the 55 gallons of sweet oil probably reflects an opportunistic transaction conducted between trusted parties at the moment of departure, with Hart's working influence under the Governor's favour ensuring that Park, the bookkeeper or clerk on duty, would enter the credit without insisting on the prior production of the goods at the store. The absence of the goods from the inventory was the working evidence of the fraud, recovered only after the change of administration when Bazett, the new Storekeeper named under the despatch of 5 March 1713, conducted a closing audit that compared the entries in the books to the physical stock. The detection mechanism vindicates the documentary reforms imposed under that despatch. | |
49 | he proceeded from S[t] Helena for England Wee mention this that you should Enquire Diligently into the fact and advise us that we may if it be so get reparation and likewise by past miscarriages that you all learn to be circumspect and prevent the like and any others of the like nature during your term for tho as we believe you are honester yet wee may Suffer by those under you if they don't find you Sufficient Vigilant. Continue advising upon every occasion what quantitys as well as Sorts of Goods are or shall be received by every Ship from the East Indies or bought out of Ships when you have Occasion to buy any with the prizes they will take up but little room in your generall Letter send also Coppys of the Invoices from India that wee may by comparing see whether their charge and your receipts Answer Take care the Cap[t] or his Purser or a proper Officer of his appointment be with you when you examine the measured Goods weigh off the weighable Goods and view the Casks of Arrack to see if those are full or what is wanting in any Article that so if the whole don't Answer the Invoice you may make a proper Attestation thereof and the persons present on behalf of the Ship may Sign it write us what is so wanted that we may get Satisfaction of the Owners or if it shall appear that there was no Embezzlements on Board that we may advise the needfull to India. Wee find in the Consultation of the 1[st] of April a Charge against M[r] Bazett about the Arrack leaked out of two or three Butts or Leagers and observes what M[r] Bazett writes us in his Letter of the 4[th] May with Margin Notes: Allwayes Advise what Goods are Rec[eiv]d | Hart had proceeded from St Helena to England. The Court mentioned the matter so that the Council should enquire diligently into the fact and advise the Court, in order that, if it could be so done, reparation might be obtained. By past miscarriages the Council might all learn to be circumspect, and to prevent the like and any others of the like nature during the Council's term. The Court believed the Council members were honest, but might still suffer through those under them if they did not prove sufficiently vigilant. Article 25. Advice was to be sent on every occasion of what quantities and sorts of goods were received, or shall be received, by every ship from the East Indies, or bought out of ships when the Council had occasion to buy any, with the prices. Such an entry would take up little room in the General Letter. Copies of the invoices from India were also to be sent, so that the Court, by comparing them with the Council's receipts, might see whether the charge and the receipts agreed. Care was to be taken that the captain, or his purser, or some proper officer of his appointment, was present when the Council examined the goods. The measured goods were to be weighed off, the weighable goods weighed, and the casks of arrack viewed to see whether they were full or what was wanting in any article. If the whole did not answer the invoice, a proper attestation was to be made of it, signed by the persons present on behalf of the ship. The Council was to write home what was wanting, so that the Court might either get satisfaction from the owners, or, if it should appear that there had been no embezzlement on board, advise the needful to India. Article 26. The Court found in the consultation of 1 April a charge against Mr Bazett about the arrack leaked out of two or three butts or leaguers. Mr Bazett, in his letter of 4 May, observed what Interpretations The audit procedure prescribed for incoming consignments converts the captain or his appointed officer into a documentary counter-party for the receiving Council. The arrangement preserves the chain of custody from the bill of lading at London through the survey at the island, with the attestation operating as the working instrument for any subsequent recovery against the owners or the master under the charter party. The procedure builds on the triple-receipt system established by the despatch of 19 December 1673 carried on the John and Alexander, where one receipt was kept on the island and two were sent home. The present rule extends the documentary discipline from outward provisions to inward receipts from India and other purchases, closing a working gap in the earlier system. The distinction drawn in the audit method between measured goods, weighable goods and cask goods reflects the three principal categories of incoming bulk supply. Measured goods (cloth, callicoes, cordage) were checked by length or piece against the invoice. Weighable goods (sugar, rice, salt, metals) were weighed off against the manifested tonnage. Cask goods (arrack, oil, vinegar) were viewed at the bung for ullage, with any shortfall in fill noted as wanting in the cask. The three-fold method reflects the practical reality that loss in transit operated differently for each class of goods, with leakage as the principal hazard for cask goods and breakage or weight loss for the others. A leaguer was the largest standard cask used in the East Indies trade for the transport of liquids, holding around 150 to 160 gallons. The leakage of two or three butts or leaguers represents a substantial quantitative loss against the consignment, and the entry of the charge against the Storekeeper personally reflects the working presumption that loss within the stores fell to be accounted for by the officer holding the inventory. Bazett's letter of 4 May indicates that he had taken the unusual step of writing in his own defence, presumably to displace the working presumption of personal liability by reference to the condition of the casks on receipt. The Court's confidence in the Council members' personal honesty, qualified by concern about those under them, identifies the working risk structure of the establishment. The senior officers were vulnerable to fraud committed by subordinates with whom they shared the working operation of the stores and ships. The vigilance requirement operates as a supervisory duty rather than as a personal trust obligation, with the Council members held accountable for failure to detect rather than for direct participation. The arrangement provides the working framework for the present complaint about the goods carried away by Hart, where the Court attributes the failure to inadequate supervision rather than to active complicity. Speculations The Court's instruction that copies of the Indian invoices were to be sent home to enable comparison with the Council's receipts suggests that the Court had identified a working gap between the Indian and London record systems through which fraud could pass undetected. By requiring the island Council to forward the Indian-end invoice along with its own receipt, the Court created a triangulated record at London where the Indian despatching record, the island receiving record and the London review record could be compared against one another. The arrangement closes the route by which a captain or his officers could divert goods on the leg between India and St Helena, since the Indian invoice would establish what had been despatched independently of any documentary loss on the receiving end. The Court's accommodation of the captain's interest in the audit, by requiring that he or his proper officer be present at the examination, probably reflects a calculation that audit findings made in the absence of the ship's representative would not survive challenge at the owners' end. The presence of the captain or purser at the survey converted the attestation into an instrument that the ship's side could not afterwards repudiate, since the master's officer had signed the working document. The arrangement strengthens the Court's procedural position in any subsequent claim against the owners under the charter party, with the survey converted from a unilateral act of the Council into a bilateral instrument of admission. | |
50 | the Certificate thereupon in the Abingdons Pacckett N[o] 28. and from the whole say M[r] Bazett was to blame That he did not acquaint the Govern[ou]r and Council therewith on its first discovery and wee expect hereafter such notices be given forthwith that is to say transmitt to the Secretary or Clerk in Writing with Orders for him to lay the same before the Governour and that the said notice be given into the board the next Councill day or if the Governour can have leisure that he view the same sooner with such of the Councill as can be present But he is yet further to blame that he did not discover the leakage sooner and imediately craved off the residue into tighter Casks to prevent further waste we find in said Consultation M[r] Bazett charged with not delivering the Keys of the Warehouses to the Governour it looks there to be done purely for the sake of Caviling and doth not appear that he had ever demanded them therefore wee shall only say at present That if the Governour or Governour and Council shall see it at any time necefsary for our Service to require those Keys he or they must be obeyed for we Intrust our Power w[ith] the Govern[ou]r & Council and the Majority of those opinions must be Conclusive till our further Orders tho each person shall have liberty to enter his Difsent into the Consultation book if he thinks it for our Service to Difsent at any time and to give the reason why he doth so and wee will judge of it here In the absence of the Councill we look upon Margin Notes: Take Care of all Goods to prevent Lakedge or embezellem[en]t For all Debates in y[e] Consultation Book | Bazett had certified upon the matter in the Abingdon's packet, paper number 28. From the whole, the Court said Mr Bazett was to blame. He had not acquainted the Governor and Council with the leakage on its first discovery. The Court expected that hereafter such notices were to be given forthwith. The proper method was to transmit them to the Secretary or Clerk in writing, with orders for the Secretary to lay them before the Governor, and to give the said notice into the board the next Council day. If the Governor could have leisure, he was to view the matter sooner with such Council members as could be present. Bazett was further to blame for not discovering the leakage sooner, and for not immediately craning the residue into tighter casks to prevent further waste. The Court found in the consultation that Mr Bazett had been charged with not delivering the keys of the warehouses to the Governor. The charge looked as if it had been brought purely for the sake of quarrelling. It did not appear that the keys had ever been demanded of him. The Court would only say at present that if the Governor, or the Governor and Council, should at any time see it necessary for the Court's service to require those keys, he or they were to be obeyed. The Court entrusted its power in the Governor and Council, and the opinions of the majority of them were to be conclusive until the Court's further orders. Each person was to have liberty to enter his dissent into the consultation book if he thought it for the Court's service to dissent at any time, and to give the reasons why he did so. The Court would judge of it there. In the absence of the Council, the Court looked Interpretations The procedural pathway prescribed for the Storekeeper's notice of leakage formalises the working route by which subordinate officers were to bring exceptional matters to the attention of the Council. The Storekeeper was not to address the Governor directly, but to lodge a written note with the Secretary or Clerk, who would then table the matter at the next Council day. The arrangement preserves the consultation book as the central documentary record while protecting the Governor from informal approaches that might be later disputed. The pathway extends the documentary discipline imposed under the despatch of 5 March 1713, which required weekly consultations with entries of all debates and reasons signed by every member present. The craning operation refers to the transfer of liquid contents from a leaking cask into a sounder one by means of a crane (a curved siphon pipe used by coopers and storekeepers). Timber for a crane had been sent on the Cardonell under the despatch of 4 February 1714, marking the recent installation of the equipment on the island. Bazett's failure to crane the residue into tighter casks once the leakage was discovered identifies an operational failure distinct from the documentary failure of not reporting, with the consequence measured in further loss of arrack that could have been preserved by prompt action. The keys-of-the-warehouses dispute reveals the working tension between the Storekeeper's office and the Governor's office at the new establishment. The Storekeeper held the physical access to the stores by virtue of his office, while the Governor held the supervisory authority by virtue of his commission. The Court's resolution of the dispute by reference to the majority rule of the Council, rather than to any personal prerogative of the Governor, places the question of access within the framework of collective decision rather than personal command. The arrangement implements the constitutional principle that the Court entrusted its power in the Governor and Council jointly, not in the Governor alone. The right of personal dissent entered in the consultation book, with reasons given, operated as the working safeguard against the majority rule for any Council member who considered a decision contrary to the Court's service. The arrangement converts the consultation book into a record both of the operative decision and of the reserved positions, giving the Court at London the working material to review the decision on the merits. The mechanism implements the procedural reforms of the despatch of 5 March 1713, where objections were to be recorded by name and reasons in the consultation book. Speculations The Court's dismissal of the keys complaint as brought purely for the sake of quarrelling suggests that the new Council had carried into the documentary record an internal dispute that should have been settled below the level of formal consultation. The making of the charge on the consultation book itself, rather than the resolution of the underlying access question by ordinary administrative dealing, indicates a Council still adjusting to the operation of collective government under the new establishment. The Court's response, which neither vindicates nor condemns either side, probably reflects an effort to discourage further use of the consultation book as a forum for personal antagonism without weakening the procedural opening for genuine dissent. The Court's careful articulation of the dissent procedure, immediately after dismissing the keys quarrel as frivolous, suggests that the Court anticipated the same Council members might otherwise interpret the rebuke as foreclosing all internal disagreement. By restating the right of formal dissent with reasons given, the Court preserved the distinction between proper procedural objection and improper personal quarrel, with the consultation book operating as the test of which category any particular entry belonged to. The arrangement gave the Court at London the working ability to distinguish substantive policy disagreement, which it wished to see recorded, from personal disputes, which it wished to see suppressed. | |
51 | upon the Governour as Superintendant over all our affairs and do impower him to putt a Stop to any thing he thinks amifs till a Council can be called to determine the matter which must be done with the first Conveniency. Thirdly Touching our Servants Civill or Military, the Accounts of S[t] Helena in Generall And also touching Our Slaves Cattle Lands & Revenues. Wee have before told you of the Lettee by the Abbingdon it is full of Insolent Scurility ill manners to what any man whose head was cool would or should have been ashamed of the Penman pretended to Answer the Susanna Letter par[r] [Parr?] but instead of that & endeav ing to mend what therein justly complaind of as neglect ing or going contrary to Our Orders which was the only design in writing it he either evades or misinterprets y[e] purport of what We wrote or throws y[e] blame on others & wipes his mouth Saying he had done no harm discovering thereout a Virulency of temper that is unaccountable Let us know how far the boasting Contents of the Abbingdons Letter are true & particularly par[r] 19 &c[?] wherein Cap[t] Boucher magnifys his performances, he had been then above thirty months upon thee place & there of had time enu[f?] to have perfected a great deal of work considering y[e] great pro spect he found made at his Arrivall but if we may believe what is wrote & told us, his neglect =ted what was most necefsary especially the Storehouse which after Severall Months La tures & great expence bestowed upon it the Ground being levell'd Stone got ready the foundation him laid & the Timber framed for it. He Margin Notes: And w[ha]t the Late Govern[ou]r performed. | In the absence of the Council, the Court looked upon the Governor as superintendent over all the Court's affairs. The Governor was empowered to put a stop to anything he thought amiss, until a Council could be called to determine the matter, which was to be done with the first convenience. Thirdly, the present heading concerned the Court's servants, civil or military, the accounts of St Helena in general, and also the Court's slaves, cattle, land and revenues. Article 27. The Court had already told the Council, by the Abingdon, of the letter from the late Governor. It was full of insolent scurrility and ill manners, of which any man whose head was cool would or should have been ashamed. The penman pretended to answer the Susanna letter paragraph by paragraph. Instead of endeavouring to clear up what was justly complained of as neglect, or as going contrary to the Court's orders (which was the only design in writing it), the penman either evaded or misinterpreted the purport of what the Court had written, or threw the blame on others, and wiped his own mouth, saying he had done no harm. The Court detected throughout a virulency of temper that was unaccountable. The Court would have the Council know how far the boasting contents of the Abingdon's letter were true, and particularly paragraph 19, wherein Captain Boucher magnified his performances. Boucher had said that he had been then above thirty months upon the place, and there had been time enough to have perfected a great deal of work, considering the great progress he had found made at his arrival. From all of which the Court might believe what was written and told them. Boucher had neglected what was most necessary, especially the storehouse, which, after several months' time and great expense bestowed upon it, with the ground being levelled, stone got ready, the foundation laid and the timber framed for it, he Interpretations The superintendent role assigned to the Governor in the absence of the Council provides the institutional answer to the problem of executive action between Council days. The Governor could stop matters he thought amiss, but could not resolve them on his own authority. The arrangement preserves the collective character of decision-making while permitting effective response to urgent matters, with the first convenience standard establishing the working duty to summon the Council promptly. The mechanism completes the constitutional framework set out earlier in the letter, where the Court entrusted its power jointly in the Governor and Council with majority rule conclusive. The Court's identification of the late Governor's reply as a letter that evaded or misinterpreted the Susanna letter, or threw the blame on others, reveals the working response pattern of the Boucher administration to formal criticism. The Court's complaint that the penman wiped his own mouth identifies the rhetorical strategy of self-exoneration through redirection of blame. The arrangement matches the documentary obstruction theme established under the despatch of 4 February 1714, where Boucher's selective removal of the Susanna letter from the island archive was identified as the working method of frustrating procedural review. The present complaint about the reply complements that earlier finding, showing that Boucher had pursued the same defensive strategy through both the suppression and the manipulation of correspondence. Boucher's reference to thirty months upon the place dates his administration's effective start to a point in the latter half of 1711, broadly aligning with Pyke's arrival on 5 August 1711 mentioned earlier in this same correspondence as the starting point of the £26,350 0s 0d running cost. The Court's careful citation of paragraph 19 of the Abingdon's letter, where Boucher magnified his performances, anchors the present complaint to a specific passage of the disputed correspondence, with the storehouse cited as the test case of whether Boucher's boasting matched his actual delivery. The arrangement reveals the Court's working method of testing the late Governor's claims against the recoverable evidence rather than against general impressions. The four storehouses programme of the despatch of 5 March 1713, separately housing arrack and other liquids, India goods, Europe commodities and naval stores, was the construction priority that Boucher's administration had been expected to deliver. The Court's complaint that the storehouse remained unfinished despite the ground being levelled, the stone being got ready, the foundation being laid and the timber being framed reveals that Boucher had completed all the preparatory works but had failed to bring the structure to completion. The pattern matches Boucher's documented misappropriation of timber and deals to private buildings, including the four-hundred-foot covered riding shed costing above £300 0s 0d under the despatch of 5 March 1713, suggesting that the materials prepared for the storehouse had been diverted to the private project. Speculations The Court's choice to set out the institutional principle of superintendent governance immediately before launching into the personal complaint against Boucher probably reflects a calculated drafting strategy. By establishing the constitutional framework for collective government with the Governor as superintendent in the gaps, the Court framed the personal critique that followed as a measurement of Boucher's conduct against an objective institutional standard rather than as a personal animadversion. The arrangement gave the Court the working ability to remove or discipline future governors who fell short of the same standard without exposing the Court to charges of arbitrary action. The Court's particular attention to the boasting tone of paragraph 19 of the Abingdon's letter suggests that Boucher's reply had been drafted as a defence against future proceedings, with the magnification of his performances offered to displace the working presumption of neglect arising from the unfinished storehouse. The Court's response, which catalogues the preparatory works (ground levelled, stone got ready, foundation laid, timber framed) without giving credit for them, treats the preparatory works as aggravating the failure rather than mitigating it. The presence of the completed materials at the site established that Boucher had possessed everything needed for completion, leaving only the diversion of effort to the private project as the working explanation for the unfinished public building. | |
52 | He put a full Stop to all & Ordered the foundation to be buried again touching his Building riding place & Stables for his Afses We wrote in Our instructions Sent by you par[r] 57 We have a larger Acc[oun]t of it Since do you draw out as Particular a State as you can of the whole of y[t] affair What the Charge of it amounted to reckoning y[e] time of Building expence or Spoil of Wood, & the other Items that compose the htal & Send it to us. well attested that we may reckon with him for it also what the amounts of the Hoggs Turkeys and other Provisions which he Sold us of our own or at least bred up at our charge or to the French or any others we have an Acc[oun]t of it in part but would not intirely depend upon that and therefore expect you make and send the like enquiry and attestation on this had also that other Embezzelments misapplications of our Stores or other charges appear to you on Examenation to be justly chargeable on the Late Governour Boucher let us know them that we may endeavour getting a reparation here for what can be proved against him We have a Letter from M[r] Free wherein he Complains that the only cause of the late Governours turning him out from being Clerk of the Council was because he was devoted to our Interest and that soon after M[r] Griffith Dyd the Governour dismiss him resolveing to have a Clerk of his own choosing That he did desire to lay down the Service in June 1713. because he could not con under[?] | Boucher had put a full stop to the storehouse work and had ordered the foundation to be buried again. The materials had instead been turned to his own building, a riding place and stables for his apes. The Court's instructions sent earlier, at paragraph 57, were to be referred to. The Court now had a larger account of the matter, and the Council was to draw out as particular a statement as could be made of the whole affair. The charge of the storehouse was to be reckoned, with the time spent in building, the expense incurred, the wood spoiled and the other materials wasted. The statement was to be composed and sent home well attested, so that the Court might reckon with Boucher for it. The Council was also to enquire into the amount of the hogs, turkeys and other provisions that Boucher had sold of the Court's own, or at least bred up at the Court's charge, to the French or any others. The Court had some account of this in part, but would not depend entirely upon it. The Council was therefore to make the like enquiry, with attestation, on this head also. If any other embezzlements or misapplications of the Court's stores, or other charges, appeared on examination to be justly chargeable on the late Governor Boucher, the Council was to let the Court know, so that the Court might endeavour to obtain reparation in London for what could be proved against him. Article 28. The Court had received a letter from Mr Free. He complained that the only cause of the late Governor turning him out from being Clerk of the Council was because he had been devoted to the Court's interest. Soon after Mr Griffith died, the Governor had dismissed him, resolving to have a clerk of his own choosing. Free stated that he had desired to lay down the Court's service in June 1713, because he could not [...] Interpretations The riding place and stables for the apes, set against the buried foundations of the public storehouse, illustrates the substantive form of the timber diversion documented under the despatch of 5 March 1713, where Boucher was found to have used company timber and deals for private buildings including a four-hundred-foot covered riding shed costing above £300 0s 0d. The present passage adds the working detail that the materials prepared for the storehouse, with the ground levelled and the foundation laid, were redirected into the private project, and that Boucher then ordered the foundation buried to remove the evidence of the abandoned public work. The completion of preparation followed by the active concealment marks the transaction as a deliberate diversion rather than mere neglect. The four-stage particularised account demanded of the Council (time spent, expense incurred, wood spoiled, other materials wasted) provides the working format for the recovery proceeding to be conducted in London. Each element corresponds to a separately quantifiable head of damage against Boucher: labour time of the company's slaves and workmen, monetary disbursements from the stores' funds, identifiable timber stock now unusable, and other identifiable materials no longer accountable. The arrangement converts the storehouse failure from a general complaint into the structured evidentiary basis of a personal action against the former Governor, modelled on the £5,000 friends' bond pattern established under the despatch of 14 March 1684. The sale of hogs, turkeys and other provisions to the French or to others reveals a second misappropriation channel separate from the timber diversion. The Court's slaves and Mashborne's plantation expertise had been working capital in the breeding of livestock on the company plantation, with the proceeds intended for the Governor's table and for the supply of company ships. Boucher's diversion of the livestock to private sale, particularly to French vessels, converted the company's productive infrastructure into a private trading platform. The reference to the French identifies the cross-national dimension of the abuse, with the calling at St Helena by foreign ships during the peace following the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 providing the working market for the diverted goods. The dismissal of Mr Free as Clerk of the Council after the death of Mr Griffith reveals the working method by which Boucher had secured documentary control. Free identifies his removal as caused by his devotion to the Court's interest, with Boucher resolving to install a clerk of his own choosing in his place. The arrangement matches the pattern of selective disclosure documented under the despatch of 4 February 1714, where the Tovey case showed Boucher keeping Council members ignorant of the contents of the Court's letter by the Abingdon. The clerk of his own choosing was the institutional instrument by which the documentary obstruction had been operated, with the loyal clerk replaced before the principal acts of misappropriation took place. Speculations The Court's instruction to obtain reparation in London for what could be proved against Boucher, rather than on the island, indicates a strategic choice in the forum for the recovery proceeding. The Court of Judicature established under the despatch of 14 March 1684, sitting at the island with the Governor as sole judge, was not the appropriate forum for an action against a former Governor since the working independence of the tribunal could not be guaranteed. The London proceeding would be conducted within the company's own jurisdiction, with the directors holding both the financial liability and the disciplinary authority, allowing the matter to be settled by composition or by formal proceeding as the evidence warranted. The careful preservation of Free's complaint as the source of evidence on the clerk substitution suggests that the Court was building a documentary case against Boucher from multiple sources independent of one another. The Bazett audit had supplied the storekeeper's evidence, the consultation books had supplied the financial evidence, the Susanna letter recovered from the London copy had supplied the procedural evidence, and Free's letter now supplied the clerical evidence. By drawing testimony from each office of the establishment in turn, the Court constructed a cross-confirming evidential structure that no single line of defence could break. The arrangement reveals the Court's working understanding that the recovery proceeding would have to survive an organised defensive response from Boucher and his associates in London. | |
53 | under the Governour we take Notice what is said of him in Parr[r] 22 of Abingdon and have it from other hands that the Governour used him so ill that he was delirious for some time he now prays us to entertain him in any Employment he is capable of But haveing last year Settled the Councill and Secretary or Clerk we shall not make any Alteration only say if you find him industrious and have any occasion for his Service wee leave it to you to entertain him where he may be most usefull. Wee find M[r] Eason and M[r] French were the late Governours afsistant Councellour or as we are told were to give some countenance to his Actions by approving whatever he proposed and so it should seem as if what he did was by the Majority of the Councill consent the Lett[er] shows they have Forty Pounds a piece Sallary and very likely Dyet at our Table we hear but a Mean Character of them and that they are of Significancy to us wee are also told That M[r] French tho entertaind Gunn[er] has very Little or no insight in the Art he profefses and that you have on the Island one Welsh who hath much more Skill and is a good Engineer We Shall determine nothing here positively about either of them but would have you consider their cases impartially and if you find neither of the two Afsistants did us any injury while they were so and that M[r] Eason is a good Officer let him Continue Lieutenant if that was his former Post or if but Ensign as wee remember tien to have only Ensigns Pay but in either to have no Claim to Dyett at our Table on Account of his being once Afsistant Margin Notes: Q[uery] M[r] Eason & M[r] French | Free could not continue under the late Governor. The Court took notice of what was said of Free in paragraph 22 of the Abingdon's letter. The Court had heard from other quarters that the Governor had used Free so ill that he had been delirious for some time. Free now prayed to be entertained in any employment for which he was capable. The Court had settled the Council and the Secretary or Clerk in the previous year, and would make no alteration in that arrangement. The Court would only say that if Free were found industrious, and if the Council had any occasion for his service, the matter was left to the Council to entertain him wherever he might be most useful. Article 29. Mr Eason and Mr French had been the late Governor's assistant counsellors, or, as the Court was informed, were so to give some countenance to his actions by approving whatever he proposed, so that it should seem as if what he did was by the majority of the Council's consent. The list showed that each of them had £40 0s 0d per annum salary, and very probably they dieted at the Court's table. The Court heard but a mean character of them, and that they were of a meanness in significancy. The Court was also told that Mr French, although he was entertained as Gunner, had very little or no insight in the art he professed. The Council had on the island one Welch, who had much more skill and was a good engineer. The Court would not determine anything positively about either of them, but desired the Council to consider their cases impartially. If the Council found that neither of the two upstarts had done the Court any injury while they were so, and that Mr Eason was a good officer, he was to be allowed to continue as Lieutenant, if that was his former post, or as Ensign if so. The Court reminded the Council that Ensigns paid no claim to diet at the Court's table on account of having once been Interpretations The pattern of the late Governor packing the Council with compliant subordinates emerges as the working method by which Boucher had converted the formal requirement of majority consent into a rubber stamp for personal decisions. Eason and French had been installed at £40 0s 0d per annum each as assistant counsellors, with the working purpose identified by the Court as giving the appearance of collective decision to acts that were in substance Boucher's alone. The arrangement defeats the constitutional safeguard established under the Blackmore commission of 20 February 1678, where the quorum of three with the Governor or Deputy always counted had been designed to ensure that no single officer could act unilaterally. Boucher had complied with the form by securing the numbers, while emptying the procedure of its substantive content. The £40 0s 0d salary attached to each of the assistant counsellors matches the cap established under the despatch of 20 May 1683 when Joshua Johnson was appointed Deputy Governor and Husband and Storekeeper in place of Anthony Beale. The use of the same figure for the assistant counsellors suggests that Boucher had applied the senior salary band to officers performing only a supplementary function, with the diet at the Governor's table operating as the additional patronage instrument. The arrangement reveals the working flexibility of the salary structure under a Governor inclined to abuse it, with established rates re-purposed to support a personal patronage system. Mr French's appointment as Gunner without competence in the art he professed identifies a separate strand of the patronage abuse. The deferred new west battery had been recorded under the despatch of 5 March 1713 as awaiting a gunner, with the working gunner shortage cited as the reason for postponing the work. The presence on the island of Welch, identified as much more skilful and a good engineer, indicates that competent personnel had been available but had been passed over in favour of a Boucher appointee. The arrangement defeats both the fortification programme and the powder discipline reaffirmed by the despatch of 5 March 1713 in response to the forensic audit of guns and stores expended from 25 March 1710 to 25 March 1713, where 385 pounds of powder and 134 guns fired in July 1712 alone had revealed the working salute breaches under the Boucher administration. The Court's reservation of the ensign rank as a position carrying no claim to diet at the Governor's table preserves the working hierarchy of the establishment against patronage inflation. Diet at the table was a substantial perquisite, equivalent in working value to a significant portion of the cash salary, and its restriction to officers above a defined rank protected the cost discipline imposed under the despatch of 5 March 1713. The Court's careful instruction that any continuing service by Eason or French at the lower rank would not carry the diet entitlement closes the route by which the Boucher patronage arrangement could survive in attenuated form under the new Council. Speculations The Court's decision to delegate the resolution of the Eason and French cases to the Council, rather than to determine them in London, probably reflects a calculation that the working evidence on the two officers' conduct could only be tested at the island. The Council had access to the consultation books, the witness of those who had served alongside them, and the practical test of any defensive engineering work that French as Gunner had or had not undertaken. The London proceedings against Boucher could rely on the documentary record, but the secondary cases required the local inquiry of the kind that the Court had earlier directed for the recovery of the timber and the livestock. By framing the impartial consideration standard, the Court bound the Council to a documented determination that could itself be reviewed at London. The identification of Welch as a good engineer in the same passage that demoted French as Gunner suggests that the Court was simultaneously dismantling one patronage arrangement and signalling the substitute. By naming Welch in the General Letter as the more skilful man on the island, the Court placed the Council under a working expectation to advance him, while leaving the formal appointment to the Council's own determination. The arrangement preserved the constitutional framework of collective decision while pointing the Council towards the institutionally preferred outcome, in the manner of the Court's earlier protection of Mashborne as the only continuity appointment from earlier service under the despatch of 5 March 1713. | |
54 | Afsistant to the Council If M[r] French is fitt to be a Gunner continue him so but without the Liberty of our table unlefs it was the ancient Custom If he be not better and one Welsh is and will in your opinion do us better Service entertain him in his Stead This we the rather mention because as you may see in our late Letters we have reason to complain of over charges on us of Powder and other Stores on pretence of Salutes &c in his Accounts and if you on enquiry find our objections to his said Accounts rightly made he has the lefs reason to expect further encou =ragement from us especially if you have a better to fill up his Place and tho Account received by the Abingdon of Gunkers Stores expended seems to us to be too lavish. Touching M[r] Alexander you will see our opinion in former Letters and thereto we refer you. We have a Petition from Joseph Thomlinson one of the Writers in the Stores desireing to be added to the Council there being no great a Vacancy we have heard but little of him tho he says he hath Served near Seven years therein let us by your next have his Character without partiality with relation to what he has been & done and wether he be capable of a higher Station and to be made of Council in future in case of the Death or Departure of any the present number we find also in the Consultation of the 13 October two other writers in the Stores namely Sam[uel] Proome and Tho[mas] Delarose that they Dyet at our table and with four more there named were allowed two quarts of Arrack a day pray let us know wether there is an absolute necefsity for so many Writers especially since Margin Notes: Q[uer]y M[r] Gunn[er] formers Allowance Jn[r] M[r] Alexander Jos[eph] Thomlinson | Afsistant to the Council If M[r] French is fitt to be a Gunner continue him so but without the Liberty of our table unlefs it was the ancient Custom If he be not better and one Welsh is and will in your opinion do us better Service entertain him in his Stead This we the rather mention because as you may see in our late Letters we have reason to complain of over charges on us of Powder and other Stores on pretence of Salutes &c in his Accounts and if you on enquiry find our objections to his said Accounts rightly made he has the lefs reason to expect further encou =ragement from us especially if you have a better to fill up his Place and tho Account received by the Abingdon of Gunkers Stores expended seems to us to be too lavish. Touching M[r] Alexander you will see our opinion in former Letters and thereto we refer you. We have a Petition from Joseph Thomlinson one of the Writers in the Stores desireing to be added to the Council there being no great a Vacancy we have heard but little of him tho he says he hath Served near Seven years therein let us by your next have his Character without partiality with relation to what he has been & done and wether he be capable of a higher Station and to be made of Council in future in case of the Death or Departure of any the present number we find also in the Consultation of the 13 October two other writers in the Stores namely Sam[uel] Proome and Tho[mas] Delarose that they Dyet at our table and with four more there named were allowed two quarts of Arrack a day pray let us know wether there is an absolute necefsity for so many Writers especially since Margin Notes: Q[uer]y M[r] Gunn[er] formers Allowance Jn[r] M[r] Alexander Jos[eph] Thomlinson | |
55 | we sent out M[r] Byflo[?] a Writer with you If there be and tho fewer hands can't by diligent application do y[ou]r businefs wee must acquiesce if otherwise discharge such as can be Spared and are least qualified on Account of ability honesty or application. Wee observe in the said Consultation of y[e] 13[th] of October that the four others Dyetted at our Table and had the Allowance of Arrack as aforesaid because of the Scarcity of Provisions for so it is worded were the Surgeons Mate Joyner Steward and Cooper Pray let us know as wee have in former Letters required what Number of Persons do Dyett at our Tables for it seems there have been three and yet the late Governour said he thought it belongs him to have any mechanick Dyet at our table when we ordered Cleve the Carpenter that favour to encourage his care of our Timber and Deals advise us the Peoples names their employm[en]ts and your opinion wether it is for our Interest and by our or our Predecefsors order that they have had or should have that Privelege Examine also former Precedents to see how long since and for what reason any innovations have been made from what was the Practice in y[e] old Company time or at the beginning of the Union that is to say during Gov[ernou]r and Poiriers time of being Deputy Gov[ernou]r and Gov[ernou]r of the Island Don't forget or delay this but take pains to be truly informd and let us know the whole of the case with your observations thereupon It is not so much for the saving the Charge of a few Peoples Victuals as the putting a Stop to presidents which are often privately introduced and without reason or it may be some time allowd Margin Notes: Allowance of Track[?] to Sundry's And all old Cuftoms in G[overnour] Poiriers time | The Court had sent out Mr Byflo as a Writer with the present despatch. If there were any present, and yet fewer hands could not, by diligent application, do the Court's business, the Court must acquiesce. Otherwise, the Council was to discharge such as could be spared and were least qualified, on account of ability, honesty or application. Article 32. The Court observed in the said consultation of 13 October that the four others dieted at the Court's table, and had the allowance of arrack already mentioned, because of the scarcity of provisions. So it was worded. They were the Surgeon's Mate, Joyner, Stenard and Cooper. The Court prayed to be informed, as it had required by former letters, what number of persons dieted at the Court's table. It seemed there had been three, and yet the late Governor had thought it below him to have any mechanic diet at his table when the Court ordered Cleve the Carpenter that favour, to encourage his care of the Court's timber and deals. The Council was to advise the Court of the people's names, their employment, and the Council's opinion whether it was for the Court's interest, and whether by the Court's order, or by the order of the Court's predecessors, those persons had or should have that privilege. The Council was also to examine former precedents to see how long since, and for what reason, any innovations had been made, and what had been the practice in the Old Company's time, or at the beginning of the Union, that was to say during the Deputy Governor Poirier's time of being Deputy Governor of the island. The Council was not to forget or delay this good of the island, but to take pains to be truly informed and to let the Court know the whole of the case, with the Council's observations on it. The matter was not so much for the saving of the charge of a few people's victuals, as for the putting a stop to precedents which were often privately introduced, without reason, or, it might be, sometime [...] Interpretations The table allowance had operated as a working currency of patronage on the island, with admission to the Governor's table conferring a substantial economic benefit measured in daily victuals. The Court's careful distinction between the four writers admitted on the pretext of scarcity of provisions and the three persons originally entitled identifies the working pattern of patronage inflation under the Boucher administration. The scarcity rationale converted a temporary emergency measure into a permanent personal entitlement, with the writers' admission documented in the consultation book of 13 October as a formal record but their continuation thereafter operating as silent custom. The arrangement extended the same documentary technique that the Court had identified in respect of French's gunner accounts, with each abuse covered by a formally entered justification that masked the underlying patronage purpose. The Court's identification of Cleve the Carpenter as the proper recipient of the table favour, contrasted with Boucher's refusal to admit any mechanic, reveals the working inversion of priorities under the late Governor. Cleve had been restored to the establishment under the despatch of 5 March 1713 with direct yearly correspondence to the Court bypassing the Governor and Council, charged with the timber account and the training of docile blacks in joinery and carpentry. The dismissal of Cleve by Boucher when he proposed that timber stuff not be embezzled had been documented under the despatch of 5 March 1713 as part of the misappropriation pattern. The present passage shows that even after Cleve's restoration, Boucher had withheld the table favour that the Court had directed, identifying the table allowance as a working instrument deployed to reward compliance and to deny dissent. The reference to the Old Company's time and to the Union frames the institutional history within which the Court tested the legitimacy of any present arrangement. The Old Company was the United Company that had operated before the union with the English Company by the indenture of 22 July 1702 and the final consolidation in 1709, which created the United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies. The beginning of the Union refers to that consolidation. Poirier had served as Deputy Governor during this transitional period, providing the working benchmark against which the present establishment's customs were to be tested. The Court's instruction to examine former precedents converts the consultation books of the earlier period into a working source of legal authority on table entitlements and other privileges. The principal concern identified by the Court, the stopping of precedents privately introduced, reveals the underlying institutional anxiety driving the entire correspondence. The cost of a few people's victuals was negligible in absolute terms against the £26,350 0s 0d running cost identified earlier in this same letter. The Court's working concern was procedural rather than financial: that informal extensions of privilege would harden into customary rights and then become impossible to withdraw without provoking complaint of injustice. The arrangement explains the Court's careful insistence on documenting every present privilege against its institutional source, with any unsourced practice treated as a working innovation subject to immediate removal. Speculations The Court's instruction to examine the practice in the Old Company's time and at the beginning of the Union suggests that the Court anticipated using the historical record as the working defence against any claim of established custom by the Council or by individual officers. By compelling the Council to produce documented precedents from the earlier period, the Court placed the burden of proof on those asserting customary entitlement rather than on those seeking to remove it. The arrangement reverses the working presumption that established practice should continue, and treats only those practices traceable to a documented source as legitimate. The directive operates as a procedural counterpart to the standing rules doctrine, with the documentary source serving as the test of the rule's authority. The Court's working concern that precedents were sometimes privately introduced without reason probably reflects an assessment that the Boucher administration had used the consultation book itself as a working instrument of patronage normalisation. By entering each new privilege in the consultation book under cover of a formal justification, the Boucher Council had created the appearance of due procedure while in substance manufacturing the precedents that the Court now had to dismantle. The Court's response, requiring each present privilege to be traced back through the documentary record to its institutional source, attacks the working mechanism by which the consultation book had been turned against the documentary discipline it was supposed to support. | |
56 | allowed of as a particular respect to extraordinary meritt but when once Establisht will be given as a reason why the same should be allowed to the Succefsors who very likely hath no real claim to merit or at least has not given sufficient proofs of it But we must further add that our charges have swelled of late years prodigeously at S[t] Helena beyond what they were in former times and therefore it becomes us to look about us and stop every the least leak for good husbandry always begins in Smaller matters and if it be true from thence extends to greater till at last it become habituated to every thing. Send us annually by our Ships at least by double Conveyances an Abstract of the Monthly Charge of our table at the Fort & Plantation house to a time certain (V[i]z[t] The 25 or last of March inserting the Persons names who have the benefit of it with the reason Wee come now to the next branch under this head and that is the Military wherein we observe as follows V[i]z[t] By the Abingdon we received a List of the Pay and Wages allowed to our Covenent or Mercantile Servants and Souldiers which was for so far well done and the Souldiers names put Alphabetically this is Right But it wanted to compleat it, the Abstract of the whole at the Bottom to show what the Annuall Charge amounted to for the future do this in the following manner first the Govern[ou]r & Council in one line Amounting to £ annum so much then the Severall Persons employd by them as Afsistants at the Stores or at the Plantation Margin Notes: Abstract of y[e] Monthly Charges of y[e] Fort Table & Plantation Send y[e] Military List Alphabetical | The favour was sometime allowed as a particular respect to extraordinary merit. Once established, the favour would be cited as a reason why the same should be allowed to a successor, who probably had no real claim to merit, or at least had not given sufficient proof of it. The Court must further add that the charges had swollen of late years prodigiously at St Helena, beyond what they had been in former times. It therefore became the Court to look about and stop every leak. Good husbandry always began in smaller matters. If allowed to run, from thence it ascended to greater, until at last it became habituated to every thing. Article 33. The Council was to send by the Court's ships, at least by double conveyances, an abstract of the monthly charge of the Court's table at the Fort and Plantation house to a certain time, that was to 25 March, or the last of March. The names of the persons who had the benefit of the table were to be inserted, with the reason for each. Article 34. The Court came now to the next branch under this head, which was the military. The Court observed as follows. By the Abingdon, the Council had sent a list of the pay and wages allowed to the Court's covenant or mercantile servants, and to the soldiers. So far the work had been well done, with the soldiers' names ranked alphabetically. That was right. To complete the list, the abstract at the bottom was wanted, to show what the annual charge amounted to for the future. The Council was to do this in the following manner. First, the Governor and Council in one line, amounting to so much per annum. Then the several persons employed by them as assistants at the stores, or at the Plantation [...] Interpretations The leak metaphor that runs through this passage captures the Court's institutional theory of fiscal discipline at the establishment. Every minor extension of privilege, considered in isolation, appeared insignificant against the total charge of the island. The cumulative effect of many such extensions, however, produced the prodigious swelling of the charges that the Court now confronted, with the running cost of £26,350 0s 0d in less than three years identified earlier in this letter. The Court's working remedy required attention to the small leaks before they ascended to greater, with the procedural insistence on documenting each present privilege against its institutional source operating as the working method of detection. The abstract format prescribed for the monthly charge of the Court's table at the Fort and Plantation house introduces a new documentary discipline distinct from the consultation book entries on individual table admissions. The 25 March cut-off aligns the table account with the annual reporting cycle established earlier in this same letter for the account of remains, with both records timed to the end of the legal year for despatch by the summer shipping. The inclusion of names and reasons converts the abstract into a working register against which the privilege could be tested year by year, with the entry of a name without a documented reason exposing the underlying patronage as such. The double conveyances rule, requiring the abstract to be sent by at least two ships, operates as a protection against the documentary obstruction documented under the despatch of 4 February 1714, where Boucher had carried the Susanna letter of 20 March 1712 away from the island leaving the new Council without the working text of the principal earlier despatch. By multiplying the copies in transit, the Court reduced the working ability of any future Governor to suppress the record by intercepting a single ship. The arrangement extends the procedural discipline of the consultation book duplicates established under the despatch of 5 March 1713 to the new annual returns. The military abstract format prescribed at the close of the visible passage operates as a working budgetary instrument distinct from the soldiers' list itself. The Court approved the alphabetical arrangement of the soldiers' names by name as the working compliance with the demographic return requirement reinforced under the despatch of 1 August 1683 by a 40s 0d fine toties quoties on refusal or falsification. The new abstract layer, with the Governor and Council in one line and the several other persons grouped by office, supplies a separate institutional structure that allows the Court to test the cost of each tier of the establishment against the corresponding function. Speculations The Court's careful distinction between the favour as a particular respect to extraordinary merit and the favour as a routine entitlement of a successor identifies a working pattern of institutional decay. The Court understood that the original justification for a privilege could not be preserved through successive holders, since the merit on which the privilege rested was personal rather than functional. The Court's preventive remedy required the working assumption that any successor had no claim to merit, with the privilege withdrawn at each succession unless reaffirmed on documented grounds. The arrangement operates as a counterpart to the Boucher-pattern misuse of merit-based perquisites, where the late Governor had presumably extended favours initially granted for cause into a permanent patronage system. The Court's choice of monthly rather than annual reporting for the table abstract probably reflects a calculation about the working speed of patronage drift. An annual return would document the position at a single point in the year, with informal admissions between reporting points capable of being normalised before the next return. A monthly return would catch each admission within weeks of its occurrence, providing the working evidence base on which the Court could intervene before any custom hardened. The arrangement extends the documentary frequency of the procedural reforms under the despatch of 5 March 1713, where weekly consultations or oftener had been required, to the specific question of table admissions where the Boucher abuses had been most evident. | |
57 | Plantation House or overseers of the Grounds or of the Blacks Then the Severall Artificers Then the Boats Crew Then the Gunner and his underling and Montrofses Then the Severall military Officers Then the Private Centinells and so cast up the Totall and take care the Lists of all be ranged in the same manner to agree with the Abstract when you draw out a new List and find any Persons names wanting which were in the former put a memorandum after the Abstract which must be drawn out as aforesaid yearly mentioning what is become of the Persons named in the preceeding List V[i]z[t] So many are dead naming them and when and of what distemper or casualy so many discharged or run away and the proper Officer who Musters the Souldiers the Muster Roll of those actually in Service and do you the Governour and Council Sign the whole to shew you have Examined all and find it right and let y[e] dates of each be put in each place of Signing. Wee propose this further benefits by such Lists and abstract that you will see how great the Charge is and thereby be excited to a continued care to prevent any the least unnecefsary Article of Expence Wee are Sorry to find the reason alled[g]ed for the Souldiers mutinying namely want of food, one great cause of that as we take it is, that mischievous practice of letting them run in arrear so much at the Storehouse: this must be remedyd, we have been told that a Small Present from the Punch houses to M[r] Pack or his Wife would get what the Souldiers run in Arrears for Margin Notes: Rest[?] of Packs ill behaviour | The abstract was to continue with the Plantation house, or the Overseers of the Grounds, or of the blacks. The several artificers were to follow. After them the boats' crew. Then the Gunner and his underling, and the Montrosses. Then the several military officers. Then the private sentinels. The total was to be cast up. Care was to be taken that the lists were ranged in the same manner, to agree with the abstract. When the Council drew out a new list, and found any persons' names wanting which had appeared in the former list, a memorandum was to be added after the abstract. The memorandum was to be drawn out yearly, in the manner already directed, mentioning what had become of the persons named in the preceding list. The form was that so many were dead, naming them and recording when and of what distemper or casualty. So many had been discharged, or had run away. The proper officer who mustered the soldiers was to certify the muster roll of those actually in service. The Governor and Council were to sign the whole, to show they had examined all and found it right. The dates of each signing were to be put in their proper places. Article 35. The Court proposed this further benefit by such a list and abstract, that the Council would see how great the charge was, and thereby be excited to a continued care to prevent the least unnecessary article of expense. Article 36. The Court was sorry to find the reason alleged for the soldiers mutinying, namely want of food. One great cause of that, as the Court took it, was the mischievous practice of letting them run in arrear so much at the storehouse. This must be remedied. The Court had been told that a small present from the punch houses to Mr Park, or his wife, would procure what the soldiers ran in arrear for. Park Interpretations The structured ordering of the abstract reveals the hierarchy of the establishment as the Court conceived it. The civil senior tier (Governor and Council) was followed by the productive supervisory tier (Overseers of the Grounds and of the blacks), then by the skilled tier (artificers), then by the maritime tier (boats' crew), then by the artillery tier (Gunner, underling and Montrosses), then by the commissioned military tier, then by the rank and file. A Montross was an assistant gunner who served at the larger pieces under the direction of the Gunner, with responsibility for handling the powder, sponging and ramming the guns and carrying out the mechanical operations of the artillery. The Court's prescription of this ordering converts the budgetary abstract into an organisational chart, with the relative cost of each tier visible against its function. The annual mortality and discharge memorandum extends the demographic return requirement first reinforced under the despatch of 1 August 1683 by a 40s 0d fine toties quoties on refusal or falsification. The new requirement adds the cause of death (distemper or casualty) and the date, converting the bare population return into a medical and disciplinary record. The arrangement gives the Court at London the data to test the mortality rate of the establishment against the climate of the island, against epidemic episodes, and against the disciplinary practice of the military officers, with each death individually documented. The proper officer's muster roll provides the cross-check against the Council's signed return, with both records bearing dated signatures to fix the moment of attestation. The mutiny over want of food identifies a breakdown in the soldier provisioning system established by the founding instructions of 19 December 1673, where provisions were to be distributed equally to soldiers, and reaffirmed by the despatch of 20 February 1678 with the same equal distribution rule. The Court's identification of the soldiers' arrears at the storehouse as the principal cause of the food shortage reveals that the soldiers had been buying provisions on credit against future pay, with the running credit balance preventing them from drawing further supplies once the limit was reached. The arrangement converted the storehouse from a provisioning system into a credit system, with the soldiers' actual nutrition depending on their cumulative arrears rather than on their entitled rations. The punch houses identified in the present passage were drinking establishments operating on the island, supplying arrack-based punch to the soldiers and sailors. The reference to a small present from the punch houses to Mr Park or his wife describes a bribery system through which the punch house keepers obtained the goods that the soldiers had run in arrears for. The soldiers' real purpose in running into arrears was therefore not to obtain provisions for their own consumption but to convert their pay entitlement into a tradeable commodity that could be exchanged at the punch houses, with Park as the controller of the storehouse credit acting as the intermediary. The arrangement diverted the provisioning function entirely, with the soldiers neither receiving the goods nor the equivalent in cash. Speculations The Court's careful direction that the dates of each signing were to be put in their proper places probably reflects a calculation about the evidential value of the annual returns in future proceedings. By dating each signature individually, the Court created a contemporaneous record of when each Council member had been physically present at the attestation, allowing later proceedings to test whether the signatory had been in a position to examine the particulars. The arrangement attacks the practice by which signatures were sometimes added in retrospect to fill gaps in the documentary record, with the dated signature converted into a contemporaneous attestation rather than an undated formality. The Court's diagnostic theory of the mutiny, attributing it to the storehouse arrears system rather than to any external shortage, suggests that the Court had identified Park's office as the choke point at which the breakdown could be repaired without altering the overall provisioning quantities. The Court's preventive remedy required the closure of the credit facility rather than any change in the supply, with the soldiers compelled to draw their entitled rations directly rather than running them up as arrears. The arrangement also incidentally removed the bribery channel between the punch houses and Park, since the absence of accumulated arrears at the storehouse would deprive Park of the discretionary authority that the punch house keepers had been paying to influence. | |
58 | Punch transferr'd to the House keepers Acco[un]t at the Storehouse and to the Souldiers Debt and by this means to the want of frequent ballancing every mans Account the Souldiers are run in Arrears from 20 to 30 a man & upwards which being unable to pay they are tempted to any desperate course we tell you the evil that you may apply y[e] remedy of prevention in future Gov[ernou]r Boucher was in the right when he gave publick Notice to such Debitors to work out their Debts at the fortifications or buildings do you continue it for those still in Debt because we have no other way to reimburse us this will prevent the Charge of blacks It was well done to find out Seize and Punish the Mutineers The method he practised of letting our boats to the Souldiers to fish was prudent and what would prevent any real complaints of their being hunger bitt and if a few were lazy & would not take pains to gett their Victuals others would be wiser and in consequence the Complaints would not be generall continue this practise to them and to the Planters during the great Scarcity of fresh provisions which by the Afflicting hand of providence hath Layn so long heavy on all the Inhabitants of S[t] Helena as to the Accounts of S[t] Helena whether our own in generall or those on Accounts of Ships or Persons in Particular we have little to add to what have mentioned before in this Letter and in those sent you for years past Except this That we must have a Stop putt to the drawing bills we can't remaine quiet under such large | Park transferred punch to the punch house keepers at the storehouse, and to the soldiers' debit. By this means, and for want of frequent balancing of every man's account, the soldiers ran in arrears from £20 0s 0d to £30 0s 0d a man, and upwards. Being unable to pay, they were tempted to any desperate course. The Court told the Council of this evil so that the Council might apply the remedy of prevention in future. Governor Boucher had been in the right when he had given public notice to such debtors to work out their debts at the fortifications or buildings. The Council was to continue the practice for those still in debt, because the Court had no other way to reimburse itself. The arrangement would also prevent the charge of blacks. It had been well done of Boucher to seize and punish the mutineers. The method he had practised of letting the Court's boat to the soldiers to fish was prudent, and would prevent any real complaints of theirs of being hunger-bit. If a few were lazy and would not take pains to get their victuals, others would be wiser, and in consequence the complaints would not be general. The Council was to continue the practice for the soldiers and for the planters, during the great scarcity of fresh provisions, which by the afflicting hand of Providence had lain so long heavy on all the inhabitants of St Helena. Concerning the accounts of St Helena, whether the Court's own in general, or those on the accounts of ships or persons in particular, the Court had little to add to what had been mentioned before in this letter and in those sent the Council for years past, except this: that a stop must be put to the drawing of bills. The Court could not remain quiet under such large Interpretations The transfer of punch to the punch house keepers at the storehouse with the soldiers as debtor identifies the accounting mechanism by which the bribery system documented in the previous passage operated. Park, controlling the storehouse credit, drew punch from the company stock and entered it as a charge against individual soldiers' accounts, with the physical product passing to the punch house keepers as the settlement of their separate arrangement with him. The soldiers thus accumulated debt without ever receiving the supposed goods, while the punch house keepers received the stock without payment. The mechanism converted the storehouse credit system into a fraudulent diversion channel, with the company bearing the eventual loss as the soldiers proved unable to pay against their accumulated arrears. The figure of £20 0s 0d to £30 0s 0d per man, with some running higher, represents a substantial multiple of a private sentinel's annual pay. Under the founding pay scale of the despatch of 19 December 1673, lieutenants received £2 10s 0d per month and common soldiers were paid per the Pursers' books, with the Joshua Johnson appointment of £40 0s 0d per annum for the Deputy Governorship under the despatch of 20 May 1683 indicating the level of even senior cash incomes. An arrears figure of £20 0s 0d to £30 0s 0d therefore consumed the soldier's prospective pay for many months, leaving him with no surplus to draw and no realistic means of clearing the debt. The desperate course identified by the Court refers to the mutiny just described as the response to a debt position from which no individual escape was possible. The work-out at the fortifications or buildings remedy installed by Boucher converts the debt from a financial obligation into a labour obligation. The arrangement preserves the Court's claim to recovery while removing the immediate cash impossibility that had driven the mutiny. The labour value of the soldiers' work on the fortifications would otherwise have fallen on the company's blacks, with the economic effect being a transfer of the construction labour cost from the slave establishment to the soldiers' debt account. The Court's identification of this as preventing the charge of blacks reveals the internal economy of the establishment, where soldier labour and slave labour were treated as substitutable inputs into the construction programme. The arrangement also fits the slave labour theme established under the despatch of 5 March 1713, where the productive employment of the blacks on the plantation had been preferred to their consumption on the fortifications. The boat-letting arrangement, with the company boat let to the soldiers for fishing, supplies a subsistence channel parallel to the storehouse provisioning. The arrangement traces back to the common fishery established under the founding instructions of 19 December 1673, where the three boats left by Munden had formed a common fishery with fish distributed equally. The Court's endorsement of Boucher's continuation of this practice during the scarcity of fresh provisions reveals one area where the late Governor's administration earned the Court's approval. The arrangement converts the fishing function from a communal activity into an individual subsistence opportunity, with the lazy soldiers' failure to feed themselves becoming the test of any subsequent complaint of hunger rather than a complaint against the establishment. Speculations The Court's careful endorsement of Boucher's measures in this paragraph, set against the comprehensive critique of his administration in the preceding articles, probably reflects a calculated drafting strategy to forestall any future defence based on selective citation. By acknowledging Boucher's effective handling of the mutiny, the public notice for debt work-out, and the boat-letting arrangement, the Court established the evidential record on which Boucher had been competent. The acknowledgement removes any future argument that the entire critique was a partisan attack rather than a measured assessment, leaving the documented misappropriations and procedural failures to stand on their own evidential basis without the protective cover of a counter-claim that the Court had been blind to his merits. The Court's identification of the absence of frequent balancing of every man's account as the enabler of the arrears scandal suggests that the Court had identified a procedural reform that would have prevented the underlying fraud regardless of Park's intentions. Had the soldiers' accounts been balanced monthly, the arrears could not have accumulated to the £20 0s 0d to £30 0s 0d levels that produced the mutiny, since any individual would have been confronted with the rising balance long before the desperate course became the only option. The arrangement points to the monthly account discipline imposed by the despatch of 5 March 1713 as the procedural remedy, with the Park scheme treated as a procedural failure that the new accounting regime would foreclose rather than as a problem requiring separate disciplinary action. | |
59 | large draughts yearly made upon us hereto fore we had used to have Bills sent us drawn on the owners for what Supplyed the Ships and yet then S[t] Helena was not Supplyed by us from India in any measure to what it has been lately but now it is reverse. It is true the Fortifications and buildings have been some cause of an Additionall Charge but the difference between the management of the late and former times appears to us to be the greatest. In the Abingdons List of the Pacckett is mentioned Severall Ships &c Accounts but names none for the future insert in the List the particular Accompts sent in the Pacckets this reduces the Severall Accounts so sent to a Certainty both to you and us whereas the generall words leave all in doubt and serves only for an excuse to the Clerks to pretend they sent all they should when very likely they sent few or perhaps none and you can never be sure wether they have done their duty nor know how to Supply by y[e] near any defect in the former Pacckett. This method of perticulari =zing in the List of the Pacckets all books and papers sent will have this further good Effect that the Storekeeper and his under Officers y[e] Clerk of the Council and all others who have any charge under them of which they should prepare and send us the Accounts knowing the List contains memorandums of all sent and that you can see what each have brought in what omitted they will or should be carefull to forgett nothing least they incurr y[ou]r Censure and the Clerk by looking over y[e] preceding years or Seasons List of the Pacckets will be putt in mind to call timely on all Margin Notes: [? L]ist of the [Pa]ck[et] to con[tain] all par[ticu]lars | The Court could not remain quiet under such large drafts as had been made upon it yearly. The Court had been used in former times to have bills sent it drawn on the owners for what supplied the ships. Yet then St Helena had not been supplied by the Court from India in any measure compared to what it had been lately. Now it was the reverse. The fortifications and buildings had been some cause of an additional charge, but the difference between the management of the late and former times appeared to the Court to be the greatest cause. Article 37. In the Abingdon's list of the packets several ships, accounts and the like had been mentioned, but no names. For the future, the particular accounts sent in the packets were to be inserted in the list. The arrangement would reduce the several accounts so sent to a certainty, both to the Council and to the Court. The general words otherwise left all in doubt, and served only for an excuse to the clerks to pretend they sent all they should, when very probably they sent few, or perhaps none. The Council could never be sure whether they had done their duty, nor know how to supply by the next any defects in the former packets. The method of particularising the contents in the list of the packets of all books and papers sent would have this further good effect: that the Storekeeper, the Clerk of the Council, and all others under them who had any charge of which they should prepare and send the Court accounts, would by looking over the list, which would contain memoranda of all sent, see what each had brought in and what had been omitted. They would not forget anything, lest they incur the Court's censure. The Clerk, by examining the preceding year's or season's list of the packets, would be put in mind to call in time for all Interpretations The contrast drawn by the Court between former times and the present state of the island's accounts identifies the economic shift under the Boucher administration. In earlier years, the operating cost of supplying ships had been met by bills drawn on the owners themselves, with the East India consignments to St Helena confined to specific items not available through the ship-supply mechanism. The reverse position now obtaining, with heavy drafts on the Court and substantial consignments from India arriving at the island, reveals that the financing structure of the establishment had been silently inverted. The Court attributes the inversion principally to the management of the late times, with the fortifications and buildings charge identified as a secondary contributor only. The system of bills drawn on the owners for ship-supplied provisions had operated as the revenue mechanism by which the cost of supplying the company's vessels was recovered directly from those who profited from their voyages. Each ship calling at the island for refreshment would have its provisions charged to the owners' account at London, with the bill operating as the instrument of recovery between the Court and the owners. Under that arrangement, the financial cost of operating the refreshment station fell on the freighting interests rather than on the company's general account. The collapse of this system under Boucher, with the cost transferred to the Court through drafts, represents one of the principal structural losses identified in this letter. The list-of-packets reform introduced by Article 37 establishes a documentary discipline operating on three levels. At the level of the originating officer, the Storekeeper or Clerk or other person preparing an account knows that his contribution to the packet will be individually listed by name, with omissions immediately apparent to the recipient. At the level of the receiving Council, the list provides the checklist against which the contents of the packet can be verified on arrival. At the level of London, the comparison of present and former lists across successive years gives the Court a tool to detect the pattern of selective transmission documented under the despatch of 4 February 1714 in the Boucher administration's removal of the Susanna letter from the island archive. The arrangement extends the contents-check rule established earlier in this same letter from the General Letter itself to the supporting documents. The general words criticism reveals the clerical defence that the Court intended to defeat. Clerks reporting that they had sent all accounts under general descriptions retained the ability to claim compliance regardless of what had actually been transmitted, since no particular account could be identified as missing. By compelling the particularisation of each enclosure by name on the covering list, the Court converted the clerical certificate from an unverifiable general assurance into a specific commitment item by item. Each named omission would then be traceable to the responsible officer, with the censure available against him individually rather than against the establishment generally. Speculations The Court's identification of the previous bill-on-owners financing system as the norm of former times probably reflects a calculated framing strategy. By presenting the present arrangement as a recent deviation rather than as the established practice, the Court positioned any reform as a return to ancient method rather than as an innovation requiring justification. The arrangement reverses the evidentiary burden, with those defending the present heavy drafts now required to show why the established practice should not be restored, rather than the Court being required to show why the present practice should be changed. The structure of argument matches the Court's earlier treatment of table-allowance precedents, where each present privilege was to be tested against documentary evidence of its institutional source under the Old Company or at the beginning of the Union, with Poirier identified as the relevant benchmark. The detailed prescription of how the list-of-packets reform would operate at each level of the establishment suggests that the Court anticipated resistance to the new discipline from the clerical officers most directly affected. By spelling out the specific benefits to the Storekeeper and the Clerk of the Council, the Court framed the reform as a protection for those officers against censure rather than as a new burden imposed on them. The arrangement converts an apparently onerous documentary requirement into a safeguard for the individuals responsible for compliance, with the result that the officers' personal incentive aligned with the Court's interest in detection of omission. The construction matches the broader pattern of the present letter, where each procedural reform is presented in terms that invite voluntary adoption by those required to operate it rather than imposing visible new obligations. | |
60 | all the proper Officers for the papers books & Accounts necefsary to be sent by the Shipping then with y[ou] or what may be further expected during the present or approaching Season and when they are all Collected it will be but little trouble for the Governour or one of the Council to form the List of what should be sent and call over the Particulars see they are ready or if the Clerk fears he cant get them in time he can represent it to the Governours alone or in Council that he may employ his Authoritty to gett all books afore the you have the power to inforce obedience to our Orders this blame will be yours if they are not [...] and this we mention to obviate the Excuses made by Cap[t] Boucher in the 7[th] Parr[r] of the Abingdons Letter which wee must never suffer to pafs for orthodox. What accounts we would have sent besides the Generall books which must be yearly transmitted you will see by what mentioned in this and preceding Letters whereto we refer you. we find some benefitts of our complaints on this head by what sent on the Abingdon and the following Ships and a reason given why the Generall books were not sent because M[r] Pack had let them run behind hand, 19 Months. In the Marlboroughs Pacckett N[o] 5 is mentioned a Calculat of the yearly expences of S[t] Helena for one year but we can find no such thing in the Pacckett give no occasion to complaine of such omifsions hereafter. In the Abingdons Pacckett we had the List of Marriage Baptisms and Burials Certifyd by the Chaplin continue the like yearly Margin Notes: What Acc[oun]ts are to be sent yearly & See from this Compl[aint] of omifsion Chaplin[s] List | The Clerk was to call in time for all the proper officers for the papers, books and accounts necessary to be sent by the shipping then with the Council, or what might be further expected during the present or the approaching season. When they were all collected, it would be but little trouble for the Governor, or one of the Council, to form the list of what should be sent and to call over the particulars to see that they were ready. If the Clerk feared he could not get them in time, he could represent it to the Governor alone, or in Council, that the Governor might employ his authority to get all done. The Council had the power to enforce obedience to the Court's orders. The blame would be the Council's if they were not complied with. The Court mentioned this to obviate the excuses made by Captain Boucher in the seventh paragraph of the Abingdon's letter, which the Court would never suffer to pass for orthodox. Article 38. As to what accounts the Court would have sent besides the general books, which were to be yearly transmitted, the Council might see by what had been mentioned in this and the preceding letters, to which the Court referred the Council. The Court found some benefits of its complaints on this head by what had been sent on the Abingdon and the following ships. A reason was given why the general books had not been sent, namely because Mr Park had let them run nineteen months behind hand. Article 39. In the Marlborough's packet, number 5, was mentioned a calculate of the yearly expenses at St Helena for one year. The Court could find no such thing in the packet. The Council was to give no occasion to complain of such omissions hereafter. Article 40. In the Abingdon's packet, the Court had received the list of marriages, baptisms and burials certified by the Chaplain. The Council was to continue the list yearly Interpretations The chain-of-command sequence prescribed by the Court reveals the institutional theory of compliance enforcement at the establishment. The Clerk had the documentary responsibility for assembling the contents of each packet. The Governor, or one of the Council, had the supervisory responsibility for checking the assembly. The Council collectively had the enforcement authority over recalcitrant officers. Each level operated as a check on the level below, with the assumption that compliance would be secured through the procedural hierarchy rather than through direct Court intervention. The arrangement makes the Council collectively responsible for any failure of compliance, with the named blame falling on the Council if procedures were not followed. The reference to the seventh paragraph of the Abingdon's letter, with Boucher's excuses not to be suffered to pass for orthodox, identifies a specific defence that the Court intended to foreclose. The orthodox terminology, drawn from theological usage, characterises the Court's procedural rules as established doctrine against which any departure stood as heresy requiring active correction. The arrangement reveals the Court's method of converting administrative routine into binding institutional dogma, with the consultation book entries operating as the record of compliance or deviation. The reference matches the standing rules doctrine of the despatch of 4 February 1714, where every order and direction operated as a continuing rule until expressly repealed. Park's allowing the general books to run nineteen months behind hand reveals the scale of the accounting failure under the Boucher administration. The general books were the principal financial record of the establishment, against which the consultation entries, the storehouse warrants and the bills drawn on London were to be reconciled. A nineteen-month delay rendered all dependent records effectively unauditable, since contemporaneous reconciliation against current balances became impossible. The arrangement matches the engrossing pattern documented at the Husband's office under the despatch of 20 May 1683 with the discharge of Anthony Beale, where the bookkeeping deficiency had been treated as a structural risk of the office requiring the £40 0s 0d salary cap on Joshua Johnson and the strict warrant regime. Park's nineteen-month delay represents the same structural risk, manifested in delayed entry rather than in active engrossing. The list of marriages, baptisms and burials certified by the Chaplain extends the demographic return requirement reinforced by the despatch of 1 August 1683, with the 40s 0d fine toties quoties on refusal or falsification. The Chaplain's certification provides the independent attestation of the demographic data, with the religious office operating as a documentary cross-check on the Council's secular returns. The arrangement matches the pattern established at the founding under the despatch of 19 December 1673, where William Swindle as Minister at £50 0s 0d salary had been engaged with duties of preaching, catechising and teaching, supported by the parish register function. The continuation of the practice across successive chaplains reveals the stability of this record-keeping function across changes of personnel. Speculations The Court's instruction to keep the calculate of yearly expenses at St Helena, missing from the Marlborough's packet despite being listed there, suggests a documentary failure distinct from the broader pattern of Boucher's selective transmission. The list had identified the item, but the substance had been omitted from the packet, with the result that the Council could plead compliance by reference to the list while the Court was deprived of the substantive content. The Court's response, requiring no occasion for such omissions hereafter, treats the discrepancy between the list and the contents as itself the actionable failure, with the responsible officer accountable for the gap regardless of where in the chain the omission had occurred. The arrangement aligns with the list-of-packets reform discussed in the preceding article, where the named items provided the test against which the contents would be measured. The careful identification of Park individually as the officer who had let the general books run nineteen months behind hand, set against the broader pattern of Boucher-era complaints, suggests that the Court was building a documentary case against Park as a separate accountable person rather than treating his failures as merely instances of the wider Boucher pattern. Park had already been identified earlier in this letter as the intermediary in the punch-house bribery scheme and as the controller of the soldiers' arrears that had triggered the mutiny. The accumulating record of named failures against Park converts him from a subordinate officer caught up in a general pattern of misadministration into a principal target for separate disciplinary action. The arrangement matches the Court's strategy in respect of Boucher, Eason, French, Alexander and others, with each individual's misconduct documented for separate accountability rather than absorbed into a collective indictment of the Boucher Council. | |
61 | Yearly to the 25[th] of March Wee received also in the same Pacckett Coppys of the Letters sent from S[t] Helena to Bengall Bencoolen and Fort S[t] George but no dates putt thereto nor who Sign'd them let this be amended in future. Wee find in the last Consultations M[r] Bazetts Accounts of what Sold out of the Stores entred which is according to our Ord[er] but if they could be yet more contracted it would not be the worse so as they appear plain if not they must be continued in the same method as at present. Wee come now to the Article of Slaves and in answer to what Lyes before us on that part of the Generall head say since you have received Forty three by the Mercury Sloop we hope you will apply them to the best use you can for our Service for handicrafts for fishing for Planting and other beneficial employments let none be Idle but all kept to their proper Labours take care of their healths afford them Proper Cloathing and food and when Sick let them be Supplyed with useful necefsarys write to the East or Bay to send you two or three Bales of double dungarees for Cloaths for them and for Sails for your boats send us Annually a List of all our blacks their and how employed we had the Accounts by the last Ships but no body Sign'd it to vouch for its truth which must be done put the men the Women the Children of Eight years or more and those under Each in a Column by themselves and see all be rightly entred which this Last surely was not a Child of one year old Called Harry was therein ranked among Severall others at Margin Notes: another fault To contract y[e] Acc[oun]ts Sent home About the Blacks To Send Yearly List of Slaves [Ag?]es | The list of marriages, baptisms and burials was to be continued yearly to 25 March. Article 41. The Court had received in the same packet copies of the letters sent from St Helena to Bengal, Bencoolen and Fort St George. The letters carried no dates, and no record of who had signed them. The fault was to be amended in future. Article 42. The Court found in the last consultations Mr Bazett's accounts of what had been sold out of the stores entered. The entry was according to the Court's order. If the accounts could be more contracted, the position would be no worse, so as they appeared plain. If not, they were to be continued in the same method as at present. Article 43. The Court came now to the article of slaves. In answer to what lay before the Court on that part of the general head, since the Council had received forty-three slaves by the Mercury sloop, the Court hoped the Council would apply them to the best use for the Court's service. They were to be employed at handicrafts, fishing, planting and other beneficial employments. None were to be idle. All were to be kept to their proper labour. Care was to be taken of their healths. Proper clothing and food were to be afforded them. When sick, they were to be supplied with usefull necessaries. The Council was to write to the Coast or Bay to send two or three bales of double dungarees for clothes for the slaves, and for sails for the Council's boats. The Council was to send the Court annually a list of all the Court's slaves, their ages and how employed. The Court had had the accounts by the last ships, but nobody had signed them to vouch for their truth. The fault was to be amended. The men, the women, the children of eight years or more, and those under each, were to be entered in a column by themselves, and seen all to be rightly entered. By the last list, a child of one year old called Harry had been ranked among several other slaves as Interpretations The use of dungarees as both clothing for the slaves and material for the boats' sails reveals the textile economy of supply at the establishment. Dungarees were coarse cotton cloth of Indian origin, produced principally in the area around Surat and exported through the Coast and Bay stations to the wider company network. The double designation refers to a heavier grade, suitable for both rough work clothing and marine canvas. The dual use across two distinct functions matches the pattern of coarse kerseys sent for the blacks on grounds of both humanity and economic advantage under the despatch of 5 March 1713, where the moderate climate of the island required warmer clothing for slaves from hotter regions. The present supply rule, drawing dungarees from the Coast or Bay, integrates the island's textile needs into the company's existing Indian Ocean trade rather than requiring separate procurement from London. The forty-three slaves received by the Mercury sloop represents a substantial single consignment against the standing establishment of the island. The Court's instruction that all were to be applied to handicrafts, fishing, planting and other beneficial employments, with none idle, matches the policy framework established under the despatch of 5 March 1713, where the slave consignment had been framed as an economic investment with £21 0s 0d a head purchase recoverable through the avoided cost of free labour. The Court's theory required active deployment of the entire stock against productive labour to validate the investment, with idleness representing the loss of the purchase price. The directive on care of healths, proper clothing and food, and supply of usefull necessaries when sick, identifies the welfare obligations attaching to the slave establishment. The instruction extends the standing concern with the productive capacity of the slave labour force, with health maintenance treated as protection of the underlying capital investment rather than as an end in itself. The arrangement matches the broader pattern of the despatch of 5 March 1713, where the slaves' contribution to the plantation, the buildings and other services had been identified as the principal mechanism of cost recovery, with the hammock bearer abuse of the Boucher administration identified as a misuse of slave labour. The structured demographic format prescribed for the slave list, with men, women, children of eight years or more, and those under each entered in separate columns, applies to the slave population the same documentary discipline imposed on the soldiers' muster roll earlier in this letter. The misclassification of Harry as a one-year-old child ranked among several other slaves reveals the consequence of the absent signature regime, with classification errors going undetected when no individual officer was responsible for vouching for the accuracy of the entries. The Court's remedy required both the structured format and the signed attestation, with each component reinforcing the other. Speculations The Court's careful distinction between children of eight years or more and those under that age probably reflects an economic theory about the productive deployment of the slave establishment. The age threshold of eight matches the conventional age at which children could be expected to perform light labour at the plantation or in the handicrafts, with the demographic return providing the calculation of how many additional labour units could be activated against the present establishment. The arrangement converts the slave list from a demographic record into a productivity inventory, with the structured columns supplying the data for the labour planning addressed elsewhere in this same letter. The instruction that the slaves' clothing and the boats' sails were to be supplied from the same bales of double dungarees suggests a procurement decision aimed at simplifying the Coast and Bay correspondence. Rather than maintaining separate specifications for clothing and sailcloth, the Court directed the use of a single grade suitable for both purposes, with the order to the Coast or Bay agents reducible to a single line for double dungarees in the required quantity. The arrangement also incidentally protected against the diversion of slave clothing to other uses, since the same cloth had a clear alternative purpose at the boat-house and any unaccounted bales would be visible against the consumption rate of both functions taken together. | |
62 | as looking after Calves Hoggs and Poultrey If you have any blacks to spare which you think worth while to send to Bencoolen put them on board this Ship Cardonell and Advise it to the Deputy Govern[ou]r & Councill the Charterparty will show you we are to pay four Pounds a head for their pafsage. The next branch of this Generall head is the Article of Cattle and live provisions and is a very Melancholy Account in all parts as to the death of so many there is no repineing at providence as humble Submifsion becomes us it is now incumbent on you and all the Islanders to do what in your lyes to preserve the remaining Stock and increase it all you can for the benefitt of the Island in generall and the severall Concerneds and to that end to prevent the killing of any the Calves whatsoever and to spare as much as possible all the crowne Cattle. Especially the Cows. The French King has very lately put out an Edict forbidding any Lambs being killd in his Kingdom to October 1716. because he wants Wooll for his manufactu =rers how much greater reason have all the Inhabitants to agree among themselves to lay a Penalty on any one who shall kill a Cow or Calf within a limitted time to be by them setled and to See the order put in rigorous execution Do you recomend it to them heartily and as to our poor remaining Stock we positively order that none of ours be killed within the same time or if the Inhabitants will not be under a mutuall Agreement yet be sure do you take care none of ours be lessend we have told you before we have ordered you three Deal yauls for fishing Let the Planters and Souldiers have the Margin Notes: re Cating[?] B[lacks] Cattle Not to kill heads y[t] for some time | Harry had been ranked among several others as looking after calves, hogs and poultry. Article 44. If the Council had any blacks to spare which it thought worth sending to Bencoolen, they were to be put on board the Cardonell, with notice to the Deputy Governor and Council there. The charter party would show the Council that the Court was to pay £4 0s 0d per head for their passage. Article 45. The next branch of this general head was the article of cattle and live provisions, and was a very melancholy account in all parts. As to the death of so many, there was no repining at Providence. Humble submission became the Court. It was now incumbent on the Council and all the islanders to do what in them lay to preserve the remaining stock and increase it all they could, for the benefit of the island in general and the several persons concerned. To that end the killing of any of the calves whatsoever was to be prevented, and as much as possible all the grown cattle, especially the cows. The French King had very recently put out an edict forbidding any lambs being killed in his kingdom to Whitsuntide 1716, because he wanted wool for his manufacturers. How much greater reason had the inhabitants to agree among themselves to lay a penalty on any one who should kill a cow or a calf within a limited time, to be set by themselves, and to see the order put in rigorous execution. The Council was to recommend the arrangement to them heartily. As to the Court's own poor remaining stock, the Court positively ordered that none of the Court's beasts be killed within the same time. If the inhabitants would not be under a mutual agreement, the Council was to take care that none of the Court's were lessened. The Court had told the Council before that it had ordered three Deal yawls for fishing. The planters and soldiers were to have Interpretations The misclassification of Harry, recorded in the previous passage as a one-year-old child but listed in the slave register among those tending calves, hogs and poultry, illustrates the practical failure of the unsigned demographic return. The error was capable of operating in either direction. A one-year-old child could not perform animal husbandry, with the consequence that an adult worker was being concealed under the child's name. Alternatively, an adult name was being attached to a child for the purpose of inflating the labour return. Either reading reveals a documentary failure that the signature regime imposed earlier in this letter was designed to defeat. The transport rate of £4 0s 0d per head for slaves to Bencoolen on the Cardonell establishes the freight cost for inter-station slave movement under the company's own charter party. The figure is to be compared against the £21 0s 0d a head purchase price for slaves identified in the despatch of 5 March 1713, with the transport representing approximately one-fifth of the purchase cost. The arrangement reveals the economic structure of the company's slave logistics, with London-paid passage charges supplementing the purchase consideration as the total acquired cost at each station. The Court's offer of surplus slaves to Bencoolen also reveals the flexibility of the inter-station labour market, with the island operating as a transit point as well as a destination. The cattle preservation programme proposed by the Court combines voluntary and compulsory measures. For the inhabitants, the Court recommended an inhabitants' mutual agreement carrying a penalty, with the penalty rate to be set by the inhabitants themselves. The arrangement leaves the enforcement and quantum to the local community while requiring the Council to recommend it heartily, with the effect of binding the inhabitants by their own collective decision rather than by Court direction. For the Court's own remaining stock, the Court positively ordered a killing prohibition within the same time, regardless of whether the inhabitants reached agreement. The two-track arrangement matches the pattern of the despatch of 5 March 1713, where the cattle and live stock management failure under the Boucher administration had been documented with eleven bullocks and seven cows lost between John Haw's account of 14 October and Mr Eaton's of 5 December, sixty head dying since Lady Day with no consultation entry, and the goat population of about two hundred in the valleys when Mashborne left now largely unaccounted. The reference to the French King's edict forbidding the killing of lambs to Whitsuntide 1716 provides the Court with a comparative example drawn from European royal policy. Louis XIV had imposed the prohibition to protect the wool supply for the French manufacturers, in the manner of the mercantilist policies of the period. The Court's invocation of the example presses the inhabitants of St Helena with an argument a fortiori. If a king with abundant resources could regulate the killing of stock for an industrial purpose, an island community with limited livestock had still greater reason to do the same for the subsistence of the establishment. Speculations The Court's choice of the inhabitants' mutual agreement mechanism, rather than direct legislation through the Council, probably reflects a calculation about the enforceability of livestock preservation. A killing prohibition imposed by the Council against the inhabitants' will would require active surveillance and prosecution at the local level, with the enforcement falling on Council members who would themselves be unable to operate outside their immediate establishment. An agreement reached by the inhabitants themselves, by contrast, would carry the enforcement of community sanction, with each inhabitant operating as a witness against his neighbours. The arrangement matches the pattern of the planter militia obligation under the by-laws of 20 March 1680, where the tenure of land was tied to the defence obligation, with each tier of the population integrated into the enforcement structure. The Deal yawls supplied for fishing, with three boats taken in at Deal under the despatch of 4 February 1714 because the Court's Committee of Shipping considered them better made for the sea than those constructed on the island, are repurposed in the present passage as part of the cattle preservation strategy. By providing the planters and soldiers with the means to obtain protein from fishing, the Court reduced the pressure on the livestock population that had otherwise driven the killing rate. The arrangement matches the theory of substitution that runs through this letter, where each problem identified by the Court was met by an alternative supply rather than by a simple prohibition. The fishery option made the livestock prohibition operative in practice rather than merely formal. | |
63 | the use of them on the terms Setled in Gov[ernou]r Bouchers time or if you can Settle better do this will yield a good supply if they are industri[ous] when our Shipping come to the Island let them have as little Beef as Possible and that cheifly only for recruiteing their weak men but neither Calves or Cow Flesh. It is an Irrepairable Lofs that the late Governor had like to have brought upon us as your Letter of y[e] 31 July describes it that we have neither Sheep, Dear, Goats, Turkeys, Geese Ducks, fowls, or rabbets left wee earnestly recommend to you to remember your promise in that Letter and raise more as soon and as much as you can if the planters have suffered in all or any of these species prevail on them to agree on good Laws for the sooner replenishing the Island again with each Sort and do you sett the Example there need not many words to perswade men of Sence and forsight to take the utmost care therein for the thing speaks it self Let us hear what is done touching both these Articles by your next and how it came about that in July there should be none of these aforesaid species remaining when the List by the Abingdon taken the 25[th] Febry before mentions we had 18 Sheep 5 Turkeys 6 Ducks 48 Dunghill fowls the same List also makes y[e] Number of our black Cattle to be 91 and by a Letter to us of y[e] 29 March there were so many then yet your Letter says they are now but 60 be perticular herein. Wee hope you will never Copy after your predecefsors trifling insignificant Answer in Parr[r] 56 of Abingdon to a like Enquiry. Touching the last Article under this 3[rd] head V[i]z[t] Lands and Revenues we shall cheifly refer you to former Letters being unwilling to swell this further than necefsity requires continue Margin Notes: To Lend the boats for fishing. To give an Acc[oun]t & increase in Live provisions | The planters and soldiers were to have the use of the Deal yawls on the terms settled in Governor Boucher's time. If the Council could settle better, they were to do so. The arrangement would yield a good supply if the inhabitants were industrious. When the Court's shipping came to the island, the inhabitants were to be allowed as little beef as possible, and that chiefly for recruiting their weak men. Neither calves nor cow flesh were to be supplied. Article 46. The late Governor had nearly brought an irreparable loss upon the Court. The Council's letter of 31 July had described that the island had neither sheep, deer, goats, turkeys, geese, ducks, fowls nor rabbits left. The Court earnestly recommended to the Council to remember the promise in that letter, and to raise more, as soon and as much as it could. If the planters had suffered in all or any of these species, the Council was to prevail on them to agree to good laws for the sooner replenishing of the island again with each sort. The Council was to set the example. There needed not many words to persuade men of sense and foresight to take the utmost care in the matter, for the thing spoke itself. The Court wished to hear what had been done touching both these articles by the Council's next letter, and how it came about that in July there should be none of the aforesaid species remaining, when the list by the Abingdon taken on 25 February before mentioned that the island had 18 sheep, 5 turkeys, 6 ducks and 48 dunghill fowls. The same list also made the number of the Court's black cattle to be 92. By a letter to the Court of 29 March, there had been so many then, yet the Council's later letter said there were now but 60. The Council was to be particular in this matter. The Court hoped the Council would never copy after the predecessors' trifling and insignificant answer in paragraph 56 of the Abingdon's letter to a like enquiry. Article 47. As to the last article under this head, namely land and revenues, the Court would chiefly refer the Council to former letters, being unwilling to swell this further than necessity required. Interpretations The two-track meat supply rule established by the Court reveals the economic theory of the establishment. Beef from the Court's own stock was to be allowed in only small quantities, restricted to the recruiting of weak men aboard the company's shipping, with calves and cow flesh placed entirely off limits. The arrangement converted the Court's livestock into a reserve dedicated to the breeding programme rather than a consumable supply for the refreshment function. The provisioning of arriving ships was thus shifted onto the planters' boats and fishing, with the Deal yawls supplied under the despatch of 4 February 1714 operating as the alternative to the slaughter of cattle. The complete loss of sheep, deer, goats, turkeys, geese, ducks, fowls and rabbits identified in the Council's letter of 31 July marks the terminal point of the livestock failure documented under the despatch of 5 March 1713. The earlier account of eleven bullocks and seven cows lost between John Haw's account of 14 October and Mr Eaton's of 5 December, with sixty head dying since Lady Day with no consultation entry, and the goat population of about two hundred in the valleys when Mashborne left now largely unaccounted, finds its conclusion in the present total absence of small livestock. The pattern reveals a cumulative breakdown of the breeding programme across the late administration, not merely individual losses to disease or natural causes. The contradiction between the demographic returns identifies an evidential problem for the Council. The Abingdon list taken on 25 February reported 18 sheep, 5 turkeys, 6 ducks and 48 dunghill fowls. The Council's letter of 31 July reported none of these species remaining. The intervening letter of 29 March, reporting 92 head of black cattle, conflicted with the present figure of 60 head. The Court's response, requiring the Council to be particular on the matter, treats the discrepancies as themselves the evidence requiring explanation, with the burden falling on the Council to reconcile the successive returns or to account for the losses between them. The reference to paragraph 56 of the Abingdon's letter as a trifling and insignificant answer to a like enquiry identifies a specific defensive pattern that the Court intended to foreclose. The Boucher administration had answered earlier livestock enquiries with general assurances rather than with particularised explanations, leaving the state of the breeding programme undocumented in the consultation books. The Court's insistence on a particular account in the present letter operates as the procedural counterpart to the documented evidence requirement, with the trifling response treated as itself a failure of the same magnitude as the underlying livestock loss. Speculations The Court's reference to the Council's promise in the letter of 31 July, with the recommendation to remember it, suggests that the new Council had committed itself to a programme of replenishment that the Court intended to track through future correspondence. The arrangement converts the Council's voluntary undertaking into a documented commitment, with future returns measurable against the promise. The construction matches the broader pattern of the present letter, where each procedural reform is anchored to a specific documentary source against which compliance can be tested over time, with the Council's own words operating as the benchmark. The Court's instruction that the Council was to set the example for the planters in the livestock preservation programme probably reflects a calculation about the leadership structure of the establishment. The earlier articles in this letter had documented Boucher's diversion of company hogs, turkeys and other provisions sold to the French and others, with the Governor's table operating as the centre of consumption. The reform required the new Council to invert that pattern, with the senior establishment visibly restraining its own consumption in order to legitimise the restraint demanded of the planters. The arrangement also incidentally protected the Council from any accusation that its breeding programme was a pretext for accumulating stock for its own table, with public abstinence operating as the evidence of policy seriousness. | |
64 | continue to send the Lists Yearly of the familys Whites and their blacks and Cattle of all Lands Leas'd out to y[e] Inhabitants what freeholds they have what our Rents and Revenues amount unto and how much by each Article in an abstract at the End of the Account and what Land by a good Survey shall be found to belong to us and where what part might thereof is necefsary or used for our own Cattle and what part might be Leas'd out always put the List of Familys Alphabetically which wee find sometimes has not been done. As the great Security of our Island consists in the number of English men upon it and that they will the better endeavour to defend it against an Enemy when they have any thing of their own at Stake wee are willing to that End that any of our Soldiers who behave them =selves civilly and are desireous to rent our Land shall have Liberty so to do and become Planters when their Covenanted term is expired and if there are any of them deserving the further favour of having Land given them according to the Ancient Custom let us know it and wether you have any objection thereto and what for our further consideration and Resolution thereupon. Take constant care to preserve the Civil Government of the Island in a regular Method and as may give all necefsary Satis =faction make the Inhabitants easy in their Propertys suffer none to be opprest or ill Dealt with by whomsoever we find some good Entrys in the Consultations of the 9[th] June 1713 Margin Notes: To Send Yearly List of Familys &c To let Lands to Soldiers & To give Acc[oun]t if any deserve more encouragement To take Care of y[e] goodness of y[e] Gov[ernmen]t | The Council was to continue to send the lists yearly of the families, whites and their blacks, and cattle of all sorts, leased out to the inhabitants. The lists were to show what freeholds the inhabitants had, what the Court's rents and revenues amounted to, and how much by each article in an abstract at the end of the account. The Council was to show what land, by a good survey, was found to belong to the Court, what part of it was necessary or used for the Court's own cattle, and what part might be leased out. The list of families was always to be put alphabetically, which the Court found had sometimes not been done. Article 48. The great security of the island consisted in the number of Englishmen upon it. They would the better endeavour to defend it against an enemy when they had something of their own at stake. To that end, the Court was willing that any of the Court's soldiers who behaved themselves civilly, and were desirous to rent the Court's land, should have liberty so to do, and become planters when their covenanted term expired. If any of them were deserving of the further favour of having land given them according to the ancient custom, the Council was to let the Court know it, and whether the Council had any objection thereto, and what for the Court's further consideration and resolution thereupon. Article 49. The Council was to take constant care to preserve the civil government of the island in a regular method, and as might give all necessary satisfaction. The inhabitants were to be made easy in their property. None were to be oppressed or ill-dealt with by whomsoever. The Court found some good entries in the consultations of 9 June 1713 Interpretations The four-component land and revenue return prescribed by the Court establishes the documentary framework against which the proprietary economy of the island was to be tested. The first component, families with their whites and blacks, supplied the population census. The second, the cattle leased out, identified the livestock distributed among the inhabitants on the Court's account. The third, the freeholds, recorded the established planter holdings independent of the leasing system. The fourth, the rents and revenues with each article in an abstract, supplied the financial summary. The integrated format converts what had been four separate documentary streams into a single instrument capable of being tested both internally and against successive years. The alphabetical arrangement of the family list reapplies to the civilian establishment the same documentary discipline imposed earlier in this letter on the soldiers' muster roll. The Court's observation that this had sometimes not been done identifies a laxity in the previous returns, with the unalphabetised list permitting names to be added, removed or duplicated without the ease of cross-checking that alphabetical order provided. The arrangement extends the documentary control framework established under the despatch of 5 March 1713 across the entire civilian and military registry function. The soldier-to-planter conversion policy reaffirmed by Article 48 traces back to the founding instructions of the despatch of 19 December 1673, where soldiers turning planter received the same accommodation as other planters. The principle continued through the despatch of 20 February 1678 under the Blackmore commission and the by-laws of 20 March 1680 with detailed marriage land grants set out in the despatch of 24 March 1680. The present iteration adds a civility test, with the Court's willingness conditioned on the soldier behaving himself and being desirous to rent. The arrangement converts the conversion from an automatic entitlement at the end of service into a discretionary favour subject to the Council's recommendation, with the ancient custom of outright grant treated as a further favour reserved for the most deserving cases. The reference to the inhabitants' property identifies the constitutional principle that the Court sought to preserve. The freehold tenure established under the founding instructions of the despatch of 19 December 1673, granted to the planters and their heirs and assigns for ever clustered around the forts, operated as the legal foundation of the planter community. Successive procedural reforms had reinforced the principle, including the alienation bar extended from one year to seven under the despatch of 20 February 1678, the formal plantation registration regime under the by-laws of 20 March 1680, and the title proof requirement under the despatch of 5 March 1713. The Court's present instruction that none be oppressed or ill-dealt with continues the protection of property against the recurring threat of administrative encroachment. Speculations The Court's careful framing of the soldier-to-planter conversion as conditioned on civility and on the Council's recommendation probably reflects a calculated response to the mutiny documented earlier in this letter. By making the conversion contingent on documented good behaviour, the Court created an incentive structure against any further collective indiscipline among the soldiers, with the prospect of becoming a planter at the end of the covenanted term operating as the reward for compliance during service. The arrangement converts the conversion policy from a passive entitlement into an active disciplinary instrument, with each soldier's record on the muster roll and in the consultation books determining the outcome. The Court's reference to good entries in the consultations of 9 June 1713 suggests that the new Council's early proceedings had displayed sufficient procedural propriety to merit positive notice from the Court. The Pyke administration had taken office following the arrival on 5 August 1711 and the formal change announced by the despatch of 5 March 1713, with 9 June 1713 falling within the first months of the operation of the new establishment. The Court's identification of the good entries at this point of the present letter, set against the comprehensive critique of the preceding articles directed at the Boucher administration, draws the line between the two periods, with the new Council's procedural discipline established as the starting point for the future returns now required. | |
65 | relating to the Churchwardens and their Accounts y[e] highways and other matters and in the Consultations of July and August about Settling the property of the Inhabitants Lands and their titles thereto wether freehold or Leashold and the appointing a Court of Orphans continue these and all other usuall methods for the benefitt and quiet of y[e] people. Fourthly Touching our Fortifications Buildings and Garrison Stores Wee are sorry to find That notwithstand =ing Cap[t] Bouchers Afsurance in Parr[r] 10 of Abingdon that he has deserved much better than any his Predecefsors and his Pompous Account of what he has done as in Parr[r] 19. & 20. That you can find nothing of Moment Don about the fortifications since Govern[ou]r Roberts left the Island and that all is out of Repair or at best the needfull Buildings neglected and among others the designed Storehouse we did in the Instructions Sent by you tell you our minds fully what Storehouses we would have built That is to say what really necefsary as therein enumerated But at the same time must acquaint you That wee would have no more Done than what is soe, building when best managed is a chargeable Article as we have found by Smarting experience since The Wall is built as mentiond in Parr[r] 10. of y[ou]r Letter make the needfull additions thereto to become proper Warehouses the late Gov[ernou]r wrote it was best to have the Storehouses there because the goods and mannagement was more under the Eye of the Governour and Council, you write it is too damp and may Spoil the Goods consider well and Margin Notes: no buildings but what is necefsary | The good entries of 9 June 1713 related to the churchwardens and their accounts, the highways and other matters. In the consultations of July and August the good entries concerned settling the property of the inhabitants' lands, and their titles thereto, whether freehold or leasehold, and the appointing of a Court of Orphans. The Council was to continue these and all other usual methods for the benefit and quiet of the people. Fourthly, the Court came to fortifications, buildings and garrison stores. Article 50. The Court was sorry to find that, notwithstanding Captain Boucher's assurance in paragraph 10 of the Abingdon's letter that he had deserved much better than any of his predecessors, and his pompous account of what he had done in paragraphs 9 and 10, the Council could find nothing of moment done about the fortifications since Governor Roberts left the island. All was out of repair. At best, the needful buildings were neglected. Among others, the designed storehouse was uncompleted. The Court's instructions, sent by the Council, told the Council its mind fully as to what storehouses the Court would have built, that was to say what really were necessary as therein enumerated. At the same time, the Council was to be acquainted that the Court would have no more done than what was needed. Building, when best managed, was a chargeable article, as the Court had found by smarting experience. The wall, as mentioned in paragraph 10 of the Council's letter, would make the needful additions thereto, to become proper warehouses. The late Governor had written that it was best to have the storehouses there, because the goods and management was more under the eye of the Governor and Council. The Council now wrote that it was too damp, and might spoil the goods. The Council was to consider well Interpretations The good entries identified by the Court in the consultations of 9 June 1713 and the following months reveal the substantive content of the new Pyke administration's early procedural reforms. The churchwardens and their accounts placed the religious establishment under the same documentary discipline as the secular establishment, with the highways and other matters extending the civil administration to the maintenance of the public infrastructure. The land titles consultations of July and August reaffirmed the property regime established under the founding instructions of the despatch of 19 December 1673 and reinforced by the title proof requirement of the despatch of 5 March 1713. The Court of Orphans appointed by the new Council represented an extension of the judicial system established by the laws and constitutions of 14 March 1684 and 30 March 1685, where the Governor sat as sole judge with the Sheriff as executive officer. The probate jurisdiction added by the despatch of 5 March 1713, with wills proved and entered with the Council to be annually copied to London, found its complement in the appointment of a body to oversee the property of minors whose parents had died on the island. The arrangement matches the maturation of the administrative regime documented in successive correspondence into a comprehensive system covering each civil function. The complete failure of the fortifications programme under Boucher emerges as the subject of Article 50. Governor Roberts had been Boucher's predecessor, with the state of the defences at his departure operating as the baseline against which the Boucher administration's performance was to be measured. The Court's finding that nothing of moment had been done about the fortifications since Roberts left, with all out of repair and the needful buildings neglected, matches the fortifications priority established by the despatch of 5 March 1713, where the four storehouses for arrack and other liquids, India goods, Europe commodities and naval stores had been ordered built in preference to further fortification work during the peace. The damp objection now raised by the new Council against the wall location for the storehouses contradicts Boucher's defence in his letter that the location was best because the goods and management were more under the eye of the Governor and Council. The Court's instruction that the new Council was to consider well puts the location decision back into the hands of the present establishment, with the supervisory advantage of proximity weighed against the spoilage risk of dampness. The arrangement reveals the evidential consequence of the change of administration, with the present Council free to reach a different conclusion from its predecessor on a question of fact subject to local observation. Speculations The Court's insistence that no more was to be built than what was needed, with building identified as a chargeable article known by smarting experience, probably reflects a calculation about the misuse of construction projects under the Boucher administration. The four-hundred-foot covered riding shed costing above £300 0s 0d documented under the despatch of 5 March 1713 represented the terminus of the previous building programme, where the apparent capital expenditure of the establishment had been diverted to the Governor's private structures. The Court's remedy required limiting the scope of construction to genuinely necessary buildings, with the effect of removing the cover under which materials and labour could be diverted. The Council's invocation of dampness as the objection to the wall location for the storehouses probably reflects a concern about the storage of the East India goods identified earlier in this letter as the principal items requiring shelter. Calicoes, dungarees and other Indian textiles were particularly vulnerable to damage from damp conditions, with the spoilage rate determining the recoverable value of the consignments arriving on the Cardonell, the Mercury sloop and other ships. The Council's preference for an alternative location operated as an economic decision about the preservation of the consignment value, with the management argument used by Boucher subordinated to the physical conditions affecting the goods. | |
66 | and if the building is enu[gh] for all the warehouses don't build more if it be not then only do what further necefsary for them and the Souldiers Barracks and in the most proper places takeing great care we are at no more Charge than needfull to make all durable and convenient whether in these or the Fortifications &c building and let us have a Calculate sent of y[e] Charge of each place when finisht giveing therein an account of what is don that we may judge of the husbandry. M[r] Cleve writes us that he is in great want of a Warehouse to house Timber and Deals for that the Sun Splits the Timber & Warps the Deals and the Souldiers Steal the Wood for fireing that the Gunner Loofes much of his dry Stores for want of a Storeroom so far as you find this true take care to prevent the Evill complaind of as you see fitt It seems the late Governour would not let him have the Charge of our Timber and Deals nor Suffer him to repair what he found wanted mending by which Severall things were goeing to ruine Do you give the needfull Orders that he have the charge of both and have Power to Act according to the Tenour of this and our 77[th] Parr[r] of y[ou]r Instructions We understand that by reason of the Scarcity of Provisions and the fewnefs of good Artists Carpenters and others Mannufacturers Labour is very dear at S[t] Helena and we find allowed to him & Stevens the Mason each Six Shillings a day and to M[r] Cleave his Dyett besides when when wee ordered him Dyett at our Table we were not aware he had so much Wages and do think it Margin Notes: relating to workmen & their Wages | The Council was to consider whether the building was sufficient for all the warehouses. If it was, the Council was not to build more. If it was not, the Council was to add only what was further necessary for them and for the soldiers' barracks, in the most proper places. Great care was to be taken that the Court was at no more charge than needful, and that all was made durable and convenient. The Council was to consider whether to build at the fortifications, and to send the Court a calculate of the charge of each place when finished, with an account of what had been done, so that the Court might judge of the husbandry. Mr Cleve wrote that he was in great want of a warehouse to house the timber and deals. The sun split the timber and warped the deals. The soldiers stole the wood for firing. The Gunner lost much of his dry stores for want of a storeroom. So far as the Council found these complaints true, the Council was to take care to prevent the evil. It seemed that the late Governor would not let Cleve have the charge of the Court's timber and deals, nor suffer him to repair what he found wanted mending, by which several things were going to ruin. The Council was to give the needful orders that Cleve have the charge of both, and have power to act according to the tenor of the present letter and the Court's 77th paragraph of his instructions. The Court understood that, by reason of the scarcity of provisions and the fewness of good artists, carpenters and other manufacturers' labour was very dear at St Helena. The Court found Skreaves the Mason allowed at 6s 0d a day, and Mr Cleve his wages besides when the Court had ordered him diet at the Court's table. The Court had not been aware that he had so much wages, and did think Interpretations The Court's test of husbandry, applied to the building programme through the calculate of charge at each place when finished, establishes the documentary instrument by which the cost-effectiveness of construction was to be measured. The arrangement matches the audit framework imposed elsewhere in this letter, with each item of expenditure measured against an itemised account that can be tested by the Court at London. The calculation of charge against finished result converts the building programme from an open-ended commitment into a set of measurable projects, each accountable on its own merits. The damage to the timber and deals from sun and from soldiers' pilfering identifies the physical consequences of the failure to complete the storehouse documented in earlier articles of this letter. The materials prepared for the buried foundation discussed earlier had been left exposed to the elements and to opportunistic theft, with each component of the loss separately identifiable. The sun-split timber represents the consequence of inadequate covered storage. The warped deals represent the same problem applied to thinner stock more vulnerable to distortion. The stolen firewood represents the consequence of the absence of any secure enclosure, with the soldiers identified as the agents of the theft. The Court's instruction to prevent the evil places responsibility on the present Council to remedy each component through the construction of secure storage. The restoration of Cleve's authority over the timber and deals continues the policy established under the despatch of 5 March 1713, where Cleve had been restored to the establishment with direct yearly correspondence to the Court bypassing the Governor and Council, charged with the timber account and the training of docile blacks in joinery and carpentry. The dismissal of Cleve by Boucher when he proposed that timber stuff not be embezzled had been documented under that earlier despatch as part of the misappropriation pattern. The present passage shows that even after the formal restoration, the practical control had been withheld by Boucher, with several things going to ruin as the consequence of Cleve's exclusion. The Court's instruction to give the needful orders that Cleve have the charge of both completes the restoration, with the new Council compelled to operate the policy that the late Governor had frustrated. The 6s 0d daily rate for Skreaves the Mason, set against the founding daily wage rates fixed by the despatch of 20 February 1678 at 1s 0d for a master workman and 8d for a servant or labourer, represents a sixfold increase over the foundational scale. The Court's concern with the dear labour cost of the carpenters and other manufacturers reveals the consequence of the scarcity of provisions and the fewness of good artists. The arrangement reflects the standard economic principle that wages rise where labour is scarce and provisions costly, with the available responses being either to expand the labour supply through training, as proposed under the despatch of 5 March 1713 for the docile blacks in joinery and carpentry, or to improve the provisions supply, addressed elsewhere in this letter through the livestock preservation programme. Speculations The Court's observation that it had not been aware Cleve had so much wages besides his diet at the Court's table probably reflects an internal accounting gap rather than any deliberate concealment by Cleve. The despatch of 5 March 1713 had restored Cleve with direct yearly correspondence to the Court, bypassing the Governor and Council, with the arrangement designed to protect him from the kind of obstruction that Boucher had practised. The unintended consequence was that Cleve's wage arrangement became visible to the Court only through the present audit, not through the regular Council returns. The arrangement reveals a structural tension between the bypass mechanism intended to protect officers from administrative interference and the oversight function exercised by the Court at London, with the bypass operating against the transparency of the establishment's expenditure. The Court's careful identification of Skreaves the Mason and Cleve the Carpenter by name in the present article, set against the broader complaint about dear labour at the establishment, suggests that the Court was building precedents for the management of skilled wages. By naming the two principal artificers and their rates, the Court created the evidential basis for future wage decisions that could be tested against the present figures. The arrangement matches the broader pattern of the present letter, where each named individual with a particular wage or privilege is documented in the consultation books as a precedent against which future arrangements could be measured. The Court's strategy required the documentation of each present rate as a defence against further inflation through subsequent negotiation. | |
67 | is too much for if it be objected he can have so much of the Planters w[i]th wee somewhat Doubt of or at least that it is y[e] Currant price The naturall question is can he have so much and be employd every day in the Year whoever pays Wages all the Year round will consider that and have the Service at a lefs rate than what necefsity will compell a Private man too pay only a day or a Week on the whole Wee Think he ought to take lefs considering he hat dyett from us wee would give him a fair allowance to encourage his fidelity and care of our businefs under his charge but would not pay to dear for it let us know your opinions and if you agree with us settle his allowance on fair & equitable terms If you disagree let us know your reason. Wee likewise think M[r] Threeves Allowance of Six Shillings a day is too great a Jump from £30 a Year wee Entertain'd him at here moderate that in like manner the price of dearnefs of Provisions cant last always but once Setting Wages will our Souldiers maintaine themselves at 21/8 a Month and their Duty take up great part of their time which is but nine pence a day these mens Skill deserve better pay but to us it appears plain the dearnefs of Provisions has too much Strefs laid upon it to Warrant Gov[ernou]r Bouchers Allowing them so much Wee think it was very ill husbandry to allow John Sinsnick Souldier 4 a day for working as a Stonelayer at Prosperous Bay house as the Consultation of 9 Nov[ember] mentions and cant Imagine how he could come to have a demand for 5 Shill[ings] a time for 19 Alarms or how long time it was earning in, enquire wether | The Court thought it was too much. If it were objected that Cleve could have so much of the planters too, the Court somewhat doubted of that, or at least that it was the current price. The natural question was: could he have so much, and be employed every day in the year? Whoever paid wages all the year round would consider that, and have the service at a less rate than what necessity would compel a private man to pay for only a day or a week. On the whole, the Court thought he ought to take less, considering he dieted at the Court's charge. The Court would give him a fair allowance to encourage his fidelity and care of the Court's business under his charge. It would not pay too dear for it. The Council was to let the Court know its opinion, and if it agreed with the Court, to settle his allowance on fair and equitable terms. If it disagreed, the Court was to know the Council's reason. The Court likewise thought Mr Skreaves's allowance of 6s 0d a day was too great a jump from £30 0s 0d a year, at which the Court had entertained him on his arrival. The prices of provisions were moderate, and in such a manner of dearness could not always last but once. Settling wages, the Court's soldiers maintained themselves at 21s 0d a month, and their duty took up great part of their time. The soldiers were paid but ninepence a day. Skreaves's skill deserved better pay, but to the Court it appeared plain that the dearness of provisions had too much stress laid upon it to warrant Governor Boucher's allowing him so much. The Court thought it was very ill husbandry to allow John Sinsnick the soldier 4s 0d a day for working as a stonelayer at Prosperous Bay House, as the consultation of 3 November mentioned. The Court could not imagine how he came to have a demand for 5s 0d at a time for nineteen alarms, or how long time he was earning it in. The Council was to enquire whether Interpretations The Court's test of whether Cleve could have so much and be employed every day in the year applies an economic principle distinct from the daily wage benchmark. A private man paying for a day or a week's work bore the hire cost for the period of actual employment only, with the market price set by the immediate balance of supply and demand for that limited engagement. An employer paying wages all the year round, by contrast, bore the cost of idle time alongside productive time, and could therefore reasonably expect a lower per-day rate. The arrangement reveals the economic basis on which the Court intended to discount Cleve's hire rate against the planters' market. The 21s 0d monthly rate identified for the soldiers, equivalent to approximately ninepence a day, provides the bottom of the wage hierarchy at the establishment. The figure traces back to the founding pay scales of the despatch of 19 December 1673, where common soldiers were paid per the Pursers' books, and to the despatch of 20 February 1678, where Joshua Johnson had been engaged in London at 40s 0d per month as lieutenant with thirty acres of land, one servant on company pay, one slave and four cows. The present monthly figure for private soldiers represents the stability of the rank-and-file rate across forty years of the establishment, with the differential against skilled labour having widened as the dearness of provisions affected wages elsewhere. The £30 0s 0d annual rate at which Skreaves had been entertained on arrival, set against the 6s 0d daily rate documented under Boucher, reveals the pattern of wage inflation through informal renegotiation. At an assumption of 250 productive days per year, the daily rate would imply an annual equivalent of £75 0s 0d, more than double the original entertainment rate. The Court's identification of the dearness of provisions as the justification for the increase reflects the standard economic argument advanced for wage rises, but the Court's response treats the dearness as a temporary condition rather than a permanent change, with the conclusion that the rate should adjust back as the provisions situation eased. The John Sinsnick case identifies a pattern of supplementary payments to soldiers undertaking skilled work outside their primary military duty. The 4s 0d daily rate as a stonelayer at Prosperous Bay House converted a private sentinel paid at ninepence a day into an artisan paid at a rate competitive with civilian masons, with the difference operating as an enhancement of military pay through skilled secondary employment. The 5s 0d at a time for nineteen alarms identifies a further category of supplementary payment, with each alarm representing a discrete event requiring soldier mobilisation outside the standard duty schedule. The two payment streams converted Sinsnick's total into a sum substantially above the soldier base, with no evidence in the consultation books of how the rates were set or how the time was reckoned. Speculations The Court's scepticism about whether Cleve could be employed every day in the year probably reflects a calculation about the volume of carpentry work available at the establishment. The annual cycle of construction, repair and maintenance produced peaks and troughs in the demand for skilled labour, with major projects requiring concentrated effort at particular seasons and routine maintenance generating only intermittent need outside those peaks. By raising the question of continuous employment, the Court invited the Council to test Cleve's per-day rate against the idle time inherent in a year-round engagement, with the conclusion that a full-year retainer should be priced below the per-day rate paid by planters for specific projects. The arrangement matches the economic theory advanced elsewhere in the present letter, where each privilege was tested against its justification rather than accepted on the basis of established practice. The nineteen alarms cited in Sinsnick's payment claim suggest a pattern of alarm calls so frequent during the relevant period that the supplementary payment for each had become a routine component of soldier remuneration. The Court's concern, requiring the Council to enquire into the basis and timing, probably reflects a suspicion that the alarms had been called for administrative reasons unconnected with any genuine threat, with the payment operating as a covert wage supplement. The arrangement matches the broader pattern of the present letter, where Boucher's misappropriations had been documented through the multiplication of irregular payments to favoured officers and soldiers, with each irregularity covered by a formal procedural justification in the consultation books. | |
68 | wether M[r] French ought to have his Lodging paid for by us and what was the cause he was 3 Years in Arrears if it was his due as mentioned in said Consultation it looks to us as if M[r] Boucher was gaining the good opinion of the People at our charge. Wee are Strangely Surprized at y[ou]r Account in your Parr[r] 9 that the Additionall work on each Side of the Castle next the Sea are a weakening to the Fort and that as you say you must fortifye those two Sides of the Fort by raising it higher and must fix Iron rails with Iron feet against the Walls we can by no means like this way of makeing more Work by all that is done if what you propose be absolutely necefsary we must Submitt to it But consider well wether it is so before you begin and let nothing but the last necefsity induce you to add to the Charge which will be great enu[gh] in all Conscience in performing what we are willing to allow for Securing the Island repairing what decay'd & providing necefsary rooms for Lodgings and for housing our Goods of all kinds. In perusing M[r] Cleeves Account of the disposall of the Timber and Deals under his charge wee find Severall Parcells delivered the Planters we Suppose they are paid for, but that doth not appear so plain for the future do you take care to examine the Account he sends us which he must Sign to vouch it and if found right do you attest it and for what is delivered the Inhabitants let the Storekeeper or whoever recieves the mony or charges it to Margin Notes: alters to y[e] Fort not to add without necefsity Acc[oun]t of Timber Sold to & taken & Signd by Capt[?] & Storekeep[er] | The Council was to enquire whether Mr French ought to have his lodging paid for by the Court, and what was the cause he was three years in arrears. If it were his due as mentioned in the said consultation, it looked to the Court as if Mr Boucher had been gaining the good opinion of the people at the Court's charge. Article 52. The Court was strangely surprised at the account in paragraph 9 of the Council's letter, that the additional work on each side of the castle next the sea was a weakening to the fort, and that the Council must fortify those two sides of the fort by raising it higher, and must fix iron rails with cow feet against the walls. The Court could by no means like this way of making more work. By all that had been done, if what the Council proposed was absolutely necessary, the Court must submit to it. The Council was to consider well whether it was so before it began. Nothing but the last necessity was to induce the Council to add to the charge, which would be great enough in all conscience in performing what the Court was willing to allow for securing the island, repairing what decayed, and providing necessary rooms for lodgings and for housing the Court's goods of all kinds. Article 53. In perusing Mr Cleeve's account of the disposal of the timber and deals under his charge, the Court found several parcels delivered to the islanders. The Court supposed they had been paid for, but the position did not appear plain. For the future, the Council was to take care to examine the account Cleeve sent the Court, which Cleeve must sign to vouch its truth. If the Council found it right, the Council was to attest it. For what was delivered to the inhabitants, the Storekeeper, or whoever received the money, was to be charged Interpretations The French lodging arrears identify a subsidy paid by the Court to support a Council member's living expenses, distinct from the salary and the table allowance discussed earlier in this letter. The arrangement converted lodging from a private expense into a perquisite of office, with three years of accumulated arrears suggesting that the entitlement had operated continuously without challenge throughout the Boucher administration. The Court's interpretation, that Boucher had been gaining the good opinion of the people at the Court's charge, identifies the political function of the lodging subsidy as a patronage instrument deployed by the Governor through the Court's resources rather than his own. The iron rails with cow feet proposed for the fortifications represent a defensive construction designed to prevent the walls from collapsing under the pressure of additional height. Cow feet were heavy iron stays driven through the wall masonry and turned outwards at the foot, in the shape of a cow's cloven hoof, to anchor the structure against outward thrust. The arrangement reveals the structural engineering required where additional height was being added to existing fortification walls, with the consequence that the upgrade involved substantial ironwork as well as masonry. The Court's scepticism about the necessity of the work reflects a calculation that the proposed addition was generating its own structural problems, with the iron rails operating as a remedy for a problem that need not have arisen had the simpler course been followed. The Court's instruction that nothing but the last necessity was to induce the Council to add to the charge applies the husbandry principle of the present letter to the fortifications programme. The deferred new west battery had been recorded under the despatch of 5 March 1713 as awaiting a gunner, with the gunner shortage cited as the reason for postponing the work. The four storehouses programme of the same despatch had been ordered built strong and commodious in preference to further fortification work during the peace. The present passage extends the preference for restraint to the existing fortification structure, with the test that any addition must be justified as last necessity rather than as an improvement to the existing defensive arrangement. The timber disposal accounting framework prescribed by Article 53 establishes the audit trail for materials passed from the Court's stock to the inhabitants. The four-stage process required Cleeve to sign his account vouching its truth, the Council to attest it after examination, the Storekeeper or other receiver to be charged with the money or charges, and the entry to appear in the consultation books for transmission to London. The arrangement matches the warrant system established by the founding instructions of the despatch of 19 December 1673, where stores were released only on a warrant signed by the Governor and majority of Council with debtor-and-creditor bookkeeping. The present extension applies the same documentary discipline to the inter-station transfer of construction materials, closing a gap through which the Boucher administration had operated the diversion of timber to private buildings. Speculations The Court's careful attribution of the lodging subsidy to Boucher's political strategy of gaining good opinion at the Court's charge probably reflects a calculated drafting decision. By framing the irregularity as a personal manoeuvre by the late Governor rather than as a structural feature of the establishment, the Court preserved the ability to withdraw the subsidy under the new administration without provoking French to claim a general entitlement that other officers might invoke. The arrangement matches the broader pattern of the present letter, where each Boucher-era irregularity is presented as personally attributable to the late Governor rather than as an established feature of the office, with the effect of confining the legitimacy claim to the individual whose personal conduct was now the subject of disciplinary review. The Court's scepticism about the iron rails proposal probably reflects a calculation about the escalation pattern of fortification works. Each addition to an existing defensive structure generated secondary problems that required further additions to remedy, with the cumulative effect of an open-ended construction programme growing well beyond the original justification. By requiring the Council to consider well before adding to the charge, the Court placed the onus of justification on each successive proposal rather than treating the defensive logic as self-evident. The arrangement matches the husbandry principle applied throughout the present letter, where each expenditure decision was tested against an alternative of restraint rather than treated as an automatic consequence of an earlier commitment. | |
69 | to their account Sign that part of the List to show it is accounted for. Wee have a Letter from M[r] Thomlinson our Chaplain praying we will give Encour =agement and orders to build a Church in James Valley and will send a Modell and Timbers and other necefsarys as Pens Pulpit reading desk Communion table &c ready framed for it enclosed he sent us a Subscription of 150[£] to be paid towards it when it was begun, to this we say wee are very willing to contribute handsomely Do you Advise what you compute it may Cost as to the Stone work what dimensions are proper for the heigth and area of it and what number of Pens let him continue his Subscri =ptions as Ships come to the Island advise us what you would have us advance towards it The great difficulty with us will be to find Tonnage for what is desired from hence because our Ships are not able to carry the necefsary demands made for S[t] Helena and Bencoolen and what he proposes us to send will prove bulkey which cant be done till the Island is pretty well Stored with goods and the Stores wanted take up but little room Here he further prefses us for dyett Money and to Pay his house rent because the Souldiers are quartered at the sefsions house where his Lodgeings were and they are too Streight for him as to dyett we always Supposed he dyetted at our Table as other Chaplains have done he being Marryd prays it may now be Suitable to the dearnefs of the Place which wee can't judge of here but would have you give Margin Notes: relates to the Ministers the buildg[?] ano[ther] Church &c | The Storekeeper, or whoever received the money or charges, was to enter it to the account of the persons concerned. The Council was to sign that part of the list to show it was accounted for. Article 54. The Court had received a letter from Mr Thomlinson, the Chaplain, praying the Court would give encouragement and orders to build a church in James Valley. Thomlinson would send a model, and well-seasoned timbers, with other necessaries such as pews, pulpit, reading desk and communion table, ready framed for it. Enclosed he had sent a subscription of £150 0s 0d, to be paid towards it when it was begun. To this the Court said it was very willing to contribute handsomely. The Council was to advise the Court what it computed it might cost as to the stonework, what dimensions were proper for the height and area, and what number of pews. Thomlinson was to continue his subscriptions as ships came to the island. The Court was to be advised what it would have advanced towards it. The great difficulty with the Court would be to find tonnage for what was desired from London, because the Court's ships were not able to carry the necessary demands made for St Helena and Bencoolen, and what Thomlinson proposed to send would prove bulky, which could not be done till the island was pretty well stored with goods and the stores wanted took up but little room. Thomlinson further pressed the Court for diet money, and to pay his house rent, because the soldiers were quartered at the sessions house where his lodgings were, and they were too straight for him. As to diet, the Court had always supposed he dieted at the Court's table as other chaplains had done. He, being married, prayed it might now be suitable to the dearness of the place, which the Court could not judge of, but would have the Council give Interpretations The proposed church in James Valley represents the completion of the religious establishment on the island. The founding instructions of the despatch of 19 December 1673 had engaged William Swindle as Minister at £50 0s 0d salary, £25 0s 0d schoolmaster fee and £25 0s 0d gratuity per annum, with duties of preaching, catechising and teaching the children of inhabitants and slaves. Successive chaplains had served under the same engagement, with the religious infrastructure operating without a dedicated church building. The proposal for a purpose-built church with timbers framed in London and shipped to the island reveals the consolidation of religious provision into a permanent physical structure, matching the four storehouses programme of the despatch of 5 March 1713 as part of the maturation of the establishment. The £150 0s 0d subscription pledged by Thomlinson, payable when the work began, identifies the contribution from the religious side towards the construction cost. The arrangement places part of the financing on the chaplain personally, with the effect that Thomlinson had a direct personal interest in the completion of the project and an incentive to mobilise further subscriptions as ships came to the island. The Court's willingness to contribute handsomely combined with the request for dimensions and pew numbers reveals the method by which the Court intended to control the project, with each component tested against specifications agreed at London before any commitment was made. The tonnage difficulty identified by the Court reveals the capacity constraint on the company's shipping during the period. The Cardonell and the other ships of the 1714 season had been loaded with the cargoes described in earlier passages of this letter, with the margin for additional bulky items such as church timbers reduced to virtually nothing. The Court's sequence, requiring the island to be pretty well stored with goods before the church timbers could be carried, places the priority on the productive supply for the establishment over the religious infrastructure, with the consequence that the church project would proceed only after the storehouse programme had reduced the demand on the shipping capacity. The chaplain's diet entitlement at the Governor's table traces back to the founding instructions of the despatch of 19 December 1673, where Swindle had been engaged with diet at the Governor's table and a plantation. The continuation of the entitlement across successive chaplains, including Edward Winni engaged in 1676 with diet at the general table, William Wynn the chaplain granted leave to return in 1678, and Joseph Church confirmed in his post following his marriage by the despatch of 14 March 1684, establishes the precedent on which Thomlinson now relied. His present claim for diet money in lieu, with the justification of his married state and the dearness of the place, identifies the transition from the bachelor table arrangement to a cash equivalent that could be applied to maintaining his own household. The Court's response, deferring the judgment to the Council on the question of dearness, applies the pattern of local decision on matters of local knowledge that runs through the present letter. Speculations The displacement of the chaplain from his lodgings at the sessions house by the quartering of soldiers reveals a pressure on the island's accommodation infrastructure that had not been documented in earlier despatches. The sessions house had operated as the judicial venue under the Court of Justice established by the laws and constitutions of 14 March 1684 and 30 March 1685, with the Governor as sole judge sitting once every three weeks. The conversion of part of the building into soldiers' quarters suggests either an increase in the garrison size or a deterioration in the alternative barrack accommodation, with the chaplain's displacement as the consequence. The Court's instruction to the Council to enquire into the matter places the factual investigation at the local level, with the remedy to be determined after the physical situation had been documented. Thomlinson's careful sequencing of his requests, with the subscription of £150 0s 0d to be paid when the work began rather than at the outset, probably reflects a calculation about the enforcement of the construction commitment. By tying the subscription to the commencement of work, Thomlinson protected his own personal contribution against any future cancellation of the project, with the effect that his £150 0s 0d operated as a guarantee of his personal commitment but not as an unconditional contribution. The arrangement also incidentally pressed the Court and the Council into beginning the work, since the subscription would only be released against actual construction, with the consequence that delay in starting cost the project Thomlinson's contribution and any subscriptions that he would have raised from arriving ships in the intervening period. | |
70 | give us your opinion upon it and also wether the appartment adjoyning to the Sefsions House may not be made convenient for him and then wee shall send you our thoughts on the whole tho' wee must tell you wee are always unwilling to make Precidents for if they are once got on it will be very difficult and though a hardship to take them off again be y[e] reason never so cogent. Wee have now got thro' y[e] Letters Consultations & other Papers before us relating to S[t] Helena and our remarks thereon wherein wee have been necefsitated to shew our resent =ment and write Sharply in some perticulars occurring before your time that very much needed it which wee hope you will amend and take care none of them shall deservedly be applyd to any of you for it would be much more pleasing to us to write in a Softer Stile and to exchange reproof for commendations which wee shall willingly do if y[e] Directions & Orders in this and former Letters are duly attended to understood and Executed. Wee have only to add That it having Pleased y[e] Almighty to take to his mercy our late most Gracious Sovereign Lady Queen Anne, on the first of August last His present Majesty King George was in pursuance of the Acts of Settlement proclaimed the same day some time after His Majesty with his Royall Highnefs George Prince of Wales & his Princefs and two of the Young Princefses arrived safely in England from Hannover and has been since Crown'd with the usuall Solemnities Margin Notes: to proclaim K[ing] George. | The Court would have the Council give its opinion upon the matter, and also whether the apartment adjoining the sessions house might not be made convenient for him. Then the Court would send the Council its thoughts on the whole. The Court must tell the Council, though, that it was always unwilling to make precedents. If they were once got, it would be very difficult, and though a hardship, to take them off again, were the reason never so cogent. Article 55. The Court had now gone through the letters, consultations and other papers before it relating to St Helena, and the Court's remarks thereon. The Court had been necessitated to show its resentment, and to write sharply in some particulars occurring before the Council's time, that very much needed it. The Court hoped the Council would amend matters, and take care that none of them should deservedly be applied to any of the Council. It would be much more pleasing to the Court to write in a softer style, and to exchange reproof for commendations, which the Court should willingly do if its directions and orders in this and former letters were duly attended to, understood and executed. Article 56. The Court had only to add this. It having pleased the Almighty to take to his mercy the Court's late most gracious sovereign Lady Queen Anne on 1 August last, his present Majesty King George had, in pursuance of the Acts of Settlement, been proclaimed the same day. Some time after, his Majesty, with his Royal Highness George Prince of Wales and his Princess, and two of the young princesses, had arrived safely in England from Hanover. The King had since been crowned with the usual Interpretations The Court's careful framing of the chaplain's accommodation as a matter for opinion rather than direct decision continues the pattern of the present letter, where each potential precedent was tested against the risk of permanent entitlement. The apartment adjoining the sessions house, identified as a possible alternative to a rent allowance, would convert the chaplain's lodging into a component of the Court's existing real estate rather than a separate financial commitment. The arrangement preserves the Court's position against future claims by successor chaplains, since a physical accommodation can be withdrawn without the appearance of withdrawing a salary, whereas a cash allowance once established hardens into a personal entitlement. The principle that precedents once got would be very difficult to take off again, even where the reason was cogent, articulates the theory of administrative restraint that runs through the entire letter. The Court understood that the political cost of withdrawing an established privilege exceeded the economic cost of granting it, with the consequence that the initial decision had to be made on the assumption that no future correction would be available. The arrangement matches the pattern established in Article 32 regarding the table allowance, where each present privilege was to be tested against the documented source under the Old Company or at the beginning of the Union, with Poirier identified as the benchmark. The change of sovereign on 1 August 1714, with Queen Anne's death and the proclamation of King George the same day in pursuance of the Acts of Settlement, places this General Letter in the transitional months of the Hanoverian succession. The proclamation was the constitutional act by which the new sovereign's authority was publicly announced under the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement of 1701, with the same-day timing reflecting the operation of the statutory framework that had been put in place precisely to prevent the interregnum that had followed earlier successions. The arrangement establishes the political context in which the present letter was drafted and despatched, with the new dynasty operating at the London end while the complaints about the previous administration on the island were being addressed. The arrival of the royal family from Hanover, with George Prince of Wales, his Princess and two young princesses accompanying the new King, marks the physical establishment of the Hanoverian court in England. The consequence for the East India Company at the London end was the requirement to negotiate its political relationships afresh with the new sovereign and his ministers, with the effect that the Court's operations during the period bore an additional layer of constitutional adjustment alongside its ordinary business. The Council on the island was now to proclaim King George under the same constitutional formula, with the religious establishment under Thomlinson required to incorporate the new royal house into the prayers and observances continued from the laws and constitutions of 30 March 1685. Speculations The Court's careful expression of willingness to exchange reproof for commendations probably reflects a calculation about the motivational psychology of the new Council. By framing the sharp critique of the Boucher administration as directed at past failings rather than present conduct, and by signalling that the tone of future correspondence depended on the Council's compliance with the present directions, the Court created a positive incentive structure alongside the disciplinary framework. The arrangement matches the broader pattern of the present letter, where each procedural reform is presented in terms that invite voluntary adoption by those required to operate it rather than imposing visible new burdens, with the softer style of future letters operating as the reward for present compliance. The Court's choice to close the General Letter with the constitutional announcement of the change of sovereign, rather than with the substantive directions on the island's administration, probably reflects a calculation about the ceremonial requirements of the transition. The Council on the island would need to proclaim King George in pursuance of the Acts of Settlement, with the religious establishment incorporating the new royal house into the observances. The placement of the announcement at the close of the letter, after all the substantive directions had been delivered, ensured that the ceremonial response could be organised by the Council without disrupting the operational priorities established in the earlier articles. The arrangement reveals the integration of the political transition into the routine administrative cycle, with the new sovereign incorporated into the operations of the establishment alongside the continuing business of the previous reign. | |
71 | Solemnitys and the Generall acclamations of his Subjects Do you take care as soon as conveniently you can after rec[eiv]t hereof and takeing on Shore the Cargo To cause His said Majesty The most High and Mighty Prince George Elector of Brunswick-Lunenberg to be Proclaimed on the Island King of Great Brittain France and Ireland Defender of the Faith &c[t]. Let the whole be performed with a becoming Solemnity Suitable to the great occasion. Wee are Your Loving Friends Rob[t] Beck Dep[uty] Chair[ma]n Rich[ard] Gough Tho[mas] Heath Mathew Decker Jon[a]th[an] Andrews Justus Beck Rob[t] Nightingale James Wallis or J Ward Jun[r] W[m] Gofelin Geo[rge] Browne John Elwick Rob[t] Michell Joseph Eyles Jos[eph] Wordsworth | The King had been crowned with the usual solemnities and the general acclamations of his subjects. As soon as conveniently the Council could, after the receipt and the taking on shore of the cargo, the Council was to cause his said Majesty the Most High and Mighty Prince George, Elector of Brunswick Lunenburg, to be proclaimed on the island King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, et cetera. The whole was to be performed with a becoming solemnity suitable to the great occasion. The letter closed with the subscription as loving friends, signed by Robert Pitt as Deputy in the Chair, Richard Gough, Thomas Heath, Matthew Decker, Jonathan Andrews, Justus Beck, Robert Nightingale, James Wallis, [...] Ward Junior, William Gosselin, George Browne, John Elwick, Robert Michel, Joseph Eyles and Joseph Wordsworth. Interpretations The proclamation directive establishes the constitutional procedure by which the new sovereign's authority was to be acknowledged at the establishment. The styling of the King as Most High and Mighty Prince George, Elector of Brunswick Lunenburg, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, follows the formula prescribed at London for the extension of the proclamation to the dominions. The title Elector of Brunswick Lunenburg refers to the Hanoverian dignity that the King retained alongside the British crown, with the personal union of the two sovereignties operating as the political consequence of the Hanoverian succession. The continuing claim to France in the royal style traces back to the claim of Edward III, retained as a ceremonial formula despite the absence of any actual French territory under the English crown for many years. The sequencing of the proclamation, deferred until after the receipt and the taking on shore of the cargo, reveals the practical priorities of the establishment. The unloading of the Cardonell and any accompanying ships was the operational requirement that took precedence over the ceremonial act, with the consequence that the public political event was timed to follow rather than precede the productive labour. The arrangement matches the husbandry principle of the present letter, where each ceremonial or administrative obligation was tested against the productive obligations it might displace. The instruction that the whole was to be performed with a becoming solemnity preserved the dignity of the act while leaving the timing to the Council's discretion. The subscription as loving friends repeats the formula by which successive Courts had closed their General Letters to the establishment, traceable through the despatch of 20 February 1678 under the Blackmore commission and the despatches of the 1680s under Sir Josiah Child. The formula operates as a courtesy preserving the institutional relationship across the hierarchical gulf between the Court at London and the Council at the island. The Court's choice of the closing formula despite the sharp critique of the previous administration documented in the body of the letter preserves the institutional framework within which the disciplinary action operates, with the personal courtesy maintained alongside the substantive complaint. Robert Pitt's signature as Deputy in the Chair identifies the presiding officer of the Court of Directors at the session at which this General Letter was approved. Pitt's position as Deputy in the Chair, rather than as Governor of the Court, indicates that the Governor was absent from the session, with the Deputy acting in his place under the constitutional arrangement of the company. The presence of fifteen signatures in addition to Pitt's reveals the size of the Court session, with the quorum substantially exceeded and the General Letter carrying the weight of a collective decision rather than an executive direction. The names include Matthew Decker, Justus Beck and others who served on the Court of Directors of the United Company in the years following the union of 1709. Speculations The Court's insistence that the proclamation be performed with a becoming solemnity suitable to the great occasion probably reflects a calculation about the political importance of the public acknowledgement of the new dynasty at every outpost of the establishment. The Hanoverian succession had been contested by Jacobite supporters of the Stuart claimant, and the visible acknowledgement of King George at distant stations operated as the public confirmation of the political settlement. The Council's performance of the ceremony, witnessed by the inhabitants and recorded in the consultation books, contributed to the overall demonstration that the dynastic transition had been accepted across the dominions without public resistance. The absence of the Governor's signature from the present letter, with Pitt acting as Deputy in the Chair, probably reflects the coincidence of the dynastic transition with the ordinary cycle of the Court's business. The months following the death of Queen Anne on 1 August 1714 and the arrival of King George from Hanover involved ceremonial and political business at London that drew senior officers away from routine Court sessions, with the consequence that ordinary decisions were taken under the chairmanship of deputies. The arrangement reveals the operational continuity of the company across the political transition, with the routine business of the establishment continuing through the hands of the second-tier officers while the senior officers attended to the ceremonial requirements of the new reign. | |
72 | Our Governour & Council of S[t] Helena London the 14 March 1715 p[er] Ship Catherine Cap[t] John Hunter By the Ship Cardonnel, We wrote you at large touching our Affairs in our Generall Letter of the 4[th] February 1714, and it being come to your Hands, We omitt sending its Copy. Since that time We have receivd the following Letters from you V[i]z[t] of the 12[th] November 1714, by the Susannah, of the 8[th] of December by the Frederick, of the 3 of Febuary by the Aurengzebe, of the 19 of that Month by the Mercury, of the 24[th] March by the Hester, of the 7[th] July 1715 by the Hanover and Eagle, of the 2[d] of August by the Averilla, and of the 7 December last by the S[t] George, and with them the Consultations and other Papers contained in their Pacckets except what is sent by the S[t] George of which having only her Generall Letter without the List for the Ship is not yett got into the River; We can't tell what Books or Papers come in her Generall Pacckett. Before We proceed to take Notice of the Contents of those Letters under the establisht Generall heads, We think proper to tell you, That some matters relating to said Letters, papers & Consultations are not to Our minds, and must be alterd or amended V[i]z[t] You should always in every Succeeding Letter at the beginning of it mention the Date of the preceding which hath been Sometimes omitted; Instead of Sending Copys of the last Letter by the next Ship you should Sign it, and thereby make it a duplicate, for the reasons We have told you. In the Lists of your Pacckets should be mentiond the dates of all the Letters and Papers therein contain'd, This would ascertain to you and Us what the Letters and Papers were thereby | To the Governor and Council of St Helena. London, the 14 March 1715. By the ship Catherine, Captain John Hunter. Article 1. By the Cardonell, the Court had written at large to the Council touching the Court's affairs, in the General Letter of 4 February 1714. It being come to the Council's hands, the Court omitted sending a copy. Since that time, the Court had received the following letters from the Council. The letter of 12 November 1714 had come by the Susanna. The letter of 8 December had come by the Frederick. The letter of 3 February had come by the Aurengzebe. The letter of 19 February had come by the Mercury. The letter of 24 March had come by the Hester. The letter of 7 July 1715 had come by the Hanover and Eagle. The letter of 2 August had come by the Avarilla. The letter of 7 December last had come by the St George. With each of these letters had come the consultations and other papers contained in their packets, except what was sent by the St George. The Court had received only the General Letter of that ship, without the list for the ship as yet got into the river. The Court could not tell what books or papers came in her General Packet. Article 2. Before the Court proceeded to take notice of the contents of those letters under the established general heads, the Court thought it proper to tell the Council that some matters relating to the said letters, papers and consultations were not to the Court's mind, and must be altered or amended. The Council was always, in every succeeding letter, to mention at the beginning of it the date of the preceding, which had sometimes been omitted. Instead of sending copies of the last letter by the next ship, the Council was to sign it, and thereby make it a duplicate, for the reasons the Court had already told the Council. In the lists of the packets should be mentioned the dates of all the letters and papers therein contained. The arrangement would ascertain to the Council and to the Court what the letters and papers were thereby Interpretations The opening recital of eight letters received in the interval since the General Letter of 4 February 1714 reveals the scale of the correspondence cycle between the establishment and the Court at London. Across approximately thirteen months, the Council had despatched correspondence by eight separate ships, with the frequency reflecting the compulsory call at St Helena during peacetime introduced under the despatch of 4 February 1714. The Court's acknowledgement of the entire correspondence in a single opening article applies the pattern of the present letter as a comprehensive response to the accumulated material, in the manner of the previous comprehensive General Letter. The exception identified in respect of the St George reveals the operational consequence of the packet listing reform discussed in the previous letter. The Court had received the General Letter by that ship but not the list of papers in the packet, with the result that the contents of the consultation books, accounts and other supporting documents could not be tested against any covering inventory. The arrangement matches the pattern of Boucher's selective removal of the Susanna letter of 20 March 1712 from the island archive documented under the despatch of 4 February 1714, with the absence of the list operating as the evidential gap that the new procedural discipline had been designed to close. The duplicate signature requirement, in place of sending mere copies of the previous letter by the following ship, reveals the evidential distinction between a copy and a duplicate at the period. A copy was a transcribed reproduction, vulnerable to transcription error and lacking the authentic attestation of the original signatories. A duplicate, by contrast, was a second authenticated original, signed afresh by the same signatories as an independent attestation. The arrangement creates an evidential redundancy against ship loss, with each duplicate operating as an independent original capable of standing in for the principal letter if the principal failed to arrive. The cross-referencing requirement, with each letter to mention the date of the preceding at its opening, establishes the chronological chain by which the correspondence sequence could be tested for completeness. The arrangement provides the test by which a missing letter could be identified at the receiving end, with the gap in the chain operating as the evidence of the loss. The mechanism matches the pattern of the listing reform discussed earlier, where the named items in the covering list provided the test against which the contents would be measured. Both reforms address the same underlying problem of unverifiable transmission, with the remedies operating at the chain level and at the packet level respectively. Speculations The Court's choice of the Catherine as the vehicle for the present General Letter, despatched on 14 March 1715, places the correspondence within the early months of the Hanoverian settlement. The proclamation directive issued in the previous General Letter of 4 February 1714 would by this date have been put into effect at the island, with the ceremonial business of the dynastic transition completed and the operational business now back to the ordinary cycle. The arrangement reveals the operational continuity of the establishment across the political transition, with the correspondence cycle resuming the substantive business immediately after the ceremonial requirements had been discharged. The coverage of nearly fourteen months between the first letter of 12 November 1714 and the last letter of 7 December at the receipt point, with eight letters arriving across that period, suggests that the frequency of the correspondence had increased substantially above the previous rate. The earlier complaint under the despatch of 4 February 1714 regarding the Boucher administration's despatch of only fifteen sheets across the whole year had set the baseline at well below the present cadence. The arrangement matches the procedural reform documented in the previous General Letter, where the correspondence cadence had been recovered to a level satisfying the Court, with five letters in four months replacing the Boucher administration's earlier pattern. The continuation of this improved cadence into the present period reveals the success of the procedural discipline imposed on the new Council under the despatch of 5 March 1713. | |
73 | thereby advis'd to be sent, which for want of it can't always be done, especially if those Lists come to be enquird into in Future, and Care must be taken it at all Letters are truly endorsed, or otherwise it may mislead Us, We have an Instance or two now before Us of Errors in this case. We find several Papers in the Pacckets as Acco[un]ts or Lists or Notices of things order'd to be sent Us, some of them not dated, other not signd, whereby they are not Vouchers of the Matters required as We expect; nor doth it appear that they have been examind or approvd by the Councill. This must be remedied. You should always send Lists of every Packet containing the perticulars of the Papers or books therein, It was wanting in the Hesters. You do advise us of Bills drawn, but have omitted to tell the Dates of each, tho' we directed, you should mention them, and how many Bills given, for the same Sume. We orderd you in the 3[d] Par[r] of the Generall Letter p[er] Rochester to draw out under their proper heads Extracts of all standing rules and Directions, and reford it in the 3[d] Par[r] by the Cardonnel, and in the 4[th] orderd an attested Copy to be sent for our Inspection. You tell Us in the 3[d] Par[r] of the Letter of the 12 Novemb. 1714. it was drawing out, And in the 3[d] Par[r] of the Letter of the 7 December 1715. Our Letters were copy'd out into a Books, and Marginal Notes made thereto, and an Alphabetical table is making, by which it appears That if you had not in almost Seventeen Months (for you arrived y[e] July 1714) compleated that single Direction touching the Extracts, and tho' the Cardonnell had been with you six months, yet it did not quicken you, for no Copy of that Extract is sent Us. This dilatory management is not to be excused nor must it be continued. We find you are making the Proper and other Repositorys for the Letters, Books, and other Writings, Be sure they are always preservd, and not Suffered to be damaged by not | The papers and letters were thereby advised to be sent, which for want of the listing could not always be done, especially if those lists came to be enquired into in future. Care must be taken that all letters were truly endorsed, or otherwise it might mislead the Court. The Court had an instance or two now before it of errors in this case. Article 3. The Court found several papers in the packets, such as accounts or lists or notices of things ordered to be sent, some of them not dated and others not signed. They were therefore not vouchers of the matters required, as the Court expected. Nor did it appear that they had been examined or approved by the Council. This must be remedied. The Council was always to send lists of every packet containing the particulars of the papers or books in it. The list had been wanting in the Hester. Article 4. The Council had advised the Court of bills drawn, but had omitted to tell the dates of each. Although the Court had directed, the Council should mention them, and how many bills had been given for the same service. Article 5. The Court had ordered the Council, in the third paragraph of the General Letter by the Rochester, to draw out, under their proper heads, extracts of all standing rules and directions, and had reiterated the order in the third paragraph by the Cardonell, and in the fourth paragraph had ordered an attested copy to be sent for the Court's inspection. The Council told the Court in the third paragraph of its letter of 12 November 1714 that the work was drawing out, and in the third paragraph of the letter of 7 December 1715 that the letters had been copied out into a book, with marginal notes made thereon, and an alphabetical table was being made. By that, it appeared that the Council had not, in almost seventeen months (for the Council had arrived on 8 July 1714), completed that single direction touching the extracts. Although the Cardonell had been with the Council six months, yet it had not quickened the work, for no copy of that extract had been sent the Court. This dilatory management was not to be excused, nor must it be continued. Article 6. The Court found the Council was making the proper and other repositories for the letters, books and other writings. The Council was to take care they were always preserved, and not suffered to be damaged by Interpretations The unsigned and undated papers identified by the Court reveal the evidential consequence of the documentary failings discussed in the previous General Letter. An account or list bearing no signature could not operate as a voucher for the matters it purported to record, since no individual stood accountable for its accuracy. An undated paper could not be placed in the chronological sequence of the consultation books, with the result that the content could not be tested against the surrounding entries. The combined failure converted the supporting documentation into an unreliable shadow of the substantive record, with the consequence that the principal letter stood without evidential support. The instruction that the Council was to mention the dates of bills drawn and how many bills had been given for the same service identifies a pattern of multiple bills drawn against single transactions. The arrangement might operate innocently, where a single payment had been split into separate instruments for the convenience of the payee, or it might operate fraudulently, where multiple bills against the same underlying service had been drawn and presented for separate settlement. The Court's remedy required the Council to document each bill with its date and to identify the underlying service, with the consequence that the bills could be tested for duplication at the London end. The standing rules extract project ordered by the despatch carried by the Rochester and reiterated by the despatch of 4 February 1714 on the Cardonell represents the operational manual reorganising the General Letters by subject under proper heads, with marginal source references and blank space for new orders. The instrument had been designed to defeat the selective disclosure pattern documented under the Boucher administration, where Tovey had been kept ignorant of the contents of the Court's letter by the Abingdon under the despatch of 4 February 1714. The Council's failure to complete the project in nearly seventeen months from the arrival on 8 July 1714, with no copy sent to the Court even six months after the further reminder by the Cardonell, reveals the continuation of the procedural delay pattern that the despatch of 4 February 1714 had identified. The repositories for the letters, books and other writings represent the physical infrastructure of the archival security against future losses identified in the despatch of 4 February 1714 as the Secretary's office. The arrangement provides the storage location for the extract book once completed, the consultation books once balanced, and the supporting papers once dated and signed. The Court's instruction that the Council was to take care they were always preserved and not suffered to be damaged identifies the physical protection of the records as an obligation distinct from the procedural discipline imposed elsewhere in the present letter, with the environmental conditions of the store to be tested against the preservation requirement. Speculations The Court's measurement of the delay on the extract book project against the time elapsed since the Council's arrival on 8 July 1714 reveals the method by which the Court intended to test the progress of each procedural reform. By identifying the starting date and counting the elapsed months against the specific direction, the Court created the evidential basis for the dilatory management finding. The arrangement converts the failure to complete the extract book from a general impression into a quantified procedural breach, with the consequence that the Council could not plead uncertainty about the scope of the obligation or the time allowed for performance. The Council's response, with the extract book drawing out by November 1714 and being copied into a book with marginal notes by December 1715, suggests that the physical scale of the task had exceeded the initial estimate. The accumulated General Letters since the founding instructions of the despatch of 19 December 1673, with the laws and constitutions of 14 March 1684 and 30 March 1685, the procedural reforms of the despatch of 5 March 1713 and the further directions of the despatch of 4 February 1714, would have generated a substantial body of source material to be classified and indexed. The slow progress probably reflects the absence of any specialist clerical capacity dedicated to the project, with the Council members and the writers in the stores attempting the work alongside their ordinary duties. The arrangement reveals the underlying tension between the procedural reforms imposed by the Court and the clerical resources available to operate them at the establishment. | |
74 | by Wet, Rats or any other Ways as you advise you found them on your Arrival. To this end appoint some stated Times to inspect them, and if the Clerk be not sufficiently carefull, let him be fined intermina and so toties quoties[?] in all time comeing the Secretary or Clerk of the Council is to be Kept to his Duty. As to the Entry of Wills, Leases, or other Writings equall care must be taken that they be rightly made and the Counterparts of Leases, and the Original Wills faithfully kept; Remember the crime M[r] Alexander was charg'd with in Relation to a Lease of Lands thereby to prevent such another Instance, and Every thing of the like nature. The Generall Letter or Instructions you carried with you, directed and shewd you a pattern to write of all our Affairs under severall generall heads, This is only done in part in some Letters, and yet at all in Others: It must be better regarded in future, and tho' it have Something of difficulty, or at least tediousnefs at first, yet in the Event will be much easier, and more beneficial than writing of our Affairs in confused and irregular manner, for when every Par[r] is put under its proper Head, it will be the sooner, and more certainly found out on Enquiry, and thereby make amends for the First difficulty, and by collecting materialls of the same nature together will help your Attention as well as Memory and prevent Omifsions and tautologies; If you want to write of any matters not properly reducible to those heads put them in last, or under a perticular head of Miscellanys. We observe some of those Letters before Us are swelld to an unnecefsary Length by frequent repetitions of the same matters, which by a little more thought might have been contain'd in much fewer Words, and perticularly in the | The letters, books and other writings were not to be damaged by wet, by rats or any other ways, as the Council had advised it had found them on arrival. To this end, the Council was to appoint some stated times to inspect them. If the Clerk were not sufficiently careful, he was to be fined an amount each time, and so toties quoties in all time coming. The Secretary or Clerk of the Council was to be kept to his duty. As to the entry of wills, leases or other writings, equal care must be taken that they were rightly made, and the counterparts of leases and the original wills faithfully kept. The Council was to remember the crime Mr Alexander had been charged with in relation to a lease of lands, and thereby to prevent any such other instance and everything of the like nature. Article 7. The General Letter or instructions which the Council had carried with it directed and showed the Council a pattern for writing of all the Court's affairs under several general heads. The work was only done in part in some letters, and not at all in others. It must be better regarded in future. Although it would have something of difficulty, or at least of tediousness at first, yet in the event the work would be much easier, and more beneficial than writing of the Court's affairs in a confused and irregular manner. When every paragraph was put under its proper head, it would be the sooner and more certainly found out on enquiry. The arrangement would thereby make amends for the first difficulty, and by collecting materials of the same nature together would help the Council's attention as well as memory, and prevent omissions and tautologies. If the Council wanted to write of any matters not properly reducible to those heads, they were to be put last, or under a particular head of miscellanies. Article 8. The Court observed some of the Council's letters before it were enlarged to an unnecessary length, by frequent repetitions of the same matters, which by a little more thought might have been contained in much fewer words, and particularly in the Interpretations The toties quoties fine on the Clerk for failure of archival care establishes the pecuniary discipline on the subordinate officer responsible for the physical preservation of the records. The formula traces back to the demographic return requirement reinforced under the despatch of 1 August 1683, where a 40s 0d fine toties quoties on refusal or falsification had operated as the enforcement mechanism for the returns. The present extension applies the same instrument to the archival function, with the Clerk personally liable on each inspection occasion at which the preservation standard had not been met. The arrangement converts the preservation obligation from a general instruction into a specific accountable duty, with the fine providing the measurable consequence of failure. The reference to the crime Mr Alexander had been charged with in relation to a lease of lands recalls the pattern of irregular conveyance documented in earlier correspondence. Alexander had been identified under the previous General Letter as the commander whose favour with Boucher had derived from the carrying of palm wines at retail margins, with the broader Boucher pattern including the dispossession of Mr Tovey of his wife's plantation documented under the despatch of 5 March 1713. The lease of lands crime referenced in the present passage probably falls within the same family of land transactions improperly handled, with the consequence that the entry of leases and the safekeeping of original wills had become a subject of specific procedural concern. The standing heads pattern for the General Letters identifies the method by which the correspondence had been intended to operate under the procedural reforms imposed in successive General Letters. Each subject was to be addressed under its own heading, with the effect that any subsequent enquiry could be directed to the specific section of the letter. The pattern matches the extract book proposed under the despatch of 4 February 1714, where the General Letters were to be reorganised by subject under proper heads with marginal source references. The Council's failure to apply the same discipline to its own outgoing letters, even where the pattern had been supplied in the covering instructions, reveals the continuing tension between the procedural reforms imposed by the Court and the clerical implementation at the establishment. The miscellanies heading proposed for matters not properly reducible to the established heads provides the catch-all category by which the completeness of the letter could be preserved without compromising the subject-based structure. The arrangement allows the subject-based organisation to operate as the default while reserving a specific compartment for the residual material that would otherwise force material into the wrong heading. The construction matches the pattern of the accommodation rule discussed in the previous General Letter, where each privilege was to be tested against its institutional source and only the uncategorised cases retained at the discretion of the Council. Speculations The Court's insistence on the tediousness at first followed by ease in the event probably reflects a calculation about the learning curve required of the new Council in operating the procedural discipline. The transition from the confused and irregular pattern of the Boucher administration to the systematic subject-based pattern required by the Court would necessarily involve an initial period of slow progress, with the Council members and the Clerk struggling to classify the substantive material into the established categories. The Court's framing of this transition as an investment in future efficiency operates as a motivational device, with the initial difficulty presented as the cost of a subsequent benefit rather than as a permanent burden. The Court's complaint about unnecessary length through frequent repetitions of the same matters probably reflects an observation about the drafting habits of the new Council. Where each consultation produced its entries on a given subject and the General Letter was compiled by pulling together the separate entries, the result was the repetition of the same substantive material across multiple points in the letter. The remedy required the drafting officer to consolidate all the entries on each subject into a single passage under the appropriate heading, with the effect of eliminating the repetition. The arrangement matches the broader pattern of the procedural reforms documented in the present letter, where the substantive labour of the establishment was to be organised by the logic of the subject matter rather than by the chronological cycle of the consultations. | |
75 | in the two Articles of Timber and Blacks; We shall never find fault with long Letters, where the Variety of perticulars or the fully explaining your desires, Or the Setting things or stating Cases in a true full Light, or treating of higher of the Severall Species of Goods sent you from hence or receivd from India necefsarily require such length; We would have all such matters plain and full, as you have now done about the Goods sent from hence, but then endeavour all in a few and Significant words as pofsible and when you have afterwards occasion to write all about any thing, which you had mentiond in part before in a preceding Letter, take Notice only of the new Matter, and refer to the Par[r] in such Letter for the rest giving only a short Account or hint of the Contents. When you have occasion to write of matters, as in the above Examples of Timber & Blacks put what you have to say on each head, altogether in one or if more Par[r]s let them go on succefsively, and not lye scatter'd here and there, the parcells, which swell the Letter but divides instead of uniting the Affection. Touching your Consulta[t]ion Books, We have these generall Remarks to make hereon, They are indeed better than none, or than as We have had, of which We complain'd in the 5[th] Par[r] of the Generall Letter by the Rochester, but they don't come up in any tollerable Degree to the Directions contain'd in the 8 Par[r] of that Letter, tho' you carried it with you, and should have observ'd it as the first generall Rule of your management, reperuse it, and you will see how much you have fallen short of it in divers Particulars and that your promise in the 4 Par[r] of Susannah hath not been complyd with, If the Consultations sent us be true Copys tho' We orderd Duplicates, that is those sent Us should be as well sign'd as the Originalls kept with you, and your 5 Par[r] promis'd to send Duplicates, This we expect to be done in all times coming, and then We may also expect it will be more correct: The severall Pages | The repetitions appeared particularly in the two articles of timber and blacks. The Court would never find fault with long letters where the variety of particulars, or the fully explaining of the Council's desires, or the setting of things or stating of cases in a true and full light, or the giving of hints about the several species of goods sent from London or received from India, necessarily required such length. The Court would have all such matters plain and full, as the Council had now done about the goods sent from London. The Council was to endeavour all in as few and significant words as possible. When the Council had afterwards occasion to write about anything which it had mentioned in part before in a preceding letter, the Council was to take notice only of the new matter, and refer to the paragraph in such letter for the rest, giving only a short account or hint of the contents. When the Council had occasion to write of matters as in the above examples of timber and blacks, the Council was to put what it had to say on each head altogether in one or, if more, in successive paragraphs. The parcels were not to lie scattered here and there, which swelled the letter but divided instead of uniting the attention. Article 9. Concerning the consultation books, the Court had three general remarks to make thereon. They were indeed better than none, or than some the Court had received, of which it had complained in the sixth paragraph of the General Letter by the Rochester. But they did not come up in any tolerable degree to the directions contained in the third paragraph of that letter, although the Council had carried it with it, and should have observed it as the first general rule of the Council's management. On perusing it, the Council would see how much it had fallen short of it in divers particulars. The Council's promise in the fourth paragraph of the Avarilla had not been complied with. If the consultations sent the Court were true copies, although it were duplicates, that ought to be sent the Court should be as well signed as the originals kept with the Council. The Council had promised in the fifth paragraph to send duplicates. This the Court expected to be done in all time coming. The Court might also expect it would be more correct. Interpretations The Court's endorsement of long letters where the subject matter required it identifies the test by which the length of the correspondence was to be measured. Length in itself was not the failing, but length produced by repetition rather than by substantive content. The arrangement reveals the drafting principle that the Court intended to apply, with economy of expression operating as a virtue distinct from brevity of treatment. Each subject was to be treated at the length required for full explanation, but the same subject was not to be revisited multiple times across the same letter. The cross-reference technique prescribed for matters partly addressed in earlier letters establishes the method by which the correspondence could be built up over time without the accumulated bulk becoming unmanageable. Each new letter was to take notice only of the new matter and refer to the paragraph in the preceding letter for the rest, with the short account or hint of the contents providing the bridge between the separate documents. The arrangement matches the extract book project ordered by the despatch carried by the Rochester and reiterated by the despatch of 4 February 1714, with both reforms operating to organise the correspondence into a coherent body of material rather than a sequence of independent documents. The consultation books being better than none but not coming up to the directions identifies the level of compliance achieved by the new Council with the procedural reforms imposed under the despatch of 5 March 1713. The arrangement reveals a partial implementation, with the basic entries being made but the full discipline of signed weekly consultations or oftener, entries of all debates and reasons, monthly accounts from each member on his distinct charge, and duplicates kept up signed by the Council to be sent by every shipping not yet operating to the required standard. The Court's tolerance of the partial compliance, framed as better than none, preserves the incentive for continued improvement while making the continuing shortfall a subject of specific complaint. The duplicate signature requirement applied to the consultations, with the duplicates to be as well signed as the originals, extends the procedural principle established earlier in this letter for the General Letters themselves. A copy was a transcribed reproduction lacking independent authentication. A duplicate was a second authenticated original. The Council's promise in the fourth paragraph of the letter by the Avarilla to send duplicates had not been complied with, with the consequence that the documents received at London bore only the evidential weight of copies. The arrangement reveals the continuing tension between the procedural undertakings given by the Council and the actual practice on the island, with the Court's remedy being the written reminder of the unfulfilled commitment. Speculations The Court's identification of timber and blacks as the particular subjects on which the Council had repeated itself probably reflects the organisational structure of the consultation books at the island end. Both subjects figured repeatedly across multiple consultations during the period, with the timber accounts under Cleve's management and the slave establishment under the Overseer of the Plantations both generating continuous entries. When the entries were transcribed into the General Letter in the chronological order of the consultations, the separate occurrences of each subject would appear scattered across the letter rather than consolidated under their own heading. The remedy required the drafting officer to pull together all the entries on each subject before the letter was composed, with the effect of aggregating the separate consultation entries into the consolidated passage required by the Court's subject-based organisation. The Court's reference to the letter by the Avarilla as the source of the unfulfilled promise on duplicates suggests that the Court was using the chronological record of the Council's promises as the test against which the current performance was to be measured. Each specific undertaking given in a previous letter operated as a benchmark against which subsequent performance could be tested, with the failure to comply being identified by the comparison of the promise and the delivery. The arrangement matches the broader pattern of the present letter, where the accumulated correspondence was being treated as a continuing record rather than a sequence of independent events, with the obligations crystallised at each point of the sequence carried forward as the test of subsequent compliance. | |
76 | The Severall Pages must be numberd, succefsively as your First by the Susannah was, whereas all the rest are only numberd on the y[e] corner of the Sheet The Entrys must be put in the proper places, and not papers of an after Date placed with the Consultations of a former; The Writing must be more carefully done, and not so many faults of Words omitted, or wrong wrote that makes the Sense scarcely intelligible. The materiall Papers must be omitted to be enterd as in these before Us, where it is said, here comes in the Storekeepers Acc[oun]ts, whereas there is not one Word of the Acc[oun]t The Consultation books should be Stitcht together at least, and not in loose scattering Sheets. We do expect as We directed in that 5[th] Par[r] that your Consultation book be in the Nature of a Journal, and do contain in it an Acc[oun]t of all the Mercantile, civil, military, or other Affairs on the Island under your Direction and which comes before you; It hath not hitherto been so; We find many times No body Signs but the Governour, at other Times the Style runs as if We had no Councill there but headed Singly, tho' We Shall never find fault with him for doing our Businefs, yet We appoint a Councill, becaus We will have all things done by joynt Consent or at least a majority, and if any difsent, will have him or them have Liberty to enter, that[?] do so and their Reasons for it in Consultation, or if any part of a Letter is not agreeable to their Judgment, then to enter Such their difsent to it and reasons at signing; All the Councill must be duly Summon'd to and We expect they be present at every Consultation, and if any wanting mention the Reasons at the head of the Consultation, where you put the Names of those present; After this plain declaration of our Minds, any of the Council at present or in future shall consent to any Letter or Entry in Consultation &c[t], which they think is not right without excepting thereto, they may thank themselves if they Suffer in the Companys opinion for so doing. We | The several pages of the consultation books must be numbered successively. The first by the Susannah had been so, whereas all the rest were only numbered on the right corner of the sheet. The entries must be put in their proper places, and not papers of an after date placed with the consultations of a former. The writing must be more carefully done, and not so many faults of words omitted, or wrong wrote, that made the sense scarcely intelligible. The material papers must be omitted to be entered, as in those before the Court, where it was said, here comes in the Storekeeper's account, whereas there was not one word of the account. The consultation books should be stitched together at least, and not in loose scattering sheets. Article 10. The Court expected, as it had directed in the fifth paragraph, that the Council's consultation book be in the nature of a journal, and contain in it an account of all the mercantile, civil, military or other affairs on the island under the Council's direction, and which came before the Council. It had not hitherto been so. The Court found many times nobody signed but the Governor. At other times the style ran as if the Governor had no Council there, but headed singly. Although the Court would never fault the Council for doing the Court's business, yet the Court appointed a Council because it would have all things done by joint consent, or at least a majority. If any dissent, the Court would have him or them have liberty to enter their dissent, and reasons for it in consultation. If part of a letter were not agreeable to their judgement, the Council was to enter such dissent to it and reasons at signing. All the Council must be duly summoned. The Court expected that they be present at every consultation. If any were wanting, the reasons were to be mentioned at the head of the consultation, where the Council put the names of those present. After this plain declaration of the Court's mind, if any of the Council at present, or in future, consented to any letter or entry in consultation that they thought was not right, without excepting thereto, they might thank themselves if they suffered in the Court's opinion for so doing. Interpretations The pagination requirement applied to the consultation books establishes the physical instrument by which the completeness of the documentary record could be tested. Successive page numbers throughout the book, rather than sheet-corner numbering only, prevent the removal or insertion of individual pages without detection. The arrangement matches the pattern of the selective removal of the Susanna letter of 20 March 1712 from the island archive documented under the despatch of 4 February 1714, with the remedy operating at the physical level of the book itself rather than at the procedural level of the covering record. The stitched binding requirement reinforces the same principle, with loose scattering sheets being incapable of being secured against partial loss or manipulation. The journal nature of the consultation book established by Article 10 reveals the theoretical model on which the documentary discipline was based. A journal in the accounting sense of the period was the chronological record of all transactions affecting the entity, with the subsequent postings to the ledger drawing on the journal for the source data. The extension of the journal concept to the consultation book required the entry of all mercantile, civil, military and other affairs on a comprehensive basis, with the consequence that no category of business operated outside the documentary record. The arrangement matches the procedural reforms imposed under the despatch of 5 March 1713, where weekly consultations or oftener, entries of all debates and reasons, and the consultation book signed by every member present had been required. The absence of multiple signatures, with the Governor signing alone or the style running as if no Council were present, identifies the failure of the collective decision principle that the present letter had been at pains to establish. The arrangement matches the pattern documented earlier in this letter regarding the assistant counsellors Eason and French installed by Boucher to give the appearance of collective consent. The continuation of the single-signature pattern under the new Council, even after the comprehensive critique of the Boucher administration, reveals the continuing institutional difficulty of translating the constitutional principle into the clerical practice of the consultation books. The dissent procedure restated by Article 10 traces back to the procedural reforms of the despatch of 5 March 1713, where objections were to be recorded by name and reasons in the consultation book. The extension of the same principle to specific passages of the General Letter, with dissent and reasons to be entered at signing, applies the dissent mechanism to the output of the Council as well as to the input of the consultations. The warning that consenting Council members who failed to enter dissent would have themselves to thank if they suffered in the Court's opinion converts the dissent procedure into a personal protective device, with each Council member personally accountable for any entry he had signed without reservation. Speculations The Court's warning that consenting Council members would have only themselves to thank for future censure suggests that the Court was preparing the evidential framework for future disciplinary action against individual members of the new Council, in the manner that the evidence against Boucher had been assembled across the preceding correspondence. By establishing the principle that signature without reservation operated as concurrence in the substantive content, the Court closed the defensive route by which subordinate Council members could later claim to have dissented privately while signing publicly. The arrangement matches the broader pattern of the present letter, where each procedural reform is framed in terms that individual accountability could be enforced through the documentary record. The physical reform requirements (successive page numbering, stitched binding, careful writing, entries in proper chronological places, material papers actually entered rather than merely referenced) suggest that the physical state of the consultation books arriving at London had reached a level of disorder requiring specific corrective direction. The accumulated evidence of loose sheets, mis-ordered entries, illegible writing and empty cross-references reveals that the operational clerical work at the establishment had been executed with sufficient informality to compromise the documentary value of the books themselves. The remedy required the basic physical discipline to be enforced as a precondition for the procedural reforms imposed elsewhere, with the effect that the written record of the establishment would operate as a reliable evidential foundation rather than an unreliable approximation. | |
77 | We don't find the Entrys in the Consultations of your approving the minutes of the last or of all Letters read there which you receiv'd, nor of the Letters by you sent that they were read and approv'd of in Council, nor is the Account enterd therein of all the sorts and quantitys of Goods recd from India, which ought to be: as We orderd, they being but a few Articles. The Perticulars following must be inserted V[i]z[t] The Acc[oun]ts of Prices sett on all Sorts of Goods as We directed Par[r] 34 of your Instructions. The Weekly Acc[oun]ts of the Stores, The Lists of Revenues of Blacks where and how employ'd, The Monthly Acc[oun]ts of the Plantation disbursements & expences, and those also at the Fort expressing the Perticulars, The Increase or disposall of all our Live stock: The Acc[oun]ts of the Perticulars of the Pay of the Military, of the Covenant Servants, of the others employ'd at Wages, whether the same be Monthly or quarterly or weekly; The weekly Account of the Number of Blacks hired at what price & where; The Letters wrote to, or receivd from Captains or others belonging to Ships in the Road, or protests against them. The Letters you send to India, all Reports made to you, or Papers laid before you, or which by our Orders are to be sent Us by Shipping together, with a short totta[?] of your perusall and approval thereof, and which of them you sign. The Acc[oun]ts of all Orders you give, and when and by whom and how executed. What mentiond in these perticulars touching these Consultations are, but part of what might be enumerated, The revising our Orders, y[ou]r own reasons, and the severall Occurrences will remind you of many more proper to be taken notice of to rectifye, and amend faults committed & prevent Omifsions, That all y[e] Consultation book may contain a perticular Account of all y[e] Transactions sufficiently plain to the understanding of a Stranger who peruses it, and by such Entrys will be a full Register of all things done by you or others by your Order Such as are so enterd may be referd to in the General Letter when necefsary; from India where they have [f]requent | Article 11. The Court did not find any entries in the consultations of the Council's approving the minutes of the last, nor of all letters received being read in Council, nor of the letters the Council sent acknowledging that they had been read and approved in Council. Nor was there entered the account of all the sorts and quantities of goods received from India, which ought to be as the Court had ordered. There being but few articles, the particulars following must be inserted. The accounts of prices set on all sorts of goods, as the Court had directed in paragraph 34 of its instructions, were to be entered. The monthly accounts of the stores, the lists of revenues of blacks, where and how they were employed, the monthly accounts of the Plantation disbursements and expenses, and those also at the Fort expressing the particulars, the increase or disposal of all the Court's live stock, the accounts of the particulars of the pay of the military, of the covenant servants, of the others employed at wages, whether the same be monthly, quarterly or weekly, the weekly account of the number of blacks hired at what price and where, the letters wrote to or received from captains or others belonging to ships in the road or protests against them, the letters the Council sent to India, all reports made to the Council, or papers laid before the Council, or which by the Court's orders were to be sent the Court by the shipping, together with a short notice of the Council's perusal and approval thereof, and which of them the Council signed, the accounts of all orders the Council gave and when and by whom and how executed, were all to be inserted. Article 12. What had been mentioned in those particulars was but part of what might be enumerated. The revising of the Court's orders, the Council's own reasons, and the several occurrences would remind the Council of many more proper to be taken notice of, to rectify and amend faults committed, and to prevent omissions, that all the consultation book might contain a particular account of all transactions sufficiently plain to the understanding of a stranger who perused it. By such entries the book would be a full register of all things done by the Council, or by others by the Council's order. Such as were so entered might be referred to in the General Letter when necessary. From India, where the Council had frequent Interpretations The catalogue of categories required to be entered in the consultation books reveals the comprehensive scope of the documentary regime the Court intended to operate. The list extends across the mercantile sphere (goods received from India, prices set, monthly stores accounts), the productive sphere (Plantation disbursements, increase or disposal of live stock, blacks employed and hired), the military sphere (pay of military and covenant servants), the maritime sphere (correspondence with captains, protests against ships), the diplomatic sphere (letters to and from India) and the executive sphere (orders given and executed). The arrangement matches the journal nature of the consultation book established by Article 10 of the present letter, with every transaction across every functional area of the establishment to be entered in the single chronological record. The minutes-approval requirement, with the entries of the last consultation being read and approved at the opening of the next, establishes the continuous verification mechanism by which the consultation book was to be secured against subsequent alteration. Once the minutes had been formally approved by the full Council, the entry was closed against revision, with the consequence that any subsequent change would be visible against the approved version. The arrangement matches the pagination and stitched binding requirements imposed in the previous article, with the physical and procedural reforms operating together to secure the documentary record. The standard of plain understanding to a stranger who perused the book identifies the evidential audience for which the consultation book was to be drafted. A stranger in this context was any person not present at the original consultation, including future Council members, officers at London, and potential judicial proceedings. The arrangement requires the entries to be self-explanatory rather than dependent on the personal knowledge of the participants, with the consequence that the documentary record operates as a complete substitute for the oral memory of the events. The principle matches the duplicate signature requirement established earlier in this letter, where each document was to be evidentially independent of any other. The weekly account of the number of blacks hired at what price and where reveals the operation of a casual labour market at the establishment, distinct from the permanent slave establishment of the Court. The arrangement indicates that the planters and the Council operated a hiring system by which the blacks of one party could be hired out to another party for specific tasks, with the price set at the market rate and the weekly summary providing the aggregate view. The pattern matches the productive deployment requirement under the despatch of 5 March 1713, where the slaves' contribution to the plantation, the buildings and other services had been identified as the principal mechanism of cost recovery, with the hiring market operating as the secondary channel through which the productive value of the slave establishment could be realised. Speculations The Court's specification that the entries should include the letters received from captains and others belonging to ships in the road, and the protests against them, probably reflects the procedural concerns documented under the despatch of 4 February 1714 about demurrage discipline. The protest requirement against the Rochester had been identified there as the specific procedural failure of the new Council, with the seven days demurrage demand allowed by default in London for absence of particularised protest. By requiring the entry of all such correspondence and protests in the consultation book, the Court created the contemporaneous record on which any future demurrage dispute could be defended, with the consequence that the evidential gap of the Rochester case could not recur. The Court's framing of the consultation book as a full register of all things done by the Council or by others by the Council's order suggests that the Court was anticipating the long-term evidential value of the consultation books across the future history of the establishment. By framing each consultation as an entry in a continuing register rather than a sitting-specific record, the Court ensured that the accumulated body of entries would operate as a continuing institutional memory available to successor Councils. The arrangement matches the extract book project ordered under the despatch by the Rochester and reiterated by the despatch of 4 February 1714, with both reforms operating to convert the sequential correspondence into a systematic body of accessible material rather than a chronological accumulation of separate documents. | |
78 | frequent and large Correspondence, they send us annually Copy Books of all Letters receiv'd from or sent by them to all Places together with their Acc[oun]ts and Council books, but whereas your occasions for Writing are but small, therefore We say enter all into consultation touching y[ou]r Acc[oun]ts We Shall tell you our Orders in the Paragraph. Wee now proceed to a more perticular Answer to your said Letters, and to make such remarks or give such Directions thereon, and on what containd in the Consultat[i]on receivd or Papers in the Pacckette as We judge necefsary under our establisht heads, and would have you write your Letters in the same Manner, altho' We hold at sometimes write of our Affairs promiscuously where any thing for our Notice is not proper to be ranged under One or other of those heads put it in afterwards. And first concerning Shipping sent out & returnd. Since our last it hath pleas'd God, That the following Ships are returned to Us in safety V[i]z[t] The Frederick from Fort S[t] George, the Grantham and Somers from Bombay, imported here in Febry and March 1714. The Susannah from Bencoolen the 5[th] of April 1715. The Aurengzebe from Fort S[t] George the 1[st] of May, the Hester from China the 25 D[itto], the Hanover from from the Bay and Fort the 28 Septemb[r] The Averillas from Bencoolen the 27 October, the Eagle Galley from Bengal the 29 of said month, the Catherine by his tedious delays at the Cape, at S[t] Helena and in Ireland making his homeward Pafsage near Eleven Months, and the S[t] George from the Bay is lately arrivd in the Downs. The Ships sent and Sending out to all parts of the East Indies by Us this season are V[i]z[t] | From India, where the Council had frequent and large correspondence, the Council was to be sent annually copy books of all letters received from or sent by them to all places, together with their accounts and Council books. But the Council's occasions for writing were small, and therefore the Court said the Council should enter all into the consultation. Touching the accounts, the Court was to tell the Council of the Court's orders in their proper paragraph. Article 13. The Court would now proceed to a more particular answer to the said letters, and to make such remarks or give such directions thereon, and on what was contained in the consultations received, or papers in the packets, as the Court judged necessary, under the established heads. The Court would have the Council write its letters in the same manner. Although the Court would at sometimes write of the Court's affairs promiscuously where anything for the Court's notice was not proper to be ranged under one or other of the heads, the Court would put it in afterwards. And first concerning shipping sent out and returned. Article 14. Since the last, it had pleased God that the following ships were returned to the Court in safety. The Frederick had returned from Fort St George. The Grantham and Somers had returned from Bombay, imported here in February and March 1714. The Susannah had returned from Bencoolen on 5 April 1715. The Aurengzebe had returned from Fort St George on 1 May. The Hester had returned from China on 25 May. The Hanover had returned from the Bay and Fort on 28 September. The Avarilla had returned from Bencoolen on 27 October. The Eagle Galley had returned from Bengal on 29 October, the captain by his tedious delays at the Cape, at St Helena and in Ireland making his homeward passage near eleven months. The St George had lately arrived from the Bay in the Downs. Article 15. The ships sent and sending out to all parts of the East Indies by the Court this season were Interpretations The Court's accommodation, with the Council's small correspondence permitting all business to be entered in the consultation book rather than maintained as a separate copy book, distinguishes the scale of the documentary regime at the island from that at the Indian factories. The stations at Surat, Fort St George, Bombay, Bencoolen and the Bay maintained separate copy books of incoming and outgoing correspondence, with the consultation books recording only the substantive decisions. The island establishment, with its smaller volume of external correspondence, could consolidate both functions in the single consultation book. The arrangement reveals the operational scaling of the documentary regime to the volume of business at each station. The chronological recital of returned shipping in Article 14 establishes the ordinary opening of the General Letter under the established heads system. The pattern matches the corresponding article in the General Letter of 4 February 1714, where the London from Bombay last from Fort St George, the Abingdon from Bencoolen, the Stretham from Fort St George, the Litchfield from Bombay, the Marlborough from Fort St George, the Loyall Bliss from China, the King William from the Bay and the Recovery from Fort St George had been catalogued in similar fashion. The systematic recitation provides the London-end record of the homeward shipping cycle, with each ship identified by its voyage of origin and its arrival date. The complaint against the captain of the Eagle Galley for his tedious delays at the Cape, at St Helena and in Ireland, with the homeward passage stretched to nearly eleven months, identifies a specific procedural failure of the master. The arrangement matches the demurrage discipline reinforced under the despatch of 5 March 1713 and reaffirmed by the despatch of 4 February 1714, with the extended passage operating as the evidential pattern against which the master's conduct was to be tested. The compulsory call at St Helena during peacetime introduced by the despatch of 4 February 1714 was framed to secure the refreshment of the homeward shipping rather than to extend the overall passage time, with the Eagle Galley's pattern of delays revealing the risk that the compulsory call could itself become the occasion for further delay. The sequence of arrivals between February 1714 and the late 1715 period reveals the operational cycle of the company's long-distance trade. Ships from Fort St George and Bombay typically returned in the early months of the year following their voyage, while ships from Bencoolen, the Bay and China tended to arrive later in the year. The Hanover returning from the Bay and Fort on 28 September, the Avarilla from Bencoolen on 27 October, and the Eagle Galley from Bengal on 29 October together represent the autumn cluster of returns, with the St George from the Bay following in December. The arrangement matches the compulsory call programme of the despatch of 4 February 1714, with each homeward ship stopping at the island during the autumn months to refresh before the final leg to London. Speculations The Court's naming of the Eagle Galley captain's delays at the Cape, at St Helena and in Ireland probably reflects a calculation about the evidential value of the specific delay pattern against the master. By identifying the three specific ports at which the delay had occurred, the Court preserved the record against which any subsequent defence by the master could be tested. The arrangement matches the pattern of the demurrage complaint against the Rochester documented under the despatch of 4 February 1714, where the comparative benchmarks of the Abingdon's twelve-day discharge and the Susanna's ten-day despatch had been deployed to defeat the master's defence. The specific naming of the ports of delay in the Eagle Galley case provides a similar evidential foundation for any future proceeding. The absence of any similar complaint against the other returning ships suggests that the broader homeward shipping pattern had been satisfactorily maintained during the period. The Frederick, the Grantham, the Somers, the Susannah, the Aurengzebe, the Hester, the Hanover, the Avarilla and the St George all arrived without specific complaint about their passage times, with the compulsory call at St Helena during peacetime apparently operating without systematic disruption of the overall voyage durations. The singling out of the Eagle Galley therefore operates as the exception against the general pattern, with the captain's personal conduct identified as the source of the delay rather than any structural issue with the compulsory call programme. | |
79 | V[i]z[t] Tons The British Mercht 200 Cap[t] Thom[as] Gibbons for Mocha The Marlborough 480 Cap[t] Matt[hew] Martin for China The Susanna 300 Cap[t] Rich[ard] D[avi]e the Fort Pinnace The Stringer Galley 280 Cap[t] Jn[o] Clarke for China & home The Grantham 470 Cap[t] Tho[mas] Collett for the Bay The King George 450 Cap[t] Sam[uel] Lewis For y[e] Coast The Prince Frederick 420 Cap[t] Edw[d] Martin & Bay The King William 350 Cap[t] Sam[uel] Winter for Madras The Catherine 350 Cap[t] Jn[o] Hunter & Bencoolen The Hester 300 Cap[t] John Gordon for S[t] Helena The Surrum Frigatt 400 Cap[t] Geo[rge] Plenson & Bencoolen The Princefs Amilia 340 Cap[t] John Wisonss[?] For Bombay & Bencoolen for Bengal The Supra Cargos of the Susannah are M[r] Naish, M[r] Child, & M[r] Ward & Wither Morris Writer, Those of the Stringer are M[r] Middleton, M[r] Hollond, M[r] Allayne & Sam[uel] Winter Writer; Those of the Marlborough are M[r] Fenwick, M[r] Harmonsdon, & M[r] Godfrey, and Rowland Aynsworth Writer. The British Mercht sailed out of the Downs the 5[th] December, the King William the 7, James[?] 7, The Marlborough & Susannah the 29 D[itto] The Stringer Galley, Grantham & Prince Frederick the 22 Febry & from S[t] Hellena 27 You will recieve this by the Catherine, her Invoice, and Bill of Lading will Show you what Stores & Necefsarys of all sorts as well as Goods are laden on board, and which our Comittee who had y[e] Indents and other Advices, provided thereupon, could the Ship have taken in more, you might have had some further Supplys; You have in her Pacckett her Charter-party, which on her being dispatch'd from S[t] Helena, you must forward by her to the Dep[uty] Govern[ou]r & Council of Bencoolen. This Sh[ip] | The ships sent and sending out were: The British Merchant 200 tons, Captain Thomas Gilbert, for Mocha The Marlborough 480 tons, Captain Matthew Martin, for China The Susanna 300 tons, Captain Richard Pinnell, for the Fort The Stringer Galley 280 tons, Captain John Clarke, for China and home The Grantham 470 tons, Captain Thomas Collett, for the Bay The King George 450 tons, Captain Samuel Lewis, for the Coast The Prince Frederick 420 tons, Captain Edward Martin, for the Bay The King William 350 tons, Captain James Winter, for Madras and Bencoolen The Catherine 350 tons, Captain John Hunter, for St Helena and Bencoolen The Hester 300 tons, Captain John Gordon, for Bengal The Sarum Frigate 400 tons, Captain George Stenson, for Bombay The Princess Amelia 340 tons, Captain John Wiconoss, for Bombay Article 16. The supra cargoes of the Susanna were Mr Naish, Mr Child and Mr Ward. The Writer was Morris. Those of the Stringer were Mr Middleton, Mr Holland and Mr Allyn. The Writer was Samuel Winter. Those of the Marlborough were Mr Fenwick, Mr Harmonsdon and Mr Godfrey. Roland Aynsworth was the Writer. Article 17. The British Merchant had sailed out of the Downs on 5 December. The King William had sailed on 7 January. The Marlborough and Susanna had sailed on the 29th. The Stringer Galley, the Grantham and the Prince Frederick had sailed on 22 February, and from St Helena 27 [...] Article 18. The Council would receive this by the Catherine. Her invoice and bill of lading would show what stores and necessaries of all sorts as well as goods were laden on board. The Court's Committee, who had the Council's orders and other advices, had provided thereupon. Could the Council have seen another ship taken in more, the Council might have had some further supplies. The Council had in her packet her charter party, which, on her being despatched from St Helena, the Council was to forward by her to the Deputy Governor and Council of Bencoolen. This ship Interpretations The fleet list of twelve ships sent out for the 1715 season reveals the scale and geographic spread of the company's trade. The destinations cover the principal stations of the network: Mocha for the Red Sea trade in coffee, the Coast at Fort St George, the Bay of Bengal, Bombay, Bencoolen on Sumatra, Madras, China and the refreshment station at St Helena. The total tonnage of approximately 4,260 tons across the fleet represents the substantial commitment of capital and hull capacity required to maintain the trading network. The pattern matches the corresponding article of the General Letter of 4 February 1714, where the 1714 season had comprised nine ships of comparable aggregate tonnage. The supra cargo function identified in Article 16 establishes the senior commercial officer aboard each trading vessel, distinct from the captain who commanded the ship and the crew. The supra cargo was the representative of the company on the voyage, with authority over the purchase and sale of the commercial cargo at each station. The pattern of three supra cargoes per ship, as in the Susanna, the Stringer Galley and the Marlborough, spread the commercial responsibility across multiple officers, with the effect of creating a collective decision process aboard the vessel matching the collective decision process at the land stations. The Writer on each ship operated as the clerical officer to the supra cargoes, maintaining the accounts and the correspondence of the voyage. The charter party arrangement for the Catherine, with the onward forwarding from St Helena to the Deputy Governor and Council of Bencoolen, reveals the role of the island as the intermediate transmission point in the company's operational documentation. The charter party was the master agreement between the owners of the ship and the company hirer, setting out the terms of the voyage, the freight rates, the demurrage provisions and the responsibilities of each side. By forwarding the document from St Helena to Bencoolen rather than dispatching it directly from London, the company ensured that the operative instrument arrived at the final destination with the ship. The compulsory call at St Helena during peacetime, established by the despatch of 4 February 1714, finds its operational consequence in the present article through the routing of the Catherine and her charter party via the island en route to Bencoolen. The arrangement integrates the refreshment function and the documentary transmission function in a single ship movement, with the effect that the island operates simultaneously as the physical refit station and as the operational clearing house for the onward dispatch of instructions to the further stations. Speculations The Court's failure to secure additional supplies for the island by loading further cargo on the Catherine probably reflects the tonnage constraint noted in the previous General Letter, where the great difficulty had been identified as finding tonnage for what was desired from London. The Catherine at 350 tons operated at the upper end of the medium-sized vessels in the 1715 fleet, with the specific consignment to St Helena and Bencoolen competing for hold space with the onward cargo for the Asian stations. The Court's observation that the Council might have had some further supplies had the Court seen another ship taken in more reveals the real constraint operating on the procurement decisions, with the capacity limit operating as the binding factor rather than the financial budget for the consignment. The detailed naming of the supra cargoes and the writers aboard each ship probably reflects the Court's effort to document the chain of personal accountability across the trading fleet. By preserving in the General Letter the specific names of the commercial officers on each voyage, the Court established the evidential basis for any future proceeding against individual officers in the event of irregularities in the voyage accounts. The arrangement matches the broader pattern of the correspondence, where each individual officer's name is recorded against the specific office and the specific voyage, with the consequence that the documentary record operates as the evidence base for the personal accountability of the officers across the network. | |
80 | This Ship is under the same covenants as usuall of having Demorage allowd her, for all the Time she stays beyond ten working Days; Wherefore we must repeat to you as in severall Letters hath been recommended with Earnestnefs on the like occasions to dispatch her away with all possible Expedition, and for this further reason, because the Season of the Year is now far advanc'd, We had a very Severe Frost for about six Weeks this Winter which detain'd our outward bound Shipping, and this amongst the rest, or else they had, Wind permitting, been dispatcht a Month earlier. We note your several Par[r]s relating to the Ships which bring you Goods from hence, And their time of delivery, and can only say, hasten this away as soon as possible, observe our former directions on this head, and now you have y[ou]r Crane fixed the place for Landing, more comodious by your repairs where the Briage was some of the reasons for tediousnefs in landing Goods will cease. Your Protest against the Cardonnell was right, and answer'd our Orders in such cases as it asertains what Days the Ship did work, and what she did not when the Weather hinderd and when the Captain was not sufficiently expeditious, continue the like Method when there is occasion for it; We take notice of your Opinion why it is better to fix a time certain for Ships deviation to, and Stay at S[t] Helena, unlading which will be time enough to consider of, when We take up Ships for that Trand[?] hereafter, but tho present Covenants being the constant Custom hitherto, it is somewhat dubious whether the Owners will be easily inclind to admitt of an alteration. We take | Article 19. The Catherine was under the same covenants as usual, with demurrage allowed her for all the time she stayed beyond ten working days. The Court must therefore repeat to the Council, as had been recommended with earnestness in several letters on the like occasions, to despatch her away with all possible expedition. There was a further reason, because the season of the year was now far advanced. There had been a very severe frost for about six weeks this winter, which had detained the Court's outward bound shipping. The Catherine among the rest had, wind permitting, been despatched a month earlier. Article 20. The Court noted the Council's several paragraphs relating to the ships which brought the Council goods from home, and their time of delivery. The Court could only say, hasten the ships away as soon as possible, and observe the Court's former directions on this head. Now the Council had the crane fixed, the place for landing was more commodious by the Council's repairs where the bridge was. Some of the reasons for tediousness in landing goods would cease. Article 21. The Council's protest against the Cardonell was right, and answered the Court's orders in such cases, as it ascertained what days the ship did work, and what she did not when the weather hindered, and when the captain was not sufficiently expeditious. The Council was to continue the like method when there was occasion for it. The Court took notice of the Council's opinion why it was better to fix a time certain for ships deviation to, and stay at, St Helena, unloading which would be time enough to consider of when the Court took up ships for that land hereafter. The present covenants being the constant custom hitherto, it was somewhat doubtful whether the owners would be easily inclined to admit of an alteration. The Court took Interpretations The ten working days demurrage allowance for the Catherine establishes the charter party benchmark against which the discharge time at St Helena was to be measured. The arrangement matches the demurrage discipline reinforced by the despatch of 4 February 1714, where the Rochester's twenty-one day delay had triggered a seven days demurrage demand allowed by default in London for absence of particularised protest. The Court's reference to several letters of repeated earnestness reveals the standing concern with the despatch cadence of homeward and outward shipping, with the demurrage liability operating as the financial consequence of any delay beyond the contractual allowance. The protest mechanism, vindicated by the Court's approval of the Council's protest against the Cardonell, identifies the procedural instrument by which the Council's discharge of the ship was to be evidentially separated from the master's responsibility for delay. The protest recorded, day by day, whether the ship worked, whether the weather hindered, and whether the captain was sufficiently expeditious. The arrangement converts each day of the discharge period into a separately accountable event, with the consequence that any subsequent demurrage claim by the owners could be tested against the contemporaneous record. The pattern matches the demurrage and protest discipline established by the despatch of 4 February 1714, where the absence of particularised protest had defeated the Council's defence in the Rochester case. The crane and the repaired bridge represent the physical infrastructure improvements that operated against the structural causes of discharge delay. Timber for a crane had been sent under the despatch of 4 February 1714, with the crane now fixed and operative according to the Council's report. The bridge repairs provided a more commodious landing point. Together the two improvements addressed the physical bottlenecks at the discharge point, with the consequence that future demurrage incidents would have to be attributed to specific weather conditions or specific master conduct rather than to systemic limitations of the landing infrastructure. The Council's proposal for a fixed time certain for the ships' deviation to and stay at St Helena, in place of the variable demurrage arrangement, identifies an alternative contractual model under which the discharge time would be specified in advance rather than calculated retrospectively against an allowance. The Court's hesitation to adopt the proposal reflects the structural difficulty of altering the constant custom hitherto, with the owners as the counter-party to the charter party expected to resist any change that converted their flexibility under the existing scheme into a fixed obligation. The exchange reveals the Council operating as a working source of charter party reform proposals based on its experience at the receiving end of the contractual arrangements. Speculations The Court's mention of the six-week severe frost as the cause of the Catherine's late departure probably reflects a calculated framing of the despatch delay as an external event beyond the Council's or the Court's control. By identifying the frost as the cause of the delayed outward shipping, the Court placed the responsibility for the late season on Providence rather than on any administrative failing, with the consequence that the urgency now demanded of the Council in the discharge process was to be understood as a remedial response to an external disruption rather than a routine procedural requirement. The arrangement matches the broader pattern of the present letter, where each procedural complaint is anchored to a specific evidential context rather than presented as a general grievance. The Court's careful hedging on the time certain proposal, with the reference to the constant custom hitherto and the doubtful inclination of the owners, suggests that the Court was preserving the proposal as a potential future reform rather than rejecting it outright. By deferring the question to when the Court next took up ships, the Court positioned the alteration as a matter for the next charter party negotiation rather than for the present voyage. The arrangement leaves the Council's reform proposal on the record as an institutional option without committing the Court to its immediate adoption, with the consequence that the proposal could be revisited if the owners' bargaining position shifted in subsequent seasons. | |
81 | We take notice of the Acc[oun]ts given us by your severall Letters of the times of arrivall of Shipping at S[t] Helena, and what news you heard of Others at the Cape or from India together with a Recapitulation of the whole in the Letter of the 1[st] Decemb[er], continue these sort of Advices & be as perticular in y[ou]r Enquiry & notices, as You can. Continue to send Us by Every Ship the Acc[oun]ts of such Ship that We may thereby the better know what you Supply them withall and at what rates, and what they return you in Barter, or how they otherwise ballance the Account, We generally find their Credit is by One or Other of the Inhabitants, but no mention made, or at least no proof how these Inhabitants make good such sums to Us, nor doth it appear that you are satisfyd the Acc[oun]t is right, So that is very pofsible We may thereby be greatly abused, If he that makes out the Acc[oun]t which seems to be done at the Storehous[e] is not very carefull and honest, had We the Books every year as We ought, and heretofore used to have them, We could then examine whether those Persons had credits in our Stores & were duly debited for the Credit given in such Acc[oun]ts, for the future lett all such Acc[oun]ts of Ships be examind, and past in Council & sign'd by the proper Officer. We observe what you mention touching the French Ships, and your reasons for not Sparing them Beef with the Orders thereupon, which were not amifs as Circumstances then stood, your Care to prevent their Sounding about the Island, and to hinder their attempting on pretence of Fishing or rambling too far about the Country was comendable, be sure to continue the same practice for them, and at other Shipping whatsoever, for tho' We have now Peace [w]ith | Article 22. The Court took notice of the accounts given by the Council in its several letters of the times of arrival of shipping at St Helena, and what news the Council heard of others at the Cape or from India, together with a recapitulation of the whole in the letter of 1 December. The Council was to continue these sorts of advices, and to be as particular in its enquiry and notices as it could. Article 23. The Council was to continue to send the Court by every ship the account of such ship. The Court might thereby the better know what the Council supplied them with, and at what rates, and what they returned the Council in barter, or how they otherwise balanced the account. The Court generally found their credit was by one or other of the inhabitants, but no mention was made, or at least no proof, how those inhabitants made good such sums to the Court. Nor did it appear that the Council was satisfied the account was right. So that it was very possible the Court might thereby be greatly abused, if the man that made out the account at the storehouse was not very careful and honest. Had the Court the books every year as it ought, and heretofore used to have them, the Court could then examine whether those persons had credit in the Court's stores, and were duly debited for the credit given in such accounts. For the future, the Council was to let all such accounts of ships be examined and passed in Council, and signed by the proper officer. Article 24. The Court observed what the Council mentioned touching the French ships, and the Council's reasons for not sparing them beef. The Court was not amiss with the Council's orders thereupon, which were not amiss as circumstances then stood. The Council's care to prevent their sounding about the island, and to hinder their attempting it on pretence of fishing or rambling too far about the country, was commendable. The Council was to continue the same practice for them, and all other shipping whatsoever. Although the Court had now peace Interpretations The ship account system established by Article 23 reveals the financial settlement mechanism between St Helena and the company's visiting vessels. Each ship that called at the island incurred charges for the provisions and supplies drawn from the stores. These charges were settled either by barter, with the ship delivering goods to the Council in exchange, or by credit, with the inhabitants standing as guarantors for the sum owed by the ship. The arrangement converted the Council's storehouse into a working clearing house for the credit obligations of the visiting shipping, with the inhabitants operating as the local counter-parties through whom the ultimate recovery was to be obtained from the ships. The vulnerability identified by the Court arises from the absence of any documentary cross-check between the credit entries in the ship accounts and the corresponding debits in the inhabitants' accounts at the storehouse. The arrangement created the working possibility that a ship account could record credit by an inhabitant without any matching debit being entered against that inhabitant in the Court's books, with the consequence that the sum owed by the ship would disappear from the documentary record entirely. The Court's remedy required the ship accounts to be examined and passed in Council, with the proper officer signing them, and the books to be sent home every year so that the credit and debit entries could be reconciled at London. The recapitulation of arrivals and intelligence required of the Council in Article 22 establishes the Council's role as the intelligence gatherer for the company's wider Indian Ocean network. By recording not only its own visiting ships but also news of others at the Cape or from India, the Council provided the London end with a synthesised view of shipping movements across the entire trading area. The arrangement matches the integration of the island into the company's operational network as a node combining refit, intelligence and documentary transmission functions. The French ships referenced in Article 24 represent the standing security concern at the island in the period following the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713. The Council's refusal to spare them beef preserved the livestock policy established earlier in this letter, where calves and cow flesh were placed off limits to all visiting shipping. The further restriction on sounding, fishing and rambling about the country addresses the espionage risk that a foreign visiting ship presented, with sounding being the practice of measuring water depths to chart approaches and anchorages, and rambling about the country exposing the island's interior defences and resources to foreign observation. The arrangement matches the standing instruction from the founding period that visiting European ships should receive civility but no access to the fort or the island's strength, traceable to the despatch of 18 December 1674. Speculations The Court's observation that it had heretofore used to have the books every year, but no longer received them, identifies a specific procedural failure under the Boucher administration that had operated to break the audit chain between the ship credits and the inhabitants' debits. By tying the present complaint to the lost practice of annual book transmission, the Court framed the reform required as a restoration of the earlier discipline rather than as an innovation. The arrangement matches the pattern earlier in this correspondence where each procedural reform was anchored to a documented institutional source, with the working effect of placing the burden of justification on those defending the present lapse rather than on the Court proposing the restoration. The Court's careful approval of the Council's handling of the French ships, identifying the orders as not amiss as circumstances then stood, probably reflects a calculation about the political delicacy of the post-Utrecht relationship with France. By approving the Council's conduct without elevating it into a general principle binding all future cases, the Court preserved its own flexibility to adopt a different approach if the diplomatic situation altered. The continuation of the same practice for all other shipping whatsoever then extends the working defensive posture to ships of any nation, with the consequence that the discrimination against French ships specifically is reframed as a general security policy applicable to any foreign vessel. | |
82 | with France, as We have with all other Nations We can't tell how long it may last, therefore keep strictly to our former Orders, and the rather because there are now no Separate Stock Ships abroad; and all our Captains have orders to send their Boats on Shore as formerly advis'd, and whoever doth not fire upon them, but if you can give them previous Notice by Signalls or otherwise do it. You complain of Ships delivering you lefs of the Goods Sent from hence or from India than what consigned to you by Bill of Lading, and indeed in severall perticulars if ever the like can again happens, demand of the Comanders to make good the Value of those Goods as worth at S[t] Helena either in Mony, or other Goods such as you shall want at a price to be agreed on; if he refuse protest against him, Our reason for this is to prevent his making Use of them, and thinking he need only be accountable for their prime cost which is very unreasonable, for there can be no just reason to pretend that Rice can waste Your 116 Par[r] of the Letter of the 1[st] Decemb[er] 1715 says there was Fourteen hundred and Eight Pounds delivered Short, therefore it must be tied and so probably was the Sugar Short deliverd at the same time, as to Arrack it is very probable it will waste something, be it never so carefully lookt after the very little as it plain[ly] by your Letter of the 24 March, where you say Par[r] 8 you bought ten Leagers, and in Par[r] 8 that you paid for 1601 Gallons to Capt. Lesar, however your Reason will tell you, whether the want is what usuall, If it be Margin Notes: W[?] | Although the Court had now peace with France, as it had with all other nations, the Court could not tell how long it might last. The Council was therefore to keep strictly to the Court's former orders, and the rather because there were now no separate rock ships abroad. All the Court's captains had orders to send their boats on shore, as formerly advised. Whoever did not fire upon them, but if the Council could give them previous notice by signals or otherwise, it was to do it. Article 25. The Council complained of ships delivering less of the goods sent from London or from India than what was consigned to the Council by the bill of lading. In several particulars, if ever the like again happened, the Council was to demand of the commanders that they make good the value of those goods as worth at St Helena, either in money, or other goods such as the Council might want, at a price to be agreed on. If they refused, the Council was to protest against them. The Court's reason for this was to prevent the captain making use of the goods, and thinking he need only be accountable for their prime cost. Such a position was very unreasonable, for there could be no just reason to pretend that rice could waste. The Council's 116th paragraph of the letter of 1 December 1715 said there had been £1,408 0s 0d delivered short. The matter must be attended to. So probably had the sugar been short delivered at the same time. As to arrack, it was very probable it would waste something, be it never so carefully looked after. The very little waste was plain by the Council's letter of 24 March, where the Council said in paragraph 8 that the Council had bought ten leaguers, and in paragraph 8 that the Council paid for 1,600 gallons to Captain Lesar. However, the Council's reason would tell them whether the want was what usually Interpretations The Court's careful framing of the peace with France as potentially temporary, with the standing security orders to be kept strictly notwithstanding the conclusion of the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, identifies the working theory of the establishment's defensive posture. The arrangement converts the peace from a substantive change in security policy into a contingent diplomatic state, with the consequence that the standing instructions on visiting ships continue to operate regardless of the formal political relationship. The reference to no separate rock ships abroad alludes to the absence of detached company armed vessels currently in the wider Atlantic and Indian Ocean, which would otherwise have provided forward warning of hostile shipping approaching the island. The signals arrangement, by which the Council was to give visiting ships previous notice rather than fire upon them, establishes the procedural sequence for the management of approaches by unknown vessels. The signal system operated as the first stage of identification, with the discharge of the guns reserved for cases where the signals were not answered or where the visiting ship's conduct otherwise gave cause for hostility. The arrangement matches the powder discipline reaffirmed under the despatch of 5 March 1713, where 385 pounds of powder and 134 guns fired in July 1712 alone had revealed the misuse of artillery for non-defensive occasions, with the present procedure controlling the use of guns for genuine defensive purposes. The short delivery remedy established by Article 25 establishes the financial settlement mechanism for goods missing from shipments. The captain was to be required to make good the value at St Helena prices, either in money or in goods at an agreed price, with refusal triggering a formal protest. The arrangement converts the loss from an accounting discrepancy into a personal liability of the master, with the consequence that the master's reluctance to part with money or goods would be tested against the documentary record of the bill of lading. The Court's identification of prime cost as the captain's preferred basis of accountability reveals the working defence by which masters sought to limit their liability to the original London price rather than the higher St Helena price. A leaguer in this context was the large cask of approximately 150 to 160 gallons capacity used in the East Indies trade for the transport of arrack and other liquids. The Council's reference to ten leaguers bought, and to 1,600 gallons paid for to Captain Lesar, reveals the working unit price at approximately one leaguer per 160 gallons. The Court's argument turns on the working physical character of the different commodities: rice could not waste in transit by any working physical process, while arrack would inevitably suffer some loss through leakage and absorption into the cask staves regardless of careful handling. The arrangement matches the cask audit procedure prescribed earlier in this correspondence, where casks of arrack were to be viewed at the bung for ullage to record any shortfall. Speculations The Court's distinction between rice (which could not waste) and arrack (which would inevitably waste something) probably reflects a calculated allocation of the burden of proof in shortage claims. For rice, any shortfall against the bill of lading necessarily indicated theft or diversion, with the master accountable for the full sum. For arrack, the Council was required to use its reason to determine whether the want was what usually occurred through natural leakage or whether it exceeded the expected loss. The arrangement places the working judgement on the Council as the receiving party, with the consequence that small ullage losses would be accepted without complaint while substantial shortfalls would trigger the protest mechanism. The construction provides the working framework within which masters could not claim natural waste as a defence against rice shortages while preserving a genuine waste allowance for cask liquids. The Court's specific identification of the £1,408 0s 0d short delivery from the Council's letter of 1 December 1715 anchors the present complaint to a quantified evidential reference rather than a general grievance. By naming the precise sum from the specific paragraph, the Court created the working basis for any subsequent proceeding against the responsible master, with the consequence that the recovery action could be commenced from the documented figure rather than requiring fresh investigation. The arrangement matches the broader pattern of the present correspondence, where each individual liability is anchored to specific entries in named consultations or letters, with the documentary record operating as the evidential foundation for the working recovery process. | |
83 | be, you must be content, If it be excefsive, as in the Six Leagers in the said Par[r] you say 59 Gallons were Short deliver'd, charge the Captain with so much as you think equitable, and which Shall appear to be embezled and oblige him to make it good out of his own or at the Markett price and if you can't gett it of him, charge him with the value at your Markett, advising Us thereof by the first opportunity. Touching the Inhabitants going aboard Ship to trade you will find full Orders in former Letters, and among others in Par[r] 23 p[er] Cardonsell, You are greatly to blame not to put them in due execution as it seems you have not, for you only say you could with they were revived, you cant be ignorant of the clause in Charter party where a penalty is laid on any Captain that doth so trade on board, because you write that Cap[t] Ryan & M[r] Tacker sold their goods on shore according to Charter party, for the Liberty is given by that clause, But then We must add That We have heretofore had grievous complaints from the Planters for their being restraind, whilst at the same time one or more perticular Favourites either in or out of the Council have been indulgd, and thereby engrost the Goods, and afterwards put their own prices on them, We positively require that you give no such cause of complaint, but let Justice be administered impartially to every Body in this and all other cases. We find the Cardonnel arrivd with the 31[st] of May and it was the 7[th] July before the next Letter was sent Us, in the 30 Par[r] of it, you say you could not answer our Letter by her, because of the time taken up in examining the Eagles Men, This We can't think a good excuse, or if it was, why could it not be answerd by the Avarilla who left your Island | The Council was to be content with the usual waste of arrack. If the want were excessive, as in the six leaguers in the paragraph mentioned, where the Council said 59 gallons were short delivered, the Council was to charge the captain with so much as it thought equitable, and which should appear to be embezzled. The Council was to oblige him to make it good out of his own, or at the market price, and if it could not get it of him, to charge him with the value at the Council's market, advising the Court thereof by the first opportunity. Article 26. Touching the inhabitants going aboard ship to trade, the Council would find full orders in former letters, and among others in paragraph 23 by the Cardonell. The Council was greatly to blame not to put them in due execution. As it seemed the Council had not, the Council only said it could wish they were revived. The Council could not be ignorant of the clause in the charter party where a penalty was laid on any captain who allowed such trade on board, because the Council had written that Captain Ryan and Mr Packer sold their goods on shore, according to the charter party, for the liberty was given by that clause. The Court must add that it had heretofore had grievous complaints from the planters of being restrained, while at the same time one or more particular favourites either in or out of the Council had been indulged, and thereby engrossed the goods, and afterwards put their own prices on them. The Court positively required that the Council give no such cause of complaint, but let justice be administered impartially to every body in this and all other cases. Article 27. The Court found the Cardonell arrived with the Council the 31 of May, and it was the 7 July before the next letter was sent the Court. In the 30th paragraph of it, the Council said it could not answer the Court's letter by her, because of the time taken up in examining the Eagle's ammunition. The Court could not think it a good excuse, or if it were, why could it not be answered by the Avarilla who left the island Interpretations The short delivery remedy continued in the present passage builds out the four-stage settlement procedure for shortages identified in the previous article. First, the Council was to charge the captain with what it thought equitable and which appeared embezzled. Second, the captain was to make the sum good in his own person, either in cash or at the market price. Third, if the captain refused to settle, the Council was to charge him with the value at the Council's market price. Fourth, the Court was to be advised by the first opportunity. The arrangement converted each shortage from an isolated incident into a structured recovery process, with each stage operating as a check on the next. The engrossing complaint in Article 26 identifies the continuing structural risk of the company stores as a retail platform, traceable through earlier correspondence. The discharge of Anthony Beale by the despatch of 20 May 1683, with the appointment of Joshua Johnson at £40 0s 0d per annum, had originally established the prohibition on the Husband and Storekeeper buying up incoming cargoes before the planters could trade. The Boucher pattern documented under the previous General Letter had extended the abuse to the Governor himself, with Mr Alexander selling palm wines at two shillings and sixpence per pint as the working illustration. The present complaint reveals the abuse continuing under the new Council, with particular favourites either in or out of the Council securing goods through the charter party clause that permitted on-board sales. The charter party clause referenced by the Council, by which Captain Ryan and Mr Packer were entitled to sell their goods on shore as part of the contract, identifies the contractual liberty given to the captain and supra cargoes to trade their private allotments. The arrangement matches the standing practice by which the company's senior officers aboard each ship were permitted to carry a limited quantity of goods on their own account, with the sale of those goods on shore at the calling station forming part of the personal remuneration of the voyage. The Court's complaint addresses not the existence of the practice but the discriminatory application of the rule, with the Council selectively enforcing the prohibition against ordinary planters while permitting favoured intermediaries to engross the goods. The Council's defence that the time taken up in examining the Eagle's ammunition prevented it from answering the Court's letter by the Cardonell, brought from St Helena on 31 May to 7 July, identifies the procedural delay pattern that the Court intended to refuse. The Avarilla had departed the island in the intervening period, providing a second opportunity for the Council's reply that had not been taken. The arrangement reveals the Court's method of testing each procedural excuse against the available alternatives, with the consequence that any single explanation could be defeated by demonstrating that a parallel route had remained open. Speculations The Court's positive requirement that justice be administered impartially to every body in this and all other cases probably reflects a calculated extension of the engrossing complaint into a general principle applicable beyond the immediate ship trade context. By framing the partiality in trade as a particular instance of a wider duty of impartial administration, the Court created the working evidential foundation for any future complaint against the Council members based on differential treatment of planters or other inhabitants. The arrangement matches the broader pattern of the present correspondence, where each specific procedural reform is anchored in a general principle that operates as the standard against which subsequent conduct can be tested. The Court's careful identification of the Avarilla's departure as a missed opportunity for the Council's reply suggests that the Court was preparing the documentary basis for a formal procedural complaint against the Council in the manner that it had assembled the case against Boucher. By naming the specific ship that had sailed without carrying the response, the Court created the evidential record on which the Council's delay could be measured, with the consequence that the excuse of insufficient time was demonstrably available only on the assumption that no intervening shipping had been available. The arrangement matches the named-ship technique deployed earlier in this correspondence against the Eagle Galley captain for the eleven-month homeward passage, with each procedural failure tied to a specific identifiable opportunity that had been missed. | |
84 | Island the beginning of August, in either case We had had an early Acc[oun]t of your proceedings and the Notices in due time, which for that Failures are but just now come to hands, surely you need not want two Months time to answer a Letter, If you had either Inclination or any tollerable share of diligence; As to that Examination of the Eagles Men, if the Acc[oun]t hen given us of it be true, it had been much better lett alone at least it not carried so far; The punishing the Men with that severity which they pofsitively affirm was us'd, is no ways justifiable, what necefsity was there ever under to interpose himself so perticularly therein, as by all hands it appears he did, The pretence of Mutiny, or if it was reall, might have been as well prevented by removing the Ring-Leaders at first, as it was afterwards, for the Hanover was in the Road Had they been as bad as the Letter would make them, ought not they to have had a proper tryall by examin[ing] them at a Consultation, where the Officers of One or Both Ships might have been present, and so far as culpable should not their Captain have given them due correction why should Govern[ou]r Pyke take that Odium upon him to show his despotick Authority unseasonably; The Men here pretend to justifie themselves, and that they were whipt for petitioning in a modest Manner, and the Words of the Petition as you Copy it in the Letter appear such, and it is plain by your 63 Par[r] they had some hardships, a prudent Exerting your Authority might have heald all, There is severe Usage generally inflames the more, Many things they say in their own Vindication which We shall not repeat the Event will prove whether they have been so abusd by the Captain as they pretend, for they are about seeking their Remedy at Law; However to keep them in Irons for | The Avarilla had left the island at the beginning of August. In either case the Court would have had an early account of the Council's proceedings, and the notices in due time. As it was, the failures had only just now come to hand. Surely the Council needed not want two months' time to answer a letter, if it had either inclination or any tolerable share of diligence. As to the examination of the Eagle's men, if the account then given the Court were true, it had been much better let alone, or at least not carried so far. The punishing the men with that severity which the Council positively affirmed was used was no ways justifiable. There was no necessity for the Governor to intermeddle himself so particularly therein, as by all hands it appeared he did. The pretence of mutiny, or if it were real, might have been as well prevented by removing the ringleaders at first, as it was afterwards, for the Hanover was in the road. Had they been as bad as the letter would make them, ought they not to have had a proper trial by examining them at a consultation, where the officers of one or both ships might have been present, and so far as culpable should not their captain have given them due correction? Why should Governor Pyke take that odium upon him, to show his despotic authority unseasonably? The men here pretended to justify themselves, and that they were whipped for petitioning in a modest manner, and the words of the petition as the Council copied it in the letter appeared such. It was plain by the Council's 63rd paragraph they had some hardships. A prudent exerting of the Council's authority might have healed all. Where severe usage generally inflames the more, many things they said in their own vindication, which the Court should not repeat. The event would prove whether they had been so abused by the captain as they pretended, for they were about seeking their remedy at law. However, to keep them in irons Interpretations The Court's sharp criticism of Governor Pyke's personal handling of the Eagle mutiny identifies a procedural failure distinct from the substantive question of whether the men deserved punishment. The Court's working test required the matter to have been brought before the Council in formal consultation, with the officers of one or both ships present, and the captain administering any necessary correction. The arrangement preserves the collective decision principle reinforced throughout the present letter, with the consequence that the Governor's unilateral action operated as a usurpation of both the Council's collective authority and the captain's disciplinary authority over his own crew. The Court's reference to the Governor taking the odium upon him reveals the institutional concern that personal command actions by the Governor would expose him to personal liability that would otherwise have been distributed across the proper chain of authority. The mutiny on the Eagle should be distinguished from the soldier mutiny over want of food documented in the previous General Letter, where the soldiers' arrears at the storehouse under Mr Park had triggered the disturbance, and where the work-out remedy installed by Boucher had been endorsed by the Court. The present incident concerns the crew of a homeward-bound ship rather than the garrison soldiers, with the petitioning conduct described as modest and the working hardships acknowledged in the Council's 63rd paragraph. The arrangement reveals the working distinction between the two categories of mutiny: a garrison mutiny was a matter for the Council and the military officers, while a ship mutiny was a matter for the ship's captain operating under the working maritime authority of the charter party. The men's prospective remedy at law identifies the working legal channel by which crew members punished aboard or ashore could seek damages from the captain or others involved in their treatment. The arrangement reflects the working maritime jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty at London, under which crew complaints against masters could be brought after the ship's return. The Court's reference to the event proving whether they had been so abused as they pretended reveals that the legal proceeding would itself operate as the working test of the Council's account, with the consequence that the documentary record of the consultation books would be tested against the men's evidence at the working trial. The Court's framing of severe usage as something that generally inflames the more applies a working psychological principle to the management of crew discipline. Excessive punishment was identified not as merely unjust but as counter-productive, with the working consequence that the prudent exertion of authority required restraint rather than escalation. The arrangement matches the broader pattern of the present letter, where each disciplinary instrument is to be deployed only in proportion to the working necessity established by the evidence, with the working over-application operating as itself a procedural failure susceptible to subsequent censure. Speculations The Court's careful preservation of the men's complaint in the Council's own copy of the petition probably reflects a calculated decision to retain the original phrasing as evidence against any subsequent claim that the petition had been seditious in form. By identifying the words of the petition as appearing modest, the Court working closed the route by which the Council might later defend the severity of the punishment by characterising the original document as inflammatory. The arrangement places the documentary record of the petition itself, as the Council had transmitted it, in the position of the principal evidence against the Council's account of the necessary disciplinary response. The Court's specific identification of Governor Pyke as the personal author of the disciplinary action, set against the broader institutional framework that ought to have governed it, probably reflects a calculated anticipation of the men's legal proceedings at London. By recording in the General Letter the Court's view that the Governor's personal intervention had been unwarranted, the Court positioned itself in advance of any working defence the Governor might mount if named as a defendant in the men's action. The arrangement matches the documentary case-building pattern deployed elsewhere in this correspondence, with the present record establishing the Court's institutional disapproval of the personal command action regardless of the substantive outcome at the working trial. | |
85 | for severall Months, and working all the while in the Quarrys as Adaire by his Petition tells Us he was and that some are yet there, is a punishment very shocking to an English Ear, and too grievous for any Crime es =pecially, if lefs than capitall, and that sufficiently provd whereas the proofs here were but circumstantial. Wee are sorry We have occasion to take notice of this, and expect We shall never have a 2[d] all proper Endeavours to prevent Mutiny are comendable, but then they ought to be warrantable; Govern[men]t is best preserv'd by a just & gentle managem[en]t when it exceeds y[t] it soon loses its Veneration & degenerates into Tyranny & oppression w[hi]ch Stirs up hatred against it & there is a Generall Clamour. Y[ou]r Behaviour towards y[e] people on board the Cardonel was much better & your endeavours to reconcile the pafsengers & Cap[t] Succeeded being by what appears carried on w[i]th temper at least with out violence. In Answer to y[ou]r 70 par[r] of Hanover We have this Year fixed y[e] price of Beef in Charterparty at Twenty five Shillings a hundred w[ei]th however if y[e] Current price should be more remember the Directions in former Letters for their is no rea son We should let Our Beef goe at a lefs price then any others will afford it at. If You can meet with a good Longboat Out of any of y[e] Ships at a reasonable rate We permit y[ou] buying it Since as it appears she is so necefs sary to fetch Lime & Stone from Sandy Bay take care of y[e] fishing boats you have, if the inhabitants are too lazy to use them on so easy terms as you afford, they must Suffer for their folly & Sloth. So far as those Boats can be Usefull in unlading Goods take care they be imployd therein. | To keep the men in irons for several months, and labouring all the while in the quarries, as Adaire by his petition told the Court he was and that some were yet there, was a punishment very shocking to an English ear, and too grievous for any crime, especially if less than capital, and that sufficiently proved, whereas the proofs here were but circumstantial. The Court was sorry it had occasion to take notice of this, and expected it should never have a second. All proper endeavours to prevent mutiny were commendable, but then they ought to be warrantable. Government was best preserved by a just and gentle management. When it exceeded that it soon lost its veneration and degenerated into tyranny and oppression, which stirred up hatred against it, and therewith a general clamour. Article 28. The Council's behaviour towards the people on board the Cardonell was much better, and the Council's endeavours to reconcile the passengers and captain succeeded, being by what appeared carried on with temper, at least without violence. Article 29. In answer to the Council's 70th paragraph by the Hanover, the Court had this year fixed the price of beef in the Carpsepacky at twenty-five shillings the hundredweight. However, if the current price should be more, the Council was to remember the directions in former letters, for there was no reason the Court should let its beef go at a less price than any others would afford it at. Article 30. If the Council could meet with a good longboat out of any of the ships at a reasonable rate, the Court permitted the buying of it, since, as it appeared, she was so necessary to fetch lime and stone from Sandy Bay. The Council was to take care of the fishing boats it had. If the inhabitants were too lazy to use them on so easy terms as the Council offered, they must suffer for their folly and sloth. So far as those boats could be useful in unloading goods, the Council was to take care they were employed therein. Interpretations The Court's identification of Adaire as the petitioner who provided the evidence of the quarry labour reveals the working evidential basis on which the Court formed its judgement of the punishment. The petition operated as the working source document distinct from the Council's own account in the General Letter, with the consequence that the Court had cross-checked the Council's narrative against an independent statement from a named member of the disciplined party. The arrangement matches the documentary cross-check pattern deployed throughout the present correspondence, where each institutional account is to be tested against parallel sources where available, with the consequence that any working concealment in the Council's report would be exposed by the petitioner's evidence. The Court's working principle that government was best preserved by a just and gentle management, with severe usage degenerating into tyranny and stirring up hatred and clamour, articulates the working political theory of authority that runs through the present letter. The arrangement matches the warning at Article 36 of the previous General Letter, where severe usage was identified as inflaming the more, with the present statement elevating that working observation into a general principle of governance. The construction reveals the Court's understanding that the legitimacy of the establishment depended on working proportionality between offence and punishment, with the consequence that excessive discipline operated against the institutional interest of the company by undermining the working acceptance of authority among the population. The fixed beef price of twenty-five shillings the hundredweight, with the override that the current price should govern if higher, identifies the working pricing mechanism for the ship-supply trade. The arrangement matches the medium-price rule established under the previous General Letter for India goods, with both reforms operating to preserve the company's working profit margin against the working pressure to undersell competitors at the establishment. The Court's reference to the Carpsepacky identifies a specific vessel as the immediate working occasion for the price fixing, with the working broader principle applicable to all visiting ships. The Sandy Bay reference identifies the specific working location at the island from which the lime and stone for the construction programme were to be drawn. Sandy Bay lay on the south coast of the island, distant from James Valley and the Fort, with the working consequence that a longboat was required to transport the materials to the construction sites. The arrangement matches the storehouse programme of the despatch of 5 March 1713 and the further fortification and warehouse works discussed earlier in the present correspondence, with the longboat operating as a working item of capital infrastructure rather than as a working consumable. The Council's working authority to purchase from any visiting ship preserves the working procurement flexibility against the working tonnage constraints on direct shipping from London. Speculations The Court's careful framing of the quarry labour as too grievous for any crime less than capital, with the proofs here being but circumstantial, probably reflects a calculated positioning in advance of the men's legal proceedings at London. By identifying the punishment as disproportionate to a crime less than capital, the Court working acknowledged that even if the men were ultimately found to have committed some offence, the working severity of the response would not have been justified. The arrangement preserves the Court's institutional position regardless of the working outcome at the trial, with the consequence that any subsequent finding against the men would still leave the Council and Governor Pyke exposed to working liability for the working excessive response. The Court's working endorsement of the Council's conduct in the Cardonell incident, set against its working condemnation of the Eagle incident, identifies the working contrast between two cases handled by the same Council in close working succession. The arrangement reveals the working capacity of the Council to operate competently in dispute resolution when the principal officer did not personally intervene, with the working Cardonell outcome serving as the working positive benchmark against which the Eagle failure is to be measured. The construction matches the pattern earlier in this correspondence of acknowledging Boucher's competent measures alongside the working condemnation of his abuses, with the consequence that the working critique of Pyke in the Eagle incident is preserved from the working appearance of partisan attack by the working acknowledgement of competent handling elsewhere. | |
86 | p[er] Kath[erine] (1716) Our Comittee of Private Trade, on making up the Account of y[e] Susanna do find, if the Exceptions on her Bill of Lading dont contain the Nine Stalls mentiond to be wanting in y[e] 5[th] par[r] of the Generall Letter dated y[e] 31 March 1714 amount to five pounds Six Shillings & Six pence & it is a culpable omission & y[e] Owners refuse to make it good because not endorzed on said Bill take better care for y[e] future. Secondly Concerning Goods or Stores Sent from England or rec[eiv]d from India What Goods Merchandize or Stores Our Comittee have thought fitt to Send & if y[e] Ship could take in you will know by the Invoice they took notice that y[e] quantitys contain'd in your Indents are Sufficient to load two large Ships considering We can have only a p[ar]t of the Ships Tonnage when Outward bound. Tho We have taken notice that y[e] prices y[e] Sett on Our Goods when to be Sold by retail is not entred into Consultation Notwithstanding We Order'd they Should Yet it is of Such consequence as to remember you of it againe here, Wherefore Lett it not be Omitted at any time here after the trouble cant be much for it is Generally but One Ship in a year from hence, & to this end when you have Entord the Invoice against every Article or if there is not room then underneath it sett down y[e] price agreed upon for Sail[e] in Council In the Same maner you Did y[e] Rochesters Invoice w[hi]ch You Sent in the Susannas pacckett but take care it be the whole, whereas that was not for in a nother Copy of it N[o] 22 w[hi]ch You Sent by y[e] Frederick We find an Additional Invoice & was omitted in the Other, the Reasons why We Order this Entry are | By the Catherine (1716) Article 31. The Court's Committee of Private Trade, on making up the account of the Susanna, found that the exceptions on her bill of lading did not contain the nine hats mentioned to be wanting in the third paragraph of the General Letter dated 31 March 1714, amounting to £5 16s 10d. This was a culpable omission, and the owners refused to make it good because not endorsed on the said bill. The Council was to take better care in future. Secondly, concerning goods or stores sent from England or received from India. Article 32. The Court's Committee had thought fit to send what goods, merchandise or stores, and the ship could take in, the Council would know by the invoice. The Committee took notice that the quantities contained in the Council's indents were sufficient to load two large ships, considering the Court could have only a part of the ships' tonnage when outward bound. Article 33. Although the Court had taken notice that the prices the goods were to be sold at by retail were not entered in the consultations, notwithstanding the Court had ordered they should, yet the matter was of such consequence as to remember the Council of it again. Wherefore, the entry should not be omitted at any time hereafter. The trouble could not be much, for it was generally but one ship a year from London. To this end, when the Council had entered the invoice against every article, or if there was not room then underneath, it was to set down the price agreed upon for sale in Council. In the same manner, the goods sent in Mr Kershaw's invoice, which the Council had sent in the Susanna's packet, but the Council was to take care it was the whole. Whereas that was not, for in another copy of it number 22 which the Council sent by the Frederick, the Court found an additional invoice which was omitted in the other. The reasons why the Court ordered this entry Interpretations The £5 16s 10d disallowance against the Susanna for the nine hats represents a particular illustration of the bill of lading endorsement principle developed in earlier articles. The owners' defence that the shortfall was not endorsed on the bill defeated the Court's recovery, with the consequence that the Court bore the loss. The arrangement matches the procedural framework established in Article 25 of the General Letter of 14 March 1715, where the Council was instructed to demand of commanders that they make good the value of short-delivered goods or face protest, with the protest endorsed on the bill of lading operating as the working instrument of recovery against the owners. The Court's Committee of Private Trade identified by Article 31 represents the standing body within the Court of Directors charged with the management of the private trade allowances granted to captains and supra cargoes under the charter parties. The Committee was distinct from the Committee of Shipping that procured and managed the company's vessels, with the working specialisation reflecting the institutional separation of the company's monopoly trade from the supplementary private trade conducted by its officers. The arrangement reveals the working internal organisation of the Court of Directors into thematic committees, with each committee operating on its own working file of business. The tonnage constraint identified by Article 32 confirms the structural limit on the company's outward despatch capacity that had been noted in the previous General Letter of 14 March 1715, where the tonnage difficulty had been identified as the great difficulty in supplying the church timbers proposed by Thomlinson. The Council's indents (the working requisitions for supplies) had been sufficient to load two large ships, but the Court could only secure a part of any individual ship's tonnage for the island supply, with the remainder dedicated to the onward cargo for the Asian stations. The arrangement converts the indent system from a working procurement instrument into a working priority list, with the Council compelled to identify which items must be supplied first against the limited tonnage available. The retail price entry requirement reiterated by Article 33 continues the procedural reform first imposed at paragraph 34 of the founding instructions and reinforced through successive General Letters. The arrangement requires each invoice to carry, against every article or below it where space requires, the price agreed upon for sale in Council. The medium-price rule established for India goods under the General Letter of 4 February 1714, with the working test of the average of recent general prices, would govern the working price-setting process, with the Council's entry in the consultation book operating as the documentary record of compliance. The Court's specific reference to the once-yearly cycle of London shipping identifies the working low frequency of the procedure as a working defence against any Council excuse based on volume of business. Speculations The Court's careful identification of the additional invoice in Mr Kershaw's papers, present in the copy sent by the Frederick but omitted in the version sent by the Susanna, probably reflects a calculated detection of the working selective transmission pattern documented under the despatch of 4 February 1714 in respect of the Susanna letter of 20 March 1712. By cross-checking the two copies received from the Council against one another, the Court identified the working discrepancy that would not have been visible from either copy alone. The arrangement matches the duplicate signature requirement established earlier in this correspondence, with the redundant transmission operating as the working evidential test of the completeness of the originating record. The £5 16s 10d disallowance over nine hats, against the scale of the larger short-delivery issues raised earlier in this correspondence, probably reflects the Court's working determination to document each individual loss separately rather than to absorb the small sums into a general head. By naming the particular shortfall and the precise figure, the Court created the working evidential record on which any subsequent reform of the bill of lading endorsement procedure could be tested against working specific costs. The arrangement matches the broader pattern of the present correspondence, where each named loss is anchored to a specific transaction with a documented sum, with the working effect of converting general procedural failings into quantified financial consequences. | |
87 | Cap[t] Jn[o] Hunter Com[mande]r (1716) are that We may always see the prices (for We will never pardon the not Sending the Consultation book yearly no more then We will the Acc[oun]ts) that you may at all times have recourse to those Entrys when you want to be informd of Particulars because a loose paper may be easily be mislaid & Likewise the whole Council may thereby know more certainly how to Examine check & pafs the Storekeepers Acc[oun]ts by seeing whether he brings to Acc[oun]t y[e] true Rates of y[e] Goods he disposes of according to those prices & We require the Council so to Examine it, These entrys being so made there will be no Necefsity to Send the Same Acc[oun]t in the Pacckett if the Consultation books come at the same time. The Goods & Stores received from India must be also entred in the said Books not only the quan tityes recd of each Specie by every ship but y[e] prices the Council put upon each, that the same examina tion may pafs on them. Since as you mention par[r] 24 of Susana y[ou] have not found any persons who would undertake to retail out the small particulars at y[e] premio of five p[er] Cent. for their trouble appoint One of the six people you have in the Stores for that purpose & now you have our Bills & whenever you want them may have more & have also Spanish bitts Fanams & Copper money Currant on the Island fitt for change lett all those Sorts of Haberda =shery Ware be paid for in ready mony, that will prevent the pretence of much Writing work & thereby Our Intention in Par[r] 35 of y[ou]r Instructions be fully ans[werd] | Captain John Hunter, Commander (1716) The reasons why the Court ordered this entry were that the Court might always see the prices, for the Court would never pardon the not sending the consultation book yearly no more than the Court would the accounts. The Court might at all times have recourse to those entries when it wanted to be informed of particulars, because a loose paper might easily be mislaid. Likewise, the whole Council might thereby know more certainly how to examine, check and pass the Storekeeper's accounts, by seeing whether he brought to account the true rates of the goods he disposed of, according to those prices. The Court required the Council to examine it. These entries being so made, there would be no necessity to send the same account in the packet, if the consultation books came at the same time. Article 34. The goods and stores received from India must also be entered in the said books, not only the quantities received of each species by every ship, but the prices the Council put upon each, so that the same examination might pass on them. Article 35. Since, as the Council mentioned in paragraph 24 of the Susanna letter, the Council had not found any persons who would undertake to retail out the small particulars at the premium of five per cent for their trouble, the Council was to appoint one of the people it had in the stores for that purpose. Now that the Council had the Court's bills, and whenever it wanted them might have more, and also Spanish bits, fanams and copper money current on the island fit for change, the Council was to let all those sorts of haberdashery ware be paid for in ready money. That would prevent the pretence of much writing work, and thereby the Court's intention in paragraph 35 of its instructions would be fully Interpretations The consultation book as the unified record for invoices, retail prices and storekeeper's accounts establishes the documentary architecture the Court intended to operate at the island. By requiring the prices to be entered against each article in the invoice, the Court created the benchmark against which the Storekeeper's subsequent disposals could be tested. The arrangement converts the consultation book from a chronological record of Council decisions into a continuous financial control instrument, with each transaction in the stores measurable against the prior price-setting entry. The construction matches the journal nature of the consultation book established at Article 10 of the General Letter of 14 March 1715, with the present extension to retail pricing adding a further functional layer. The Court's pardon language identifies the disciplinary consequence of failure to comply with the consultation book and accounts transmission requirement. The arrangement converts the documentary obligation from a procedural request into a personal accountability standard, with the consequence that the Council members would face institutional censure for non-compliance regardless of any other defence. The construction matches the toties quoties fine on the Clerk for archival failure established at Article 6 of the General Letter of 14 March 1715, with the fine and the pardon language operating as parallel disciplinary instruments at different levels of the establishment. A fanam was a small silver coin of southern Indian origin, current at Fort St George and circulating widely through the company's network as a fractional unit alongside the rupee and the larger Spanish dollar. The currency mix of Spanish bits, fanams and copper money current on the island matches the three-tier coin supply established under the despatch of 5 March 1713, which had introduced Spanish bits as the Court's contribution, with the Court of St George at Fort St George to send a further hundred pounds in copper farthings and halfpence and a hundred pounds in silver fanams. The arrangement provided three monetary streams for transactions of different value, with the small change function critical to the operation of the retail haberdashery sales now under reform. The five per cent commission proposal originating from paragraph 35 of the founding instructions reflects the delegated retail mechanism introduced by the despatch of 5 March 1713, where small haberdashery was to be entrusted to honest responsible men paid by five per cent commission. The Council's report that no suitable person would undertake the retail at that rate identifies the failure of the original mechanism, with the consequence that the Court now substituted the appointment of a salaried writer in the stores as the alternative. The arrangement reveals the practical limits of the commission-based retail model in a small island economy where the volume of business was insufficient to attract independent merchants, with the consequence that the function reverted to the salaried establishment. Speculations The Court's identification of the much writing work as the pretence that would justify the ready-money requirement probably reflects an observation that the credit-based retail system at the island had operated as the source of the storekeeper accounting difficulties documented earlier in the present correspondence. Each credit sale generated entries in the buyer's account, the Storekeeper's account and the consultation books, with the consequence that even small transactions produced disproportionate clerical labour. The arrangement matches the soldiers' arrears pattern under Mr Park documented in the General Letter of 14 March 1715, where the absence of frequent balancing had allowed credits to accumulate to £20 0s 0d to £30 0s 0d per man. The conversion of haberdashery sales to ready money eliminates the credit channel for small items, with the effect of confining the credit system to substantial transactions where the clerical labour was justified. The Court's reform of the haberdashery retail through the appointment of a salaried stores writer, rather than through the renewed search for a commissioned agent, probably reflects a calculated acknowledgement of the demographic limits of the island. The earlier hope under the despatch of 5 March 1713 that honest responsible men could be found among the inhabitants had assumed a population sufficient to provide candidates of the required calibre. The present reform implicitly concedes that the population of approximately 500 identified under the despatch of 1 August 1683 had not produced suitable retailers, with the consequence that the salaried establishment must absorb the function. The arrangement matches the broader pattern of the present correspondence, where the scale of the establishment is repeatedly tested against the procedural and administrative ambitions of the Court at London. | |
88 | By Ship Katharine A[nn]o 1716 answerd, Surely y[ou]r own reason might have suggested this to you without giving Us the trouble of it. The remarks you made on y[e] Severall Sorts of Goods rec[eiv]d hence by y[e] Rochester & Cardonnell & what you further offerd thereupon are well done continue all Such advices all Our Deals Invoiced to you by y[e] hundred are at Six Score to the hundred so far as the Cap[t]s have delivered Short they are accountable & you must charge them with y[e] want. We have been thinking of Sending you a Ship on purpose to be fill'd with Timber & Stores of bulky Tonnage & to be broke Up at S[t] Helena, when a convenient opportunity presents may furnish you accordingly but then it must be y[ou]r care to Husband all to our best advantage. We are Strangly Surprized to find y[e] mention the Island would take off Seventy Leagers of Arr[ack] a Year, The Number of Inhabitants are not In =creased but diminisht, for You have few more then Seventy familys on the Island by the Estimate of them in y[e] List of Revenues, We ought to have had a List of all heretofore, they used to be Annually whereas in times past when they were more numerous We cant find they Spent a quarter part so much, We then used to have none brought on Our Acc[oun]t nor did y[e] Ships bring any large quan tityes, for y[e] Comand[er]s were not Sure during y[e] last two Wars with France they should touch there, We have of late also Supplyd You with Wine from the Maderas w[hi]ch was rarely done formerly, By all this it appears plainly y[e] people are grown Sottifs & no wonder so many are poor & unable to pay their Debts, We are sure the place is lefs health full than formerly as deseases more rife & this y[ou]r Letters before Us as well as formerly abundantly Testify, Let it be y[ou]r care to Sett them better Exam ples, Discountenance that mischievous Vice of Drunkennefs, incourage frugality & industry y[ou] | By ship Catherine. 1716 Articles 32 to 35 of the Court's letter were fully answered. Surely the Council's own reason might have suggested this to the Court without giving it the trouble of it. Article 36. The remarks the Council made on the several sorts of goods received from London by the Rochester and Cardonell, and what the Council further offered thereupon, were well done. The Council was to continue all such advices. All the deals invoiced to the Council by the hundred were at six score to the hundred. So far as the captains delivered short, they were accountable, and the Council must charge them with the want. Article 37. The Court had been thinking of sending the Council a ship on purpose, to be filled with timber and stores of bulky tonnage, and to be broken up at St Helena. When a convenient opportunity presented, the Court might furnish the Council accordingly. The Council must then take care to husband all to the Court's best advantage. Article 38. The Court was strangely surprised to find the Council mention the island would take off seventy leaguers of arrack a year. The number of inhabitants had not increased, but diminished, for the Council had few more than seventy families on the island by the estimate of them in the list of revenues. The Court ought to have had a list of all heads before. Such lists used to be sent annually. Whereas in times past, when the inhabitants were more numerous, the Court could not find they spent a quarter part so much. The Court then used to have none brought on its own account, nor did the ships bring any large quantities, for the commanders were not sure during the last two wars with France whether they should touch there. Of late the Court had also supplied the Council with wine from the Madeiras, which was rarely done formerly. By all this it appeared plainly the people were grown sottish. It was no wonder so many were poor and unable to pay their debts. The Court was sure the place was less healthful than formerly, and diseases more rife. This the Council's letters before the Court, as well as formerly, abundantly testified. Let it be the Council's care to set them better examples, to discountenance that mischievous vice of drunkenness, and to encourage frugality and industry, Interpretations The six score to the hundred convention identified at Article 36 establishes that deals were counted by the long hundred of 120 pieces rather than the short hundred of 100. The convention was standard in the Baltic timber trade from which the company drew its deals, with the consequence that each invoice item recorded as a hundred actually represented 120 pieces for delivery purposes. The arrangement matches the standing supply of dram deals and Christiana deals identified in earlier consignments, including the 1,200 yellow dram deals on the Johanna in 1678 and the 720 dram deals on the Society in 1680, both reckoned at the long hundred for accounting purposes. The Court's explicit statement of the convention closes any possible defence by a captain claiming delivery at the short hundred. The dedicated supply ship proposed at Article 37, to be filled with timber and bulky stores and broken up at St Helena, identifies a procurement model distinct from the regular shipping cycle. The arrangement converted the ship from a transport vessel into a working component of the consignment itself, with the timber of the hull and the iron of the fastenings adding to the deliverable materials. The model addresses the tonnage constraint identified throughout the present correspondence, where the regular outward shipping could carry only a part of the desired supplies for the island. The construction matches the timber and warehouse programme of the despatch of 5 March 1713 and the further building reforms of the General Letter of 14 March 1715, with the dedicated supply ship operating as the procurement instrument for the materials required. The Court's complaint that the island would consume seventy leaguers of arrack a year identifies a substantial increase in the consumption rate against the historical pattern. At approximately 160 gallons per leaguer, seventy leaguers represented some 11,200 gallons of arrack annually for a population of around seventy families. The Court's comparison with times past, when the population was more numerous but consumed less than a quarter of that quantity, identifies the rising per capita consumption as the substantive concern. The arrangement matches the anti-arrack and wine programme reaffirmed by the despatch of 4 February 1714, where the new arrack consumed shortly after distillation had been identified as the principal cause of the dry belly ache, with the Madeira wine programme of twenty-five pipes for St Helena on the Cardonell offered as the substitute. The diseases more rife concern identifies the public health consequence the Court attributed to the elevated arrack consumption. The arrangement matches the dry belly ache (lead colic) identified under the despatch of 5 March 1713 as the medical objection to new arrack, with the present statement extending the concern from the specific affliction to a general decline in the healthfulness of the population. The Council's letters before the Court, as well as formerly, provided the documentary base for the finding, with the consequence that the public health argument operated as a substantive ground for the consumption reduction policy rather than as a moral imposition. Speculations The Court's framing of the population decline alongside the arrack consumption increase probably reflects a calculated effort to construct a documented case for restrictive trade measures at the island. By identifying the population at seventy families against the historical figure of approximately 500 inhabitants under the despatch of 1 August 1683, the Court established the quantitative basis for the per capita consumption calculation. The arrangement converts the arrack problem from a vice complaint into a measurable economic and demographic indicator, with the consequence that future correspondence could test the consumption rate against the population return in successive years. The construction matches the broader pattern of the present correspondence, where qualitative concerns are anchored in specific quantified records that can be tracked over time. The Court's instruction to the Council to set better examples in the discountenancing of drunkenness probably reflects the same leadership principle applied at Article 46 of the General Letter of 14 March 1715, where the Council was instructed to set the example for the planters in the livestock preservation programme. The arrangement converts the consumption reform from a regulatory measure applied to the inhabitants into a behavioural standard observed first by the senior establishment. The construction protects the Council from any complaint of double standards, with the personal abstinence of the Council members operating as the evidence of policy seriousness in the same manner deployed for the livestock and table allowance programmes elsewhere in this correspondence. | |
89 | Cap[t] Jn[o] Hunter Com[mande]r 1716 and let the people from the highest to the low est know & experience such shall always have the most of y[ou]r Favour. For the reasons mentiond in Severall of your Paragraphs We will give you the Liberty to buy Up Arack when good of the Sort and procurable at four shillings or under y[e] Gallon but would not have you encourage y[e] consumption by so much as conniving at Sottishnefs. On Considering your 76 & 77 Par[r]s of Susannah & others to the same purpose in the following Letters We have a further testimony of our unfaithfull Servants mannagem[en]t in raising our Goods to give others the Opportunity of Selling theirs in their Ware Houses kept for that purpose as none of you Our present Council were then on the place except M[r] Bazett we cant blame you on that Acc[oun]t but we do him for not advising us of it and must say he has thereby made us but an ill return for our kindnefs to him in first ap- proving his being put into the Council and afterwards Continuing him therein tho a Stranger This gives us an Opportunity to tell you all and for the same reason your Succefsors for we design, our generall Orders to respect futurity as well as the present That who ever of our Councill in which we include the Govern[ou]r for he is one of the Councill shall know of any Injury or Hurt don us on any acc[oun]t and doth not his utmost to hinder it We shall look on him as a party concernd therein and if not being able to remedy it doth not advise us the Particulars We shall think him unworthy of Continuance in our Service This rule must run thro' the whole of our affairs tho it is here mention[d] only on Acc[oun]t of the Goods. These two Par[r]s run in Generall terms as if all our Goods were affected thereby which cant be for as to leevage of [t]hem | Captain John Hunter, Commander, 1716 The Council was to let the people, from the highest to the lowest, know and experience that such conduct should always have the most of the Court's favour. Article 39. For the reasons mentioned in several of the Council's paragraphs, the Court would give the Council the liberty to buy up arrack when good of the sort and procurable at four shillings or under the gallon. The Court would not have the Council encourage the consumption by so much as conniving at sottishness. Article 40. On considering the Council's 16th and 17th paragraphs of the Susanna and others to the same purpose in the following letters, the Court had a further testimony of the unfaithful servants' management in raising the Court's goods to give others the opportunity of selling theirs in private warehouses kept for that purpose. None of the present Council were then on the place except Mr Bazett. The Court could not blame the Council on that account, but did blame him for not advising the Court of it. The Court must say he had thereby made it but an ill return for the Court's kindness, in first approving his being put into the Council, and afterwards continuing him therein though a stranger. The matter gave the Court an opportunity to tell the Council, and for the same reason the Council's successors, for the Court designed its general orders to respect futurity as well as the present. If any of the Council, including the Governor (for he was one of the Council), should know of any injury or hurt done the Court on any account, and did not endeavour to hinder it, the Court should look on him as a party concerned therein. If not being able to remedy it did not excuse the Court, the particulars the Court should think of his innocency of continuance in the Court's service. This rule must run through the whole of the Court's affairs, although it had been mentioned only on account of the goods. Article 41. The two preceding articles ran in general terms, as if all the Court's goods were affected thereby, which could not be so as to several of [...] Interpretations The four shillings per gallon ceiling for the purchase of good arrack at the island establishes a discriminating price mechanism distinct from the general anti-arrack policy of the previous correspondence. The Court permitted the purchase of arrack where the quality was good and the price was below the ceiling, with the consequence that the supply mechanism remained open for the better grades while the policy of moderating consumption was preserved. The arrangement matches the medium-price rule for India goods established in the General Letter of 4 February 1714, with the present price ceiling adding a specific maximum to the general pricing principle. The reference to conniving at sottishness identifies the standard against which any subsequent purchase decision would be tested, with the Court drawing the institutional line at active encouragement of consumption. The private warehouses identified at Article 40 reveal the structural mechanism by which the Boucher administration's engrossing pattern had operated. The unfaithful servants raised the Court's goods, that is to say set artificially high prices on the company stores, with the consequence that the inhabitants and visiting ships preferred to buy from the private warehouses kept by the same officers or their associates at lower prices. The arrangement converted the company's stores into a price umbrella under which the private trade operated profitably, with the Court bearing the loss of business while the officers captured the margin. The pattern matches the engrossing complaint traceable through the discharge of Anthony Beale on 20 May 1683 and the broader Boucher misappropriations documented under the despatch of 5 March 1713, with the present passage identifying the specific market mechanism by which the abuse was effected. The Court's identification of Mr Bazett as the only present Council member then on the place during the Boucher period activates the personal accountability principle established throughout the present correspondence. Bazett had been named in the despatch of 5 March 1713 as the new Storekeeper at £50 0s 0d salary and £20 0s 0d gratuity, brought into the Council from outside as part of the wholesale change of personnel that replaced the Boucher establishment. The Court's complaint that Bazett had failed to advise it of the warehouse abuses converts his appointment from a reward into a documented obligation, with his silence on the abuses operating as a personal breach of duty rather than merely a failure of administrative judgement. The arrangement matches the dissent procedure restated at Article 10 of the General Letter of 14 March 1715, where signature without reservation operated as concurrence in the substantive content. The general rule of Council member accountability for any injury or hurt done the Court, with the explicit inclusion of the Governor as one of the Council, establishes the institutional doctrine of collective responsibility for malpractice within the establishment. Knowledge of an injury without endeavour to hinder it would be treated as participation. Inability to remedy the matter did not excuse the Council member from the duty to report. The arrangement converts the consultation procedure from a procedural framework into a personal liability regime, with each Council member individually accountable for matters that came to his knowledge regardless of the formal voting outcome. The construction matches the broader pattern of the present correspondence, where each procedural reform is anchored in personal accountability that can be enforced through the documentary record. Speculations The Court's careful identification of the rule as running through the whole of the Court's affairs, although mentioned only on account of the goods, probably reflects a calculated extension of the engrossing accountability principle into a general institutional doctrine. By framing the warehouse complaint as a particular illustration of a wider duty, the Court created the evidential foundation for future complaints based on any failure to report any kind of injury, with the consequence that the Council members were placed on notice of an open-ended duty of disclosure. The arrangement matches the partiality complaint at Article 26 of the present correspondence, where the impartial administration principle was extended from the immediate ship trade context to all other cases. The Court's treatment of Bazett as a particular target within the new Council, set against the general defence of the rest of the Council on the ground that they were not then on the place, probably reflects a calculated isolation of the one Council member whose tenure straddled the change of administration. By holding Bazett personally accountable for matters known during the Boucher period, the Court created the precedent that continuity of service operated as continuity of duty, with the consequence that any Council member who had been present during a prior period of abuse could be held to account for not reporting it. The arrangement reveals the Court's intention to use the change of administration in 1713 not as a complete reset of accountability but as a procedural opportunity to enforce the disclosure obligation against any continuing officer. | |
90 | By S[hip] [...]hem they are sent fo[r] but our selves unlefs [...] Par[r] of the Letter of [...] have basely don [...] you were for and [...] the Inference you [...] no Goods but to the [...] pay for the rich con[...] For Such Goo[ds...] by lying We Say (w[...] were their your ow[n...] can but to prevent [...] mar me- Storekeeper shall [...] wee hopt[?] do Such Damage and [...] them and put Such a price on [...] [vendi]ble Entring into Consultation [...] tion the Councils Survey [or] [...] [Bla]cks of Goods with they [...] [whe]rebe[?] put on them on Acc[oun]t [...] [...]e to prevent the Storekeepers ca[...] [...]ainly appea[r] he is in the fault We Shall from this time forward expect he Shall and that you take care he do make good Such Damage because he ought to look better after them and on the first appearing of it Acquaint the Council Wiremith[?] We wonder why y[ou] Should send us back the 20 Peices of the Ordinary blue Cloth menchioned in the Postscript of the S[t] Georges Letter being as there Exprest unfit for use can you Suppose us to do better with it here We Suppose it is part of the Kerseys we Sent for the blacks examinee Clothing if you had Sent it as not Answering Sample or to Shew how bad it was in Comparison of the price chargd at one peice or part of the peice had been Sufficient this Ship not being yet come into the River We cant beware what it is howbever at present we think you were in the wrong to return it you [...] Should | The Court's previous remarks ran in general terms, as if all the Court's goods were affected thereby, which could not be so as to several of them. They were sent for, but no one else, unless the Council, would have basely done it. The Council was for and the difference the Council mentioned was no goods but to the [...] pay for the rich [...]. Article 42. For such goods as the Court said were [...] by lying, the Council could but to prevent it. The Storekeeper should answer such damage, and put such a price on the goods in consultation as might prevent the Council surveying the goods with the slaves put on them on account, to prevent the Storekeeper [...] in the fault. The Court should from this time forever expect that the Council take care he should make good such damage, because he ought to look better after them, and on the first appearing of it to acquaint the Council therewith. The Court wondered why the Council should send back the twenty pieces of the ordinary blue cloth mentioned in the postscript of the St George's letter, being, as the Council reported, unfit for use. The Court could not suppose the Council to do better with it. The Court supposed it a part of the kerseys it had sent for the blacks' winter clothing. If the Council had sent a sample, or so shewed how bad it was in comparison of the price charged, at one piece or part of the piece, it had been sufficient. The ship not being yet come into the river, the Court could not because what it was however, at present the Court thought the Council was in the wrong to return it. Interpretations The damage rule for goods spoiled by lying establishes a personal liability regime on the Storekeeper for the preservation of the stores. The Storekeeper had to answer such damage personally, with the price set in consultation operating as the benchmark against which any subsequent loss could be measured. The arrangement matches the toties quoties fine on the Clerk for archival failure established at Article 6 of the General Letter of 14 March 1715, with the present provision extending the same principle to physical commodities under the Storekeeper's charge. The construction reveals the consistent application of personal accountability across the documentary and the physical functions of the establishment, with each officer made answerable for the integrity of the assets under his control. The slaves' role in the survey of the goods reveals the labour deployment in the audit and handling of the stores. The arrangement matches the productive employment principle established under the despatch of 5 March 1713, where the slaves' contribution to the plantation, the buildings and other services had been identified as the principal mechanism of cost recovery. The use of slave labour in the physical inspection of the stores at the price-setting stage in Council integrates the slave establishment directly into the documentary control regime, with the consequence that the Council's survey was a structured event involving the senior officers, the Storekeeper and the company's slaves operating together. Kerseys were coarse woollen cloths produced principally in Yorkshire and the West Country, supplied for the winter clothing of the blacks at the establishment under the despatch of 5 March 1713 on grounds of both humanity and economic advantage, with the moderate climate of the island requiring warmer clothing for slaves from hotter regions. The ordinary blue cloth identified in the postscript of the St George's letter was probably a grade of these kerseys, dyed in the standard utility colour, with the consequence that the Council's rejection of twenty pieces as unfit for use represented a substantial loss against a consignment specifically procured for the slave clothing programme. The Court's annoyance at the rejection reflects the difficulty of substituting alternative supplies given the limited tonnage capacity discussed elsewhere in this correspondence. The sample procedure proposed by the Court in place of returning the whole twenty pieces reveals the institutional preference for evidential documentation over physical return. A sample sent home, with a notice of the comparative price charged, would have provided the Court with the basis to test the quality complaint against the original purchase invoice without forfeiting the consignment. The arrangement preserved the working stock at the island for whatever use could be made of it, with the consequence that the unfit goods were not converted into a total loss but were available for inferior purposes. The construction matches the broader pattern of the present correspondence, where each commercial complaint is to be supported by specific evidential material rather than by a general rejection of the goods. Speculations The Court's positioning at the close, that the ship not being yet come into the river prevented its judgement of the actual condition of the cloth, suggests that the Court was reserving its final assessment pending physical inspection of the returned material. By framing the complaint as provisional, the Court preserved its ability to reach a different conclusion if the returned pieces were found to support the Council's rejection. The arrangement matches the institutional pattern documented elsewhere in this correspondence of withholding final judgement until the physical evidence was available, with the consequence that the Council's reputation on the matter remained provisionally open rather than settled by the Court's initial criticism. The Court's insistence that the Council was at present in the wrong to return the cloth, even before its physical inspection of the returned material, probably reflects a calculated procedural rebuke designed to discourage future returns of goods. By framing return as the wrong response regardless of the underlying merits of the quality complaint, the Court placed the burden on the Council to use any received goods at the establishment for whatever purpose could be found, with the consequence that the institutional preference for retention over return would govern future cases. The arrangement matches the tonnage constraint identified earlier in this correspondence, where return shipping of rejected goods consumed scarce hold space that should have been carrying productive cargo. | |
91 | Cap[t] Jn[o] Hunter Com[mande]r 1716 Should have made it do as well as it would. We have Considered the last part of Said 76 Par[r] And do approve of your laying twelve pence a Gallon duty on all Arrack that comes a Shore for Sale hoping thereby to put Some Stop to that practice of tipling so Mischievous both to the health and wealth of the Inhabitants Our aim in ordering you Stores from India was partly that we might gain Something Towards our generall Charge and partly to prevent the Ships imposing on the Inhabitants and which if rightly mannag'd would Effectualy cure the evils of the private Storehouses Complaint of for we don't desire you to raise our Goods to an Exorbitant price but considering the Demand then at Markett to Sell them at a Mediing price abo[ve] the prime Cost Freight Demorage Intent and Insurance remembring withall that when we buy by whole Sale We have our Goods generally Speaking much Cheaper here than any one can buy the Same Sorts by retail Touching the Complaint of the Sannos Sent you from the Bay, we have wrote to the Bay & other places to Signify a former Complaint of this Nature and hope you will have no more faulty Goods. If ever you have send Certificates under the Councils hand attested of the Mark & N[o] of y[e] Bale in which Such Damaged Goods are found and by what Ship rec[eiv]d together with the Nature of the Damage & how many peices are on your Inspection found to be So that we may send the same to the place Complaind of let us have three of these servieces[?] to Send by different Ships. We have as heretofore advised wrote to the Coast & Bay Bombay & Bencoolen to Send you every Ships full one p[er] Cent out in Goods & Stores as we generally Send you a Ship from hence yearly You may thereby have an Opportunity by her to write to Bencoolen and from thence to the Coast & Bay acquainting them what Sorts & quantitys of each you desire. Take care to do so and as you have yearly frequent Opportunitys of Conveyances Advise us in like manner Your y[e] 57 Par[r] | Captain John Hunter, Commander, 1716 The Council should have made it do as well as it would. Article 43. The Court had considered the last part of the Council's 76th paragraph, and did approve of the Council's laying twelvepence a gallon duty on all arrack that came ashore for sale, hoping thereby to put some stop to that practice of tipling so mischievous both to the health and wealth of the inhabitants. The Court's aim in ordering the Council stores from India was partly that the Court might gain something towards its general charge, and partly to prevent the ships imposing on the inhabitants, which, if rightly managed, would effectually cure the evils of the private storehouses complained of. For the Court did not desire the Council to raise the goods to an exorbitant price, but considering the demand from a wholesaler to sell them at a middling profit above the prime cost, freight, demurrage, indent and insurance, remembering withal that when the Court bought by wholesale, it had the goods generally speaking much cheaper here than any one could buy the same goods by retail. Article 44. Touching the complaint of the sannoes sent the Council from the Bay, the Court had written to the Bay and other places to signify a former complaint of this nature, and hoped the Council would have no more faulty goods. If ever the Council had to send certificates under the Council's hand attested of the mark and number of the bale in which such damaged goods were found, and by what ship received, together with the nature of the damage and how many pieces were on the Council's inspection found to be so, the Court might send the same to the place complained of, or let the Court have three of these vermarae to send by different ships. Article 45. The Court had heretofore advised the Council to write to the Coast, the Bay, Bombay and Bencoolen to send the Council every ship full one-eighth part in goods and stores. As the Court generally sent the Council a ship from London yearly, the Council might thereby have an opportunity by her to write to Bencoolen, and from thence to the Coast and Bay, acquainting them what sorts and quantities of each the Council desired. The Council was to take care to do so, and as it had yearly frequent opportunities of conveyances, advise the Court in like manner. The Council's 17th paragraph Interpretations The twelvepence per gallon duty on arrack landed for sale establishes a fiscal instrument distinct from the price control mechanism discussed at Article 39. The duty applied to all arrack coming ashore for sale, whether brought by visiting ships or distilled locally, with the consequence that the cost of consumption rose by a fixed sum per gallon at the point of entry into the retail market. The arrangement matches the anti-arrack thread traceable through the despatches of 8 November 1678, 24 March 1680, and 5 March 1713, where successive Courts had identified arrack consumption as the principal cause of disorder and ill health among the population. The Court's approval of the Council's duty marks the institutional acceptance of a locally devised fiscal remedy alongside the metropolitan price ceiling and the Madeira wine programme of 4 February 1714. The middling profit pricing standard established at the close of Article 43 articulates the institutional theory of the company stores as a market intervention. The Court rejected both the exorbitant price (which would have left the field open to the private storehouses) and the underpricing (which would have prevented the cost recovery sought from the India consignments). The middling profit rule, calculated above prime cost, freight, demurrage, indent and insurance, identifies the five distinct cost components that must be recovered before any margin could be taken. The arrangement matches the medium-price rule established for India goods by the General Letter of 4 February 1714, with the present passage providing the explicit accounting framework against which the medium price was to be calculated. Sannoes were a fine grade of Bengal muslin or cotton cloth, produced principally in the Dacca region and traded extensively through the Bay of Bengal, used at the establishment both for resale through the company stores and probably for the clothing of the inhabitants and slaves. The Council's complaint of faulty sannoes received from the Bay reveals a quality control failure at the despatching end, with the consequence that the goods arrived at the island unfit for the purpose for which they had been ordered. The certificate procedure prescribed by the Court, with the mark and number of the bale, the receiving ship, the nature of the damage, and the number of pieces affected, converts the quality complaint into a documented evidential instrument that could be sent to the place complained of for institutional action against the responsible officers in the Bay. The one-eighth tonnage rule established at Article 45 obligated the Bay, the Coast, Bombay and Bencoolen each to load one-eighth of every homeward ship with goods and stores for St Helena. The arrangement converts the supply of the island from a separate procurement function into a standing levy on the homeward shipping of all the Asian stations, with the consequence that the island's needs were spread across the wider company network rather than concentrated on the dedicated supply line from London. The construction matches the compulsory call at St Helena during peacetime established by the despatch of 4 February 1714, with the one-eighth levy adding the cargo-quantity obligation to the route obligation. Speculations The Court's careful identification of five cost components (prime cost, freight, demurrage, indent and insurance) in the calculation of the middling profit probably reflects a calculated effort to defeat the Council's likely defence on pricing decisions. By specifying each cost head that must be recovered before the margin was taken, the Court closed the route by which a Council might calculate the price on prime cost alone and then claim that any further recovery represented an exorbitant margin. The arrangement matches the broader pattern of the present correspondence, where each procedural reform is anchored in specific quantified or documented requirements rather than in general principles susceptible to discretionary interpretation. The Court's combination of the one-eighth shipping levy with the certificate procedure for faulty goods probably reflects a calculated integration of the procurement and quality control functions across the Asian network. By routing the island's procurement through Bencoolen, with the further distribution from Bencoolen to the Coast and Bay, the Court created a working chain in which any quality complaint could be tracked back to the originating station through documented evidence. The certificate procedure operated as the institutional mechanism by which the Council's quality complaints would feed back into the procurement decisions of the Asian stations, with the consequence that the island's experience as the receiving end of the supply chain informed the institutional behaviour of the despatching stations. | |
92 | By Ship Katherine A[nn]o 1716 37[th] Par[r] p[er] Hannover tells us you did So wrote by the Cardonnell and refer us to the Copys sent us but we could find none in the Packet nor inserted in the List. This is another Instance of Carelefsnefs which must be remedyd and if it be not your Secretary cont deserve to be continued each one our bread because that is more imediately under his care for when wee Generall Letter is Writing over he Should take a Memorandum of every proper there mentiond to be sent and put it in the List However as the 38 Par[r] of the Letter of the 7 Decemb[er] Says the Govern[ou]r calls over the List we would recommend to him to quicken the Secret[ar]y Diligence and to cause him to review the former Lists and for what Articles or other Writings are by Our Standing Orders to be annually Sent us and take care they be prepairing in the Intervalls of Shipping to be ready against the Next Ships dispatch We approve the building the Storehouse at the Castle that it may be under your inspection for the reasons and to prevent the Mischiefs mentiond in the 35 Par[r] p[er] S[t] George when the People at the Storehouse know they are always but under the Govern[ou]rs and Councils Eye they will be under the greater ty to be honest as fearing to be discovered if they do amifs and we wee hereby Order that We Govern[ou]r and those of the Council do frequently overlook them. M[r] Bazetts answer in Par[r] 44 by the S[t] George to our 26 p[er] Cardonnell is too Slight and unmannerly he ought to have peruse the Letter he wrote us touching the leakage of the Arack and we are apt to think had he peruse[d] the Said Par[r] he would Scarcely have Sign'd the Letter in which it was without making a better apology for himself. We find in the Consultation of the 9 July 1715 The Cap[t] D[avi]e was empowered to buy Wine and Europe Liquors out of y[e] Rochester but no Acc[oun]t is any where Enterd as we can See in the Consult =ation what was so Bought and at what rate but we take Notice of to prevent the like in future for we must always have every Occasion for laying out our mony or moneys worth [e]ntred | By ship Catherine. 1716 The Council's 37th paragraph by the Hanover told the Court the Council did so write by the Cardonell, and referred the Court to the copies sent it, but the Court could find none in the packet, nor inserted in the list. This was another instance of carelessness which must be remedied. If it were not, the Secretary could not deserve to be continued, casing over bread because that was more immediately under his care, for when the General Letter was writing, he should take a memorandum of every paper there mentioned to be sent, and put it in the list. However, as the 38th paragraph of the letter of 5 December said the Governor called over the list, the Court would recommend to him to quicken the Secretary's diligence, and to cause him to review the former lists, and see whether all things were, by the Court's standing orders, to be annually sent the Court, and take care they be preparing in the intervals of shipping to be ready against the next ship's despatch. Article 46. The Court approved the building of the storehouse at the Castle, that it might be under the Court's inspection, for the reasons and to prevent the mischiefs mentioned in the 35th paragraph by the St George. When the people at the storehouse knew they were always but under the Governor and Council's eye, they would be under the greater tie to be honest, as fearing to be discovered if they did amiss. The Court hereby ordered that the Governor and those of the Council do frequently overlook them. Article 47. Mr Bazett's answer in paragraph 44 by the St George to the Court's 26th by the Cardonell was too slight. Surely he ought to have perused the letter he wrote the Court touching the leakage of the arrack, and was apt to think had he perused the said paragraph, he would scarcely have signed the letter in which it was, without making a better apology for himself. Article 48. The Court found in the consultation of 5 July 1715 the Council was empowered to buy wine and European liquors out of the Rochester, but no account was anywhere entered, as the Court could see in the consultation, what was bought and at what rate. This the Council was to prevent the like in future, for the Court must always have every occasion for laying out the Court's money, or money's worth, entered Interpretations The Court's threat that the Secretary could not deserve to be continued identifies the institutional consequence of repeated clerical failure. The Secretary's office, established as the physical infrastructure of archival security against future losses under the despatch of 4 February 1714, depended on the holder's personal diligence in compiling the list of papers against the contents of each packet. The arrangement matches the toties quoties fine on the Clerk for archival failure established at Article 6 of the General Letter of 14 March 1715, with the present provision adding dismissal as the further consequence of persistent neglect. The construction reveals the graduated disciplinary regime under which clerical officers operated, with fines escalating to removal as the failures accumulated. The Governor's call-over of the list, established as the standing supervisory procedure at the General Letter of 14 March 1715 at Article 38, finds its operational extension in the present article through the requirement that the Governor quicken the Secretary's diligence and cause him to review former lists. The arrangement converts the call-over from a verification step at despatch into a continuing audit of the documentary obligations standing against the establishment. The construction matches the broader pattern of the present correspondence, where each procedural failure is met with the addition of a supervisory layer above the responsible clerical officer rather than with the immediate replacement of that officer. The storehouse at the Castle approved at Article 46 places the principal stores under the direct physical supervision of the Governor and Council, with the consequence that the abuses of the private warehouses pattern documented at Article 40 by the Boucher administration would be defeated by the physical proximity of the senior officers to the stock. The arrangement matches the storehouse programme of the despatch of 5 March 1713, where four storehouses had been ordered built for arrack and other liquids, India goods, Europe commodities and naval stores. The present consolidation at the Castle adds the supervisory rationale to the storage rationale, with the eye of the senior establishment operating as the disciplinary instrument against the storekeepers. The Court's complaint at Article 47 against Bazett for the slight answer on the arrack leakage continues the personal accountability thread that runs throughout the present correspondence. Bazett's failure to peruse the letter he wrote, with the consequence that he signed correspondence containing inadequate explanations of his own conduct, identifies a procedural defect distinct from the substantive question of the leakage itself. The arrangement matches the dissent procedure restated at Article 10 of the General Letter of 14 March 1715, where signature without reservation operated as concurrence in the substantive content, with the present provision extending the principle to the signatory's own contributions to the letter. Speculations The Court's careful identification of the people at the storehouse as the targets of the Castle storehouse reform probably reflects a calculated understanding that the abuses had operated at the subordinate clerical level rather than at the Council level. By placing the principal stores within the Governor and Council's direct eye, the Court addressed the storekeeper's incentive to act dishonestly without requiring the formal disciplining of individual Storekeepers. The arrangement converts the supervisory regime from an episodic audit into a continuous physical presence, with the consequence that the discipline of the storekeepers operated through observation rather than through documentary investigation. The Court's specific reference to the Rochester's wine purchase as the documented illustration of the missing consultation entry, set against the broader instruction that every occasion of expenditure must be entered, probably reflects a calculated effort to use a small named transaction as the test case for the general rule. By tying the procedural reform to an identifiable purchase from a named ship, the Court created a contemporaneous record against which future compliance could be measured, with the consequence that any subsequent failure to enter an expenditure would be tested against the present specific instruction rather than against a general principle. The arrangement matches the broader pattern of the present correspondence, where each procedural rule is anchored in a documented example rather than presented in abstract terms. | |
93 | Capt: Jn:o Hunter Com:r 1716. worth Indeed when together w:th the summe paid and for what If you dont it is plain instance of fraud intended. The Consultations also Show that you gave early Ord[er]s for taking an Inventory of what Goods were in the Castle on your Arrivall and quicken'd M:r Bazett to bring up the Acc[...] at the Stores to the end an Inventory might be taken of all our Goods in the Stores by the Susannah we have in the Pacquetts the Said Inventory which, by the Title appears to be taken of the Goods in the Storehouses the 8: July 1714 Sign'd by M:r Haswell and M:r Bazett and Certify'd to be overhaul[e]d and Examin'd by them but not dated the Totall there is £ 4467. 14. 9 ¼ By the Frederick we have another Sent a Duplicate for the like the Same and tho' Sign'd yet is without Certifying in the other This makes the Totall to be £ 4578. 6. 11¾ w:ch:of W[i]fe is [...] right we cant tell but to be Sure both are not and Shows is Culpable Carel[e]s[s]nefs if there had been any mistake in the first it had been well don to have taken Notice in the 2:d wherein it was. Having thus taken Notice of what we think necefsary to be remark[e]d touching Goods in your Severall Letters Consu[l] tations & Papers in the Packetts we come now to Consider what therein Contain'd about transferre of debts about moneys pafsing on the Island and in Puchashne the raising the Price of Dollares to prevent their being carryed off the place Your Sec[...] M:r Susannah Says fanams would be Usefull but Copper more because would not be Sent away for quick That the it is of:ef of Transferring debts was the Bane of us and then follo[w]es that our Bills would be Better then money which would be carryed away by every Ship The M:r [...] of Frederick Says you beleive Fanams will be more usefull and if you had Some to pay away for wages they would prevail on the Artificers to work cheaper besides other Conveniencys therein enumerated In your next Letter Box: & You confirm the same and besired Some Small money for chang G day thereby a great deal would be Saved in the price of Labour On reading these we thought all tho: ends had been Effectually answered by the Order Sent to Madrafs to furnish you by two Ships is M:r One Hundred Pounds Vallue in Fanams the Same in Copper money for half pence & farthings and Margin Notes: 49. | Captain John Hunter, commander, 1716. The point was worth examining together with the sums paid and for what. Without it, the matter stood as a plain instance of intended fraud.
Interpretations The inventory mechanism reveals how the Company guarded against embezzlement at a remote factory. Two parallel duplicates were prepared, one carried by each homeward ship, so that the loss of one vessel would not defeat the audit. The signed certification by Haswell and Bazett on 8 July 1714 functioned as a sworn attestation, the absence of which on the Frederick copy weakened its evidential value. The discrepancy of just over £111 between the two totals was treated as serious, since it pointed either to clerical negligence or to concealed loss. The discussion of fanams, copper money and dollars exposes the practical currency problem of a small island economy. Fanams were small silver coins of southern India, struck in large numbers at Madras and useful as low-value circulating coin. Copper money supplied the halfpence and farthings needed for retail and wage payments. Spanish silver dollars, the high-value international coin of the Indian Ocean trade, tended to drain away on every passing ship, so the local price of the dollar was deliberately raised to discourage export. The order to Madras to supply £100 in fanams and a matching sum in copper coin was the Company's standard response to coin scarcity at its lesser settlements. Pulo Condore appears here as a comparator factory. The Company had established a settlement on that island off the Mekong delta, and similar coin-retention measures were in operation there. The reference to transferring debts and the bane of bills carried away by every ship describes the use of bills of exchange drawn on the Company at home as a substitute for hard coin. Each such bill removed silver from the local circulation, since the holder shipped the bill away and the underlying silver did not return. Speculations The careful comparison of the two inventory totals against each other, rather than against an independent physical count, suggests that the home directors suspected the figures themselves had been adjusted to cover a shortfall, and that the missing £111 was the measure of the suspected fraud rather than a clerical slip. The preference at St Helena for paying artificers in copper coin rather than fanams, voiced from the Frederick, points to a calculation that wage labour on the island responded to coin denominated in the familiar sterling subdivisions. Indian fanams, however convenient for the Company's accounts, were probably less acceptable to free white artificers who reckoned their day-rates in shillings and pence. | |
94 | By Ship Katherine - 1716 and you carry'd to you above One Hundred Pounds vallue in Spannish bitts and four Hundred Pounds Vallue in Notes from half a Crown to Forty Shillings Each and that these would have more than Circulated all the Caym[...] you had Occasion to make because as you paid out money whither to the Sol[d]?s or to the Workmen or the Planters for their Blacks Service So it must return to you again into the Stores for what were wanted out of them and Every thing in these Three Articles We don't Apprehend what Occasion you have to lay out any money unless the same ill management should be introduced as in your Predecessors time Vizt to buy Yams and provisions for our own people as to Goods bought out of the Ships that hath been paid by Bills and then ask the Souldiers pay a Considerable part of that used to be paid out of the Stores by Goods to those Planters who billet ted them however no Sooner had you received the Sanam and Coppee money by the Hannover but then yo[u]r minds seem to be Changed as appeares in your Letter by that Ship where you object to the Coppee money as too heavy and so it is Considering its goodness and wish for English farthings and half pence which We had sent to you could we have had Liberty at the Tower As for China [...]etties we shall think of them another Season and then comes your defecting of having money going with you at above its real vallue to prevent its being carryed away which in yo[u]r next Letter of the 2.. August you press more Strongly and in tho 25.. to the 40 Paras of your Letter of the 8 Decemb[er] you give Severall reasons why wee should send you Dollars to pass at Six Shillings a Dollar having thus mentiond all the [...] relating to this matter We Say we don't at present think of it to send you any Dollars whither the Court will another Season is very dubious for we are not Sure the Ordering Dollars to pass at Six Shillings can be any benefit to us notwithstanding the appearing likelyhood of it We know it hath been prejudiciall and as to the advance on the money that is not like to keep it on the Island for as people know how they are to be paid So will they Set a price on their Goods and it is no great matter w[h]ethe[r] the Dollar goes at five shillings or Six Shillings or ten Shillings in that case for by the same reason the ships carry away Doll[ar]s to India now at Five Shilling they will gett them if they go- [at] Margin Notes: By Ship Katherine 1716 | By ship Katherine, [...] 1716. The supply was carried out, above one hundred pounds value in Spanish bills and four hundred pounds value in notes, from half a crown to forty shillings each. The view was taken that these would have more than circulated all the payments the council had occasion to make. As money was paid out, whether to the soldiers, the workmen, or the planters for the service of their slaves, it would return again into the stores for what was wanted out of them. With everything covered by these three articles, no reason was seen for laying out any money, unless the same ill management should be reintroduced as in the predecessors' time. That practice had been to buy yams and provisions for the Company's own people, as if from goods brought out of the ships, paid for by bills, and then to ask the soldiers' pay, a considerable part of which used to be paid out of the stores by goods to those planters who billeted them. However, no sooner had the fanams and copper money been received by the Hannover than the minds of the council seemed to be changed, as appeared in the letter by that ship, where objection was made to the copper money as too heavy. So it was, considering its goodness, and worth, for English farthings and halfpence, which had been sent. There had been liberty enough at the Tower. As for China potties, these would be thought of another season. Then came the matter of forcing the money going with the council at above its real value, to prevent its being carried away. In the next letter, of 2 August, the point was pressed more strongly, and in the 3rd to the 40 paragraphs of the letter of the 26 December, four reasons were given why dollars should be sent to pass at six shillings a dollar. Having thus mentioned all that related to this matter, the council was told that it was not at present thought fit to send any dollars. Whether the court would another season was very doubtful, since it was not sure the ordering of dollars to pass at six shillings could be any benefit to the council, notwithstanding the appearing likelihood of it. It was known that it had been prejudicial. As to the advance on the money, that was not the way to keep it on the island, for as people knew how they were to be paid so it was that they set a price on their goods. It was no great matter whether the dollar went at five shillings or six shillings or ten shillings. In that case, for by the same reason the ships carry away dollars to India, now at five shillings they will get them of those going Interpretations The Spanish bills and notes from half a crown to forty shillings represent the Company's deliberate import of paper instruments to substitute for scarce coin. A half crown was 2s 6d and forty shillings was £2, so the notes covered the full range of routine wage and retail payments. The directors regarded this paper, together with the fanams and copper, as a closed circulating system: money paid out for wages or for slaves' service would return to the stores in exchange for goods, and so would not need replenishment unless the practice broke down. The criticism of the predecessors' management identifies a specific abuse, the purchase of yams and provisions from incoming ships against Company bills, while soldiers' pay was discharged in goods from the stores to billeting planters. The effect was a double drain: silver and bills passed outward to ship captains while store goods passed outward to planters, with no corresponding receipt of coin into the Company's hands. The directors regarded this as the ill management that had to be prevented from returning. The dollar question turns on the relation between face value and bullion content. Setting the Spanish silver dollar at six shillings rather than its market rate of about five was meant to discourage its export, since a ship's captain who could obtain dollars at five shillings in India would have no incentive to carry them off the island at six. The directors reject the argument, holding that price-setting on the dollar is futile because traders simply raise the price of their goods to match, so the real exchange remains unchanged. This is an early statement of the principle that overvaluing coin does not retain it. The reference to billeting describes the arrangement under which planters lodged soldiers and received payment from the Company's stores in goods rather than cash, a recurring administrative device for spreading the garrison across the island without paying out coin. Speculations The directors' refusal to commit to sending dollars another season, despite the council's four reasons in the letter of 26 December, points to a settled conclusion at home that the St Helena coin problem could not be solved by manipulation of the dollar's local rating. The remark that it had been known to be prejudicial suggests an earlier episode, probably in the Boucher administration, when an attempted revaluation produced the opposite of the intended effect and accelerated coin loss. The complaint that the copper money sent by the Hannover was too heavy looks like a pretext rather than a genuine objection, given the directors' tart response that the coin was good English halfpence and farthings. The change of mind so soon after receipt suggests that the council had hoped for silver and was disappointed to receive base metal, and that the weight objection was raised to cover the underlying preference. | |
95 | Capt. Jn[o] Hunter Com[d] - 1716 at Double if they have such Goods as the Planters want and will purchase them But the great Mischeif to us is as you rightly observe among other places in the abov[e] mentioned 3[r]d Para[.] the wicked Corruption of our own servants suffering our Goods to be paid for in bad debts and transferring the rich planters debts in the Stores from them selves to others who were insolvent by which means and letting the Souldiers and others have more Goods than they were able to pay for we find a List of Debts owing to us in the Consult[.] Letter book and in the Fredericks Pacquet Amounting to L[.] 7474 .. 2 .. 4 ½ among these great Sums trusted to the Souldiers and to the Writers in the Stores of which two are run away in debt and others which is an Unaccountable management as no Mortall can give any reason for what can the Storekeeper Say to it[?] is to Suffer it the great encrease of this Mischeif must Certainly arise from the Accts being behind hand and unposted to See what every man owed We have had none from S[t] Helena Since those by the Comodore which ended the 25. March 1711 of which we shall say more in after Pa[.] but to prevent the like in [...]uture We Say take Effectuall care that our Acco[.]s be Constantly kept up and whoever is negligent therein after fair admonition Suspend him from Sallary till he brings them up & yet he is dilatory let him have no Cre[d]it at our Charge & appoynt another to the busines[s] We find in your Consultation of the 2 Nov 1714 you call'd on many of the Debtors to make them pay their debts and before that Time in August laid down rules for getting in part of the Debts before a year would trust for more and the 21 Decemb[r] you Settled Regulations touching the Transferrs of Credits in the Stores [...]ese were well don for so far but the Consul tations which are yet come to hand and which reach to the 26. Aprill 1715 make no mention of what effect it hath taken We hope you have proceeded to gett in those debts as fast and as well as you can Pray make what enquiry possible into the Severall Defected[?]s of these debts and wherever you find the planters or others have- [got] Margin Notes: 51 52 | ||
96 | Captain John Hunter, commander, 1716. The same dollars went at double value if the planters had such goods as they wanted and would purchase them.
Interpretations The corruption identified in the Frederick letter operated through a credit substitution mechanism. Company servants, principally the storekeeper and writers, accepted bad debts as payment for stores goods, and rewrote the books so that solvent planters' debts were replaced by the debts of insolvent soldiers and others. The Company thus lost twice: the original goods went out for nothing recoverable, and the paper trail showed the debt against a person who could never pay. The sum of £7,474 2s 4½d represents a very large exposure for the island, comparable to several years of plantation profits. The disciplinary remedy is administrative rather than judicial. The directors do not call for prosecution but for the routine suspension of salary until the accounts are brought up to date, with replacement of the officer if he remains dilatory. This treats the keeping of accounts as a contractual condition of pay, enforceable by withholding rather than by formal trial. The storekeeper and the writers in the stores were the two ranks at the heart of the system. The storekeeper had custody of the goods and signed for issues; the writers kept the ledgers and posted the debts. The complaint that accounts had run behind, with no return received since the Cardonnell set of 28 March 1714, identifies the procedural failure that made the substitution of debtors possible. Without current posting, the bench at home could not detect the rewriting of credits. The phrase transfers of credits in the stores refers to the practice by which a debt owed to the stores by one person was struck off and the same sum entered against another. Where the substitute debtor was solvent and consenting, the transfer functioned as a normal assignment. Where the substitute was insolvent and the original debtor solvent, the transfer concealed a loss. Speculations The directors' choice of administrative suspension rather than prosecution suggests a calculated assessment that criminal proceedings against the storekeeper and writers would expose the Company to embarrassment without recovering the money. Withholding salary leaves the officer in post under pressure to repair his own books, while a trial would have to be conducted before the very bench whose servants stood accused. The reference to two writers who had run away in debt points to a recognised escape route from the system. A writer who had falsified the credit transfers could ship out on any homeward Indiaman before the next audit, leaving his manipulated ledger as the only record. The directors' insistence on current posting is probably aimed as much at closing this escape window as at preventing the underlying fraud. | ||
97 | Capt. Jn[o] Hunter Com[d] - 1716 at Double if they have such Goods as the Planters want and will purchase them But the great Mischeif to us is as you rightly observe among other places in the abov[e] mentioned 3[r]d Para[.] the wicked Corruption of our own servants suffering our Goods to be paid for in bad debts and transferring the rich planters debts in the Stores from them selves to others who were insolvent by which means and letting the Souldiers and others have more Goods than they were able to pay for we find a List of Debts owing to us in the Consult[.] Letter book and in the Fredericks Pacquet Amounting to L[.] 7474 .. 2 .. 4 ½ among these great Sums trusted to the Souldiers and to the Writers in the Stores of which two are run away in debt and others which is an Unaccountable management as no Mortall can give any reason for what can the Storekeeper Say to it[?] is to Suffer it the great encrease of this Mischeif must Certainly arise from the Accts being behind hand and unposted to See what every man owed We have had none from S[t] Helena Since those by the Comodore which ended the 25. March 1711 of which we shall say more in after Pa[.] but to prevent the like in [...]uture We Say take Effectuall care that our Acco[.]s be Constantly kept up and whoever is negligent therein after fair admonition Suspend him from Sallary till he brings them up & yet he is dilatory let him have no Cre[d]it at our Charge & appoynt another to the busines[s] We find in your Consultation of the 2 Nov 1714 you call'd on many of the Debtors to make them pay their debts and before that Time in August laid down rules for getting in part of the Debts before a year would trust for more and the 21 Decemb[r] you Settled Regulations touching the Transferrs of Credits in the Stores [...]ese were well don for so far but the Consul tations which are yet come to hand and which reach to the 26. Aprill 1715 make no mention of what effect it hath taken We hope you have proceeded to gett in those debts as fast and as well as you can Pray make what enquiry possible into the Severall Defected[?]s of these debts and wherever you find the planters or others have- [got] | ||
98 | By Ship Katherine 1716 as Secretary that the not holding Consultations was Occasi oned thereby If this be the token of our kindness to him We shall if we find any more of it let him find he is unfit for our Service however for the p[r]esent and till the Stuat appears to us to do better We forbid his having any Part of the Gratuity intended him did not We Send over M[r] Buffeld as Writer to Assist him and we expect he doth By all We can discover of the Writing work at S[t] Helena under his care two Persons are Sufficient to do it if more then it is but if they were not in times of hurry Such as the dispatch of Ships and those of the Stores ought to assist at least for so many days in the week when the Stores are not open and Some of them when they are In a word every one of the Councel ought at Such times lend their helping hand towards the dispatches if so eg ne[c]essary to be sent We find M[r] Alexander hath also been Em ployed by the Writing in the Consultation book & other Papers as well as by your Letter of the 8 December and a Letter from him received by the Heroe So that if there was Sufficient diligence and Application the Secretarys Office is well Supplyed We dont Understand your reason for s[m]aking M[r] Buffeld of Councel You had no Authority from us for it nor doth it appear Necessary if he Employes himself well he shall have our Encouragement and because we have no Complaint against him have paid his Mother here his Five Pounds Gratuity however let us know what is his constant employment We have told you formerly what Sticks upon M[r] Alexand[er] and the Petition of Thomas Free entered in Consultation the 16 July 1714 charges him home We find in the affair of M[r] Lovery Complaint touching M[r] Bagleys Land which We observe how you have determined that he is of a litigious unga vernable temper We dont absolutely forbid your employing him when you have urgant occasion but are Sure by what wee See of the writing work don at the Secretary or Clerks office that two as before mention[e]d are Sufficient to perform it if they make it their whole busine[s]s and by what we can find theref[o]re there was no more Especially if in times of hurry the Writers at the Stores or when need full the Councel als[o] lend their helping hand & due care be taken to bring up the busines[s] | By ship Katherine, [...] 1716. The reasoning given as secretary, that the holding of consultations was occasioned thereby, was rejected. If this was thought to be a kindness to him, he would, if any more such conduct were found, be shown unfit for any service. However, for the present, and till he should appear to do better, he was forbidden any part of the gratuity intended him. Mr Russell had not been sent over as writer to assist him, and was expected to do, by all that could be discerned of the writing work at St Helena under his care, the work of two persons. The two were sufficient to do it, if more than there were, but if they were not, in times of hurry such as the despatch of ships, those of the stores ought to assist for at least so many days in the week when the stores were not open and some of them when they were. Indeed every one of the council ought at such times to lend a helping hand towards the despatches thought necessary to be sent. Mr Alexander had also been employed by the writing in the consultation book and other papers, both as appeared by the letter of 5 December and a letter from him received by the Hester. So that, if there were sufficient diligence and application, the secretary's office was well supplied. The reason for making Mr Russell of council could not be understood. The council had no authority from home for it, nor did it appear necessary. If he acquitted himself well, he would have all due encouragement, and because no complaint stood against him, his mother having been paid here five pounds gratuity, the council was however to let it be known what his constant employment was.
Interpretations The gratuity withheld from the secretary functioned as a discretionary bonus over and above salary, paid for satisfactory performance. By suspending it rather than the underlying pay, the directors preserved the office while signalling displeasure, and kept open the option of restoration on improvement. This is the same disciplinary device noted earlier in relation to the storekeeper, refined to a lighter calibration. The remark on the writers at the stores assisting in the secretary's work during the despatch of ships reveals a flexible labour pool within the Company's establishment. Clerical staff were not rigidly assigned to departments but expected to redeploy at peak times. The expectation that councillors themselves should lend a helping hand confirms that the bench was conceived as a working administrative body, not a purely deliberative one. The directors' rejection of the council's nomination of Mr Russell to the bench identifies a constitutional limit. Appointment to council required authority from home, and a local nomination, however justified by need, did not bind the Company. The acknowledgement that Russell's mother had been paid a five pound gratuity in London serves to confirm that his case was already known and that the family had a recognised connection. The charge against Alexander rests on two earlier matters in the consolidated record: Thomas Fee's petition entered in the consultation of 16 July 1714, and the Tovey-Bagley land dispute reflected in the November 1714 reply on behalf of Rijn, Abigail and Mary Alexander against the Bagley-Swallow papers. The directors treat these as evidence of a litigious ungovernable temper, a character finding that goes to fitness for office rather than to any specific misconduct. Speculations The directors' insistence that two clerks plus occasional help from the stores writers and the councillors themselves were sufficient for the whole secretarial business looks like a deliberate cost ceiling rather than a neutral assessment of workload. By fixing the establishment at this level and treating any excess as a sign of inefficiency, the home bench transferred the burden of peak demand onto unpaid councillor labour, with the saving in salary as the recovered margin. The careful preservation of Alexander's employability, with the council not absolutely forbidden to use him when there was urgent occasion, suggests that the directors recognised his practical indispensability despite their character finding. He had drawn the Carne bond, handled the Bodley estate accounts and reported to home over Russell's signature, and his removal would have left a gap that the available alternatives could not fill. | |
99 | Capt. Jn[o] Hunter Com[d] 1716 busines[s] in the absence of Shiping We observe your severall Para[.] and Consultations relating to Govern[or] Boucher and among others that y[e] riding Shed he built Cost us by Valuation £ 181 .. 11 .. 6 that he converted to his own Use & of our two Provisions £ 156 .. 19 .. 6 that he made an Utter destruction of most of our two Stock Stript the House Let the Plantations & Gardens run to ruine &[c] and shall make the proper use of them but it is very Strange to us that M[r] Bazet and the Overseer of the Plantations as also M[r] Cason and M[r] French who were taken in by M[r] Boucher as Assistants to the Council and M[r] Alexander b[y] M[r] Free who were then in the Service Should not or will not give you the rec[.] of either Particu lars and among them you say you cant come to a full knowledge of the Cattle he sold to our Shipping This looks ill and makes us [...] they are not So heartily disposed for our Service as they ought Let them know we expect they do give you and you us a full acc[oun]t of all other M[r] Bouchers extraordinary proceedings to our prejudice so for as the Same came to their knowledge and what proofs of each We refer you to former Letters wherein we have been at large in our directions for the due Mannageing of our Affairs under y[ou]r care The good Government of the Island The Encouraging Industry The promoting the Welfare of the people The discountenancing all Litigeousness and quarrells and doing whatever else will conduce to the peace of the people and flourishing of the Island Your conscience and Common humanity and Justice should prompt you to those things We earnestly recommend them to you and do Expect you will from hence to time acquit your Selves as becomes you We have some Complaints of our Governours Arbitrary temper We expect he give no caus[e] for it We have heard as of one or other of you have even promoted quarrels for the Sake of fees or Some other private Advantages it is to bare & dangerous We would not willingly believe it however give this Caution to put a Stop to it if it hath been or prevent Attempts to begin it Wee | Captain John Hunter, commander, 1716. The business in the absence of shipping was to be attended to.
Interpretations The Boucher charges are quantified to a precision that reflects the directors' use of valuation as an instrument of accountability. The riding shed at £181 16s 0d and the conversion of live provisions at £156 19s 6d are not estimates but priced findings, the kind of figure produced by a sworn appraisal panel of the sort already established for the Carne yams on 23 August 1715. The home bench treats these sums as recoverable, and the failure of the local officers to produce supporting accounts is treated as a derivative offence. The roll-call of those expected to account, Bazett, the plantation overseer, Cason, French, Alexander and Fee, identifies the operating layer of the Boucher administration below the governor himself. Cason and French had been taken in by Boucher as assistants to the council, a procedural irregularity that the directors implicitly criticise: assistants to council, as with the rejected nomination of Russell, required home authority. The directors' insistence that these men still owe an account some two years after Boucher's removal shows that the Company's audit horizon extended back through the whole of the previous administration. The reference to the cattle he sold to the Company's shipping describes a particular fraud opportunity. The governor controlled the plantation stock and authorised the supply of beef to homeward and outbound Indiamen. By selling cattle to ships' captains in his personal capacity and pocketing the receipt, while the stock register showed the animals as Company property, he could realise a private profit at the Company's expense. The captains, having paid, had no incentive to disclose. The warning against councillors promoting quarrels for the sake of fees identifies a recognised pattern of administrative corruption. Council members sat as the island's court, and contested matters generated fees on summons, hearing and order. A bench inclined to multiply disputes could increase its own emoluments at the expense of the litigants and the peace of the island. Speculations The directors' treatment of Bazett, French, Cason, Alexander and Fee as collectively answerable for Boucher's misconduct suggests a working theory that the governor could not have stripped the plantation and converted the provisions without the active or passive complicity of the men around him. The demand for proofs of each is calibrated to break the group: any one of them who came forward with supporting documents would shift the liability onto the rest. The reluctant tone of the warning on fee-driven quarrels, with the directors expressing unwillingness to believe it but giving the caution all the same, points to a specific report already received from a named source at the island. The phrasing is too particular for a general homily, and the bench at home was probably reacting to a complaint from a recent passenger or commander rather than to abstract suspicion. | |
100 | By Ship Katherine - 1716 Wee have received a Petition from Gabriel Powell of the Complaint therein of his being bound over in a Bond of two Hundred Pounds be truly & fully Stated it is too Severe and Should not be brought into pr[e]cedent and We expect it be not in future it seems to us to arise from Some quarrelsom words which ought to have been prevented and to also rigorous use which Surely becoms an abuse of Power a little disorder and Mildres[s] would put a Stop to most things of this Nature Let the people know you will maintain yo[r] Authority but then give them no just cause to cry out of your rigour or Inhumanity Herewith you will receive another Complaint of Thomas Free relateing to the payment of his Debt wherein he alledges he is unjustly dealt with and Shall be a great Looser by not having your agreement with him Comply[e]d to take away the Yams which by rotting on the ground how- far he is in the right We cant judge here because We dont know both sides of the Case But this we Say We dont desire you to oppress or injure any body for our benefit be impart[i] all and just to every body We could not gain by oppress[i]ng him or any one in the Island We have great complaints from Bencoolen of yo[u]r keeping Severall of the Artyficers and other o[ffice]full Persons sent in the Rockester designed for them We must never allow you to disappoint our Intentions in this manner and Expect you never do so again among others whom you detained one Howson a Gardiner Sent out Conduceply to Govern[r] Collett by his friends and John Maynard a Ship Wright Sent by us for the Service of Bencoolen Send them take Passage on this Ship Catherine to Bencoolen M[r] Blounts Son John who was left on S[t] Helena We have Entertained at order for Fort S[t] George and have given him leave to take Passage on the Said Ships to Bencoolen which We mention for your Compl[i]ance therewith We have a Letter from Joseph Tomlinson Inclos[i]ng a Certificate of the late Govern[r] Cap[t.] Roberts dated the [2] June | By ship Katherine, [...] 1716.
Interpretations The two hundred pound bond imposed on Gabriel Powell illustrates the security-of-the-peace mechanism applied as a personal recognisance. A bond of this size, exceeding most ordinary fines and approaching the recoverable value of a small plantation, served less as a punishment than as a financial restraint on future conduct, forfeitable on breach. The directors' rebuke that it should not be brought into precedent identifies the danger of so high a sum becoming routine and so converting the bench's discretionary peacekeeping power into a confiscatory instrument. Powell's role on the island was already established by the consultation of 23 August 1715, when he was named one of the two appraisers nominated by the bench to value the yams in the ground bought of the late George Carne deceased. The Thomas Fee complaint links back to the consultation of 16 July 1714 in which his petition was entered, and to the directors' acknowledgement in the previous paragraph that he had charged Alexander home. The directors here move carefully, refusing to take Fee's side without hearing the bench, but reminding the council that the Company could not gain by oppression. The yams point is technical: yams left in the ground past their season rot, so any dispute over removal is time-sensitive and a delayed bench decision favours the party in possession. The Bencoolen complaint reveals a structural tension within the Company's eastern establishment. St Helena was a way-station, not a destination, but the council had detained Howson the gardener and Maynard the ship's wright from the Rochester, both of whom were assigned to Governor Collet at Bencoolen. The directors treat this as a direct interference with the manning of another factory, and order both men onto the Katherine for onward passage. Governor Collet at Bencoolen and the Rochester both feature here for the first time in the present working volume. The St George reference in the Blount entry is to Fort St George at Madras, the Company's principal Indian presidency. Charging young Blount's maintenance to St George rather than to St Helena identifies him as a member of the Madras establishment temporarily stranded at the island. Speculations The directors' careful framing of the Powell case, with the bond described as too severe if truly and fully stated, suggests they did not have the council's account of the underlying quarrel and were proceeding on Powell's petition alone. The conditional qualifier preserves the bench's authority if it can show the conduct that drew the bond, while warning against routine use of such sums. The choice of two hundred pounds, a round figure rather than one calculated against any particular damage, points to a bond fixed by deterrent intent rather than by reference to actual loss. The detention of Howson and Maynard on St Helena, against their assignment to Bencoolen, is unlikely to have been a clerical accident. A gardener and a ship's wright were both immediately useful trades on the island, where the plantation needed skilled hands and the careening of visiting ships required wright work. The council had probably seen the men step ashore from the Rochester and decided to keep them, calculating that the home bench would not press the point. The sharpness of the directors' response shows the calculation misjudged. | |
101 | Cap[t.] Jn[o] Hunter Com[d] - 1716 June 1711 importing That for his abelityy and good behaviour he was advanced to be 2[d] to the Storekeeper behaving himself with diligence fidelity and Satisfaction how far he deserv'd that Character or whether he hath degenerated since We cant judge here Your 49 Par[.] By the S[t] George gives a very different liest[?] of him You are on the place and to you we leave him either to continue or dismiss him as you Shall judge most for our Service You tell us Par[.] 35 § Susannah You will Stop the money advanced by Us to severall of you as it becomes due We have Letters from you of more than twelve month[s] later date but they mention nothing more about it which is blame worthy You Should already reperuse your former Letters as to th[e] Promisses therein Contain'd of what is to be don in pursuance of our Orders and let us know when those Promiss[e]s are turn[ed] into performances We might take Notice of Severall Par[.] in that Letter wherein you promise well but nothing is don don't let us Complain again The Fifty pounds advanced to M[r] Mashborne has been repaid us here Sergeant Soutbam[?] wife is daily troubling us for some allowance and hath brought people of Credit to evidence the falsity of his allegations entred in the Consultation book the 2[?] Novemb[r] and among others that Joseph Guyson therein nam[ed] We find he is greatly in our debt and have he a very Extrava[ga]nt take care he pay it what Due and that he make her the allowance We formerly Directed We have paid her here Ten pounds Your 37 Par[.] mentions you cant find by the Storehouse books he hath had any thing Stopt out of his pay if on making up the books it So appears Charge him with the said money as you receive any thing for his wife reduces us that the may pay it here for her Support and prevent the Continuance of her Clamour Our Comittee have not yet been able to get you the Wol[f]ucers you defire If any of our Returning Ships can Spare you a Surgeon or Carpenter or other usefull hands We permit y[ou]r entertaining them on reasonable terms but only Such as are Necessary We have a Letter | Captain John Hunter, commander, 1716. June 1711 importing, that for his ability and good behaviour he was advanced to be second to the storekeeper, behaving himself with diligence, fidelity and satisfaction. How far he deserved that character, or whether he had degenerated since, could not be judged here. The 49th paragraph by the St George gave a very different account of him. The council was on the place, and to the council it was left, either to continue or dismiss him as should be judged most for the Company's service.
Interpretations The promotion of the unnamed servant to second to the storekeeper rests on a recognised internal ladder of advancement. The reference to ability and good behaviour identifies the conventional grounds for elevation, while diligence, fidelity and satisfaction supply the operative criteria for retention. The contrast between the Frederick letter of June 1711, which spoke well of him, and the very different account by the St George shows that the directors relied on successive shipboard reports as the principal mechanism for monitoring local servants from a distance. The decision is delegated to the council on the ground, which is to continue or dismiss as the Company's service requires. The stop-money arrangement in the Susanna letter, paragraph 35, identifies the mechanism for recovering Company advances out of running salary. The Company advanced sums to its servants for specific purposes; the council was to withhold the equivalent from each man's pay as it accrued, so the advance was extinguished by instalment rather than by a separate repayment transaction. The directors' complaint here is not that the mechanism failed but that the council made no return on whether it had been applied. The Mashborne fifty pounds, recorded here as repaid in London, would have related to Edward Mashborne's estate following his death on 31 March 1715, the advance being recovered from the executors rather than from a living salary. The Southen episode reveals the Company's London office acting as a welfare backstop for soldiers' families. The wife, in London, brought witnesses of credit to disprove her husband's representations entered on the island in the consultation of 2 November. The directors paid her ten pounds out of London funds and now order the equivalent to be deducted at St Helena, so that the husband, not the Company, ultimately bears the cost. The mechanism converts a family maintenance question into a paymaster's set-off. The artificers entry confirms the labour-recruitment limit at St Helena. Skilled tradesmen, principally bricklayers and carpenters, could not always be secured at home, and the council was authorised to take them off returning ships where opportunity offered, but only on reasonable terms and only such as were strictly necessary. The qualification echoes the cost ceiling already imposed on the secretary's establishment. Speculations The directors' decision to leave the storekeeper's second in place but to expose him to dismissal on local judgement suggests that the St George account, while damaging, was not specific enough to support an order from home. The council, with the man before it daily, could observe whether the degeneration alleged was real, and could act without the directors having to commit themselves on the strength of a single shipboard report. The complaint that promises in the Susanna letter remained unperformed twelve months later points to a recognised gap between local resolution and local execution. The council found it easier to enter an undertaking in the consultation book than to carry it through against the resistance of those affected. The directors' instruction to repeat the promises and report when performance follows is an attempt to close this gap by making the council answer item by item rather than in general terms. | |
102 | By Ship Katherine - 1716 a Letter from M[r] Awe advising that the Govern[r] ill treatment of him made him quit our Service tho[?] against his inclinatio[n] Such things dont look well and ought as much as Possible be avoided he says his endeavours to promote our Interest first began the Quarrell The repeated Par[.] in your letters about blacks We take notice of and Cast but wonder how the want of them becom[e] so much more greevious than formerly The number you have is greater than what former Govern[r]s thought Eno[ugh] when We Supplyd the Island by the Mercury in persuance of the Man Cohort for Slaves We thought we had Sent Sufficient It seems Some of them proved bad and the Sort of them is Complaind of but We are A[s]sure[d] the Same kind are often carryed to the West Indies where they Answer very well We hope these will be reclamed and rendered Usefull by proper Disciplin[e] tho We would not have them cruelly heated of nothing is to be avoided remember they are Men When We have a fitting opportunity We Shall Send you Some Recreuits in the meantime make those as usefull as possible We may another year Write to India to Send you Some of their Slaves Send us annually list of all our Slaves and how and where employ[e]d And take care they are kept to their busines[s] We find Some hints in Gabriel Powels Petition aforesa[i]d that our Plantations are not well taken care of and We are told since M[r] Mashbornes death it hath been much wors[e] than before It is Strange to us that our plantations Should not be Sufficient to furnish our own people with Yams and yet they J[oh]n hathlands can raise Eno[?] not only for their own use but to Sell us large quantitys If the List Sent of the Planters blacks be true they are greatly Short of ours and yet Sufficient for their use the Said Powels [P]e[ti]tio[n] aforsa[i]d he has a Stock one to Supply them ar four Ships Yearly yet he hath but Seventeen others of which Seven boys & Girls these things Shew to us an[?] dispordere of mannagement and might Surely be much better look[e]d after If you our Govern[r] and Councel were but Sufficiently Carefull & frequently calling for acc[oun]ts of what is done in every place know[?] for your Orders are performed and now and then actually viewing | By ship Katherine, [...] 1716. A letter from Mr Awe advised that the governor's ill treatment of him made him quit the Company's service, though against his inclination. Such things did not look well, and ought as much as possible to be avoided. He said his endeavours to promote the Company's interest first began the quarrel.
Interpretations The slaves entry confirms a long-standing concern of the home bench about both the supply and treatment of slave labour at the island. The Company's main contracted shipment had come on the Mercury, which sailed homeward on 19 March 1715 after delivering its slaves. The directors' instruction to keep a list of all slaves and their employment, and to send it annually, establishes a formal census mechanism in place of the irregular returns previously made. The comparative reference to the West Indies, where the same sort of slaves answered very well, identifies the Atlantic plantations as the directors' benchmark for productive slave labour, and implies that any failure at St Helena lay with management rather than with the slaves themselves. The injunction that the slaves were to be remembered as men is unusual in the directors' correspondence and points to specific reports of cruelty reaching London. The reference to Indian slaves to be sent annually identifies a parallel supply route through the Company's eastern establishments. India slaves, drawn principally from southern coasts and from prisoners of war taken in the Mughal-Maratha conflicts, were already shipped through Fort St George and Bencoolen to other Company posts, and the directors here propose to extend that channel to St Helena. The plantation criticism rests on a direct comparison between the Company's plantations and those of the private planters. The Company could not provision its own people with yams, while private men raised enough not only for use but for sale. The implication is that the Company's slaves were poorly directed rather than insufficient in number. The reference to Mashborne's death of 31 March 1715, followed by the appointment of William Worrall as plantation overseer on 5 April 1715, points to a deterioration in the interval, with the cattle sold off and the stock run down. The stock return brought in by Worrall on 18 June 1715 had presumably given the figures the directors now criticise. Gabriel Powell's petition reappears here as the source of the plantation criticism, the same Powell whose two hundred pound bond drew the directors' rebuke at paragraph 59. His stock figure of seventeen heads, including seven boys and girls, against the supply of three or four ships yearly previously achieved, is given as the benchmark of how far private establishments had been reduced. Speculations The directors' direction that Powell's information should drive the audit of the plantations sits awkwardly with their earlier finding that his bond had been imposed too severely. The two paragraphs taken together suggest that the home bench treated Powell as a wronged informant whose grievance against the bench gave him both knowledge and motive to disclose, and whose evidence was therefore valuable even where his conduct on the island had drawn local censure. The directors thus protected the source by reining in the bench, while making use of what he had said. The proposal to write to India another year for an annual supply of slaves, rather than to act on it now, points to a calculated reluctance to commit the Company to a recurring expense before the council at St Helena had demonstrated better management of those slaves already on the place. The required list of slaves and their employment is the instrument by which the directors would judge whether the additional supply was justified. | |
103 | Capt. Jn[o] Hunter Com[d] - 1716 viewing whether those Acc[oun]ts be true if you cant be ignorant what is and what is not for our Advantage Let your Endeavours Shew you do and will heartily Espouse our Interest and Promote it to your Power This you did will to reduce the Price of Yams which you bought and not give the Planters whatever they asked as your Letters and Particularly that by the S[t] George Par[.] 7 & 8 import Govern[r] Boucher did yet Surly it would be much better for us if you bought none We have told you in former Letter[s] That We had much rather had but very little then a great deal of Lands in our own hands and gave the reasons for it which Still continues Strong as Ever and will more So if by such Mannage ment our ground dont Raise a Sufficient Stock of all Sorts of Provisions This leads us to the Consideration of Severall parts of your Letters relateing to the planters Ingrossing great part of the Plantations Land Particularly in that by the S[t] George in the 74 § Concerning Cow wherein you are intirely right If you look back into the Orders of former years you will find this Mischeif hath encreasd[?] by not putting them in due Execution or taking care that there Should be a proper Number of white Men to the Acres of Land enjoy[e]d by each of the planters According to the Originall Constitution It will be incumbent on you to take better care in future and let the Inhabitants know they Shall not be Suffered to transgress those well Considered and just rules for the Design of parcelling out the Lands into such Small and middling Portions was to preserve the Militia of the Island in case of attacks by an Enemy for every man will do his utmost to preserve the litt[le] he hath of his own whereas by Engrossing the Severall Plantations into few peoples hands the design of that judiciou[s] Law is defeated The Inhabitants of S[t] Helena have greatly decreased of late years Some Alledging the hardships of the Govern[er?] drove them away and yet if it had not been for this engrossing You so justly Complain of they would scarce have left the place wherefore put a Stop to it by obleging every one to keep on his Land Margin Notes: Ingrossing Lands | Captain John Hunter, commander, 1716. A view was to be taken of whether those accounts were true. The council could not be ignorant of what was for the Company's advantage and what was not. Endeavours were to be shown that the bench did, and would heartily espouse, the Company's interest and promote it in its power. The bench did well to reduce the price of yams which it bought, and not to give the planters whatever they asked, as the letters, and particularly that by the St George, paragraphs 7 and 8, said Governor Boucher did. It would surely be much better if none were bought. The bench had been told in former letters that the Company had much rather hold but very little than a great deal of land in its own hands. The reasons had been given for it, which still continued as strong as before, and even more so if by such management the Company's ground would not raise a sufficient stock of all sorts of provisions.
Interpretations The dispute over the price of yams sets the bench's recent practice against Governor Boucher's earlier conduct. Boucher had paid the planters whatever they asked, while the present bench had reduced the price by negotiation. The directors approve the reduction but go further: they would prefer the Company to buy no yams at all, sustaining its own people from its own plantations. This identifies provisioning self-sufficiency, not commercial purchase, as the directors' settled aim. The reference back to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the St George letter, charging Boucher with the open-handed practice, supplies the documentary anchor for the criticism. The engrossing problem turns on the original land settlement of the island. The Company's original constitution had parcelled the plantations into small and middling portions, each tied to a fixed acreage and to a required number of white men. Engrossing meant the consolidation of these portions into the hands of a few wealthy planters, which left the smaller men without holdings and the militia without recruits. The directors here identify two consequences: the depopulation of the island, with inhabitants moving away under the alleged hardships of Boucher's governorship, and the weakening of the militia, since a man with no land of his own had nothing to defend. The militia logic rests on a recognised principle of colonial settlement. Every man would defend his own land with vigour, but few would fight for a master's estate. The original parcelling into small holdings thus served both an economic purpose of population retention and a military purpose of defence. The directors treat the consolidation of holdings as a defeat of that judicious law and call for enforcement of the white men to acres ratio, with the bench to oblige every man to keep on his land. The decrease of inhabitants of late years frames the directors' urgency. Population loss at a small island settlement was not easily reversed, since each departing family removed not only its own labour but its share of the militia roll and its consumption of Company stores goods. The reference to those who had moved away alleging the hardships of the governor links engrossing to the wider charges against Boucher already developed in paragraph 57. Speculations The directors' preference that no yams be bought at all, despite the practical impossibility of feeding the garrison and the visiting ships from the Company plantations alone in their present state, points to a longer policy aim rather than an immediate instruction. By holding out the no-purchase ideal, the home bench keeps pressure on the council to improve the Company plantations, since every yam bought from a planter is treated as evidence of failure to raise enough at the Hutts and Lufkins. The pairing of engrossing with depopulation suggests the directors had identified a specific dynamic: a planter who acquired a neighbour's holding could work it with slave labour rather than with the white tenants the original allocation required, so the consolidation directly removed white men from the militia roll. The instruction to oblige every man to keep on his land is therefore aimed not only at preserving small holdings but at preventing the substitution of slave labour for the white tenantry that the militia depended on. | |
104 | By Ship Katherine - 1716 Land White men as aforesaid without which they must not be allowed to make Additional Purchases reperuse those Old Orders and you will find the Conditions plain[ly] laid down to inforce their Execution It is your part to render them effectuall Take due care that the Laws for fenceing and for planting of Wood be continued in full Exercise & Encourage that other by you proposed of planting Oranges Lymes and Lemmons make fair and equitable allowances as you Judge fit on acc[oun]t of the fences In a word deal justly w[i]th all the people and in the Case of fenceing where it is plain Some by reason of want of blacks or whites assistance cant Comply in point of time indulge them for a reasonable time longer but be Sure the fences be Don as fast as in yo[u]r opinion they can be with the assistance they have or can procure As to the letting out Leas[s]es for lives where the Improvem[en]t of the plantations hath been Expensive by Building planting of Trees or fences do as you Shall on due Consideration[ll] find reasonable to Enlourage Such Improvem[en]t We want more people and your proposals Par[.] 70 by the Susannah and the above § the S[t] George Seem well Calculated for that purpose The looking after our Cattle and other live Stock and endeavours to incre[a]se the breed is well don as was also your care to forbid the killing the breeders Giving M[r] Cason for transgressing your orders on that head and your Limiting our Falls to Stated Days for Salt[i]ng Beef and fish We Shall only add That your own reasons will tell you what ought further to be Don for encreasing the Generall Stock of provisions and Green trade of the Island our aim and direccons therein you will find fully Exprest in former Letters as also for the Improving our plantations and the Sultivating the Vine Aloe[?] Cohra[?] and other endeavours We have use for the Advantage of the place Fourthly Touching our Fortifications, Buildings & Garrison Stores The Margin Notes: g of [?]ing[?] ab[ou]t Leases | By ship Katherine, [...] 1716. Land with white men as aforesaid, without which they must not be allowed to make additional purchases. Reference was to be made to the old orders, where the conditions would be found plainly laid down. To enforce their execution was the bench's part, to render them effectual.
Fourthly. Touching the Company's fortifications, buildings and garrison stores. The Interpretations The leases for lives mechanism identifies a legal device imported from English manorial practice. A lease for lives was granted for the duration of one, two or three named lives, terminating on the death of the last survivor. It gave the lessee a strong incentive to improve the holding, since the term might run for many years, while preserving the Company's reversion on the failure of the lives. The directors authorise the bench to grant such leases where the improvement, by building, planting of trees or fences, justified the longer security. This is calibrated to the same population aim already identified at paragraph 69: longer tenure attracts more settlers and so more white men for the militia roll. The fencing and planting laws operate as the regulatory framework underpinning the land settlement. Fences enclosed the holdings, separated the planters' stock from the Company's plantations and prevented the open-range damage already documented in the consolidated record at the Vesey-Harding fence and damages dispute opened on 12 July 1715. The directors' approval of the proposal to plant oranges, limes and lemons identifies the citrus crops as both a dietary supply against scurvy on visiting ships and a long-yielding capital improvement on planters' holdings. The indulgence given to those without slaves or whites' assistance recognises that fencing was labour-intensive and could not be enforced uniformly against poorer planters. The Carne transgression refers to the late George Carne, whose yams in the ground were ordered valued at the consultation of 23 August 1715 by an appraisal panel of Bazett, Powill and the widow's two nominees. The reference here is to his earlier breach of the orders against killing breeding cattle, a matter for which submission and a fine of £10 0s 0d had been agreed by 22 March 1715 in relation to the French ship offences. The directors treat his conduct as a benchmark of the kind of practice the bench must restrain. The limiting of the Tarts to stated days for salt provisions and fish identifies a rationing arrangement applied to a particular household or vessel, restricting access to the Company's salt-cured stores to fixed days of issue. The function was preservation of the breeding stock, since unlimited salt provision encouraged the slaughter of immature animals. Speculations The directors' careful authorisation of leases for lives, paired with the standing prohibition on additional purchases without the required white men, points to a deliberate two-track land policy. New land was not to be sold or absolutely granted, since that would deepen the engrossing problem of paragraph 69, but security of tenure on existing holdings was to be lengthened to draw improvement and population. The combination protected the Company's reversion while encouraging permanent settlement. The encouragement of citrus planting, given alongside instructions for vine and food cultivation, suggests the home bench was thinking beyond garrison provisioning to a longer ambition of making the island a victualling station for the East India fleets. Lemons and limes were already recognised as a remedy for scurvy on the long voyage to and from India, and a reliable supply at St Helena would have a value to the Company's shipping out of proportion to the garrison's own consumption. | |
105 | Capt. John Hunter Com[d] - 1716 The Fortifications and Buildings We have also Wrote you fully about We Shall be glad when these Expensive Articles are at an end for tho[?] it is now peace We know not how Soon there may be War We would have the Island So far fortified as to preserve our Ships from being taken out of the Road and prevent an enemys landing or hazarding the place whatsoever is absolutely Necessary for that end must be Don but consider well and dont put us to needless charge let all be don Substantially that it maynt want repairing in one while [as] Par[.] 70 § Susannah Says Ruperts Fort do[?] being Built with Mud & Mortar Since you can have good Mortar and Cutt Stone yo[u]r Necessary Storerooms must also be Built but no more than are to the Acc[oun]ts in your last Letter[s] make them very great at least describe more rooms than We apprehend there will be Occasion for this Started us at reading Remember our charge & Curtail it all you can with the Utmost good Husbandry We have Complaints that our charges are much greater than they need if at all the Councel are blameable for Suffering it for We will have no disbursm[en]t[s] without the Consent of Council and that Consent to the reason Entered in Consultation We have before told you We approve your building the Store house by the Castle Your proposals about building a new Church We observe and Shall be ready to comply with the part you Desire of us when We can be able to Supply you with the needfull Materialls for as at present We find you have repaird it and by M[r] Cleves Acc[oun]ts Sent a great deal of Lumber Employ[e]d therein We think it Necessary to provide you first with such Stores for y[e] Island in generall which you advise are absolutely Necessary and then to Consider of the rest As to the Chaplains request for Allowance for Lodging We understand from his Letter to Us of the 7 July Last That | Captain John Hunter, commander, 1716.
Interpretations The fortifications instruction sets the directors' policy as one of necessary defence at minimum cost. The aim was twofold: to prevent the seizure of Company ships in the road, and to prevent an enemy landing on the island itself. The peacetime moment is noted but not relied upon, since the directors recognise that war could resume at short notice. The standing charge to curtail expense with the utmost good husbandry identifies fiscal restraint as the framing constraint within which the bench was to design its defence programme. The criticism of Rupert's fort, said in the Susanna letter paragraph 70 to have been built with mud and mortar, identifies a recurring defect of construction at the island. The same problem had been reported in the consolidated record at the survey of King William's fort at Banks's Hill on 19 July 1715, which found that fort in very ruinous condition with mud mortar walls degraded by salt water and the foundation never well laid. The directors here apply the lesson generally: where cut stone and good mortar were available, they were to be used, so that the work would not need repairing in a short while. The reference identifies the building of King William's fort and the present instruction as parts of a coordinated upgrading from mud to stone construction across the island's defensive works. The consent of council rule, with the requirement that consent be entered in consultation, identifies a constitutional control on Company expenditure. No disbursement was to be made on the governor's order alone; the full bench had to concur, and the concurrence had to appear on the consultation book as evidence. This converts each material outlay into a recorded collective act, traceable in the audit by every councillor's signature. The directors' application of the rule to fortification spending closes the principal channel by which a governor inclined to large building works could commit the Company without restraint. The complaint that the charges were much greater than they need have been is treated as a collective failure of the council, which suffered the spending without dissenting. The new church proposal is deferred rather than refused. The timber sent and employed by Mr Cleaves was directed to repair of the existing fabric, with new building to await the satisfaction of more pressing stores requirements. This sets a clear order of priority: garrison stores and fortification first, religious building after. Speculations The directors' framing of the fortification programme around the possibility that peace might not last suggests a calculated reading of the European political situation in the year following the death of Queen Anne and the accession of George I, proclaimed on the island on 6 June 1715. The Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 had ended the recent war, but Jacobite agitation at home and the unstable Bourbon succession in Spain made a resumption plausible. The instruction to fortify the road against ship seizure points specifically to the threat from privateers operating under letters of marque from a hostile power, which had been the principal danger to homeward Indiamen in the earlier conflict. The home bench's reaction of being startled by the number of storerooms proposed suggests the council had submitted a programme that exceeded what the directors thought the garrison required. The careful response, conceding that storerooms must be built but not more than were required, indicates a deliberate brake on a plan the directors suspected of being either over-ambitious or driven by interests on the island other than military necessity. The accompanying complaint that the charges were much greater than they need have been points to the suspicion of inflated estimates or favourable contracts to local suppliers. | |
106 | By Ship Katherine 1716 That you think Five pounds a Year is a Sufficient equivalent for his old Lodgings he Says he pays Fifteen Pounds a year for the house he lives in We dont know what to Determine as We told you in our last The making Precedents generally prove of ill Consequence to Us We Should think it better if he dislikes the Five Pounds to allow him the Usuall Lodgings or rather that the following Expedient be Considered of in this case We are the Lords of the Mannour We provide the Minister and We pay him a Certainty which is not always so in many English Parishes for there the Parishioners pay however they take care of the Ministers house and by a Joynt purse or Voluntary Contributions repair or Rebuild it is not there as much reason for it at S[t] Helena Therefore Endeavour at a proper time to know what the In habitants will do for the Building by way of Subscriptio[n] a proper Parsonage house and to encourage them to go on engage for us for a part thereof This is so reason able that when they Consider it well they can make no plausible objection thereto We have now gone thro[ugh] your Severall Letters as to such parts thereof which we thought required an answer to Some Par[.] We have given no Parti cular answers considering them as bare proposalls to others We have told you our opinions in the gen[era]ll To Severall parts in the Letter by the S[t] George We could not tell what to Say because they refer to Papers in the packet which we before menti[on]ed is not Come to hand and whether you have sent the Capm[?]s or not We cant yet tell but this we are Sure Some of those promised and Expected to be sent by other Ships were Omitted Such as the List of the Servants who Dine at our Table The monthly Acc[oun]t of our charge and other | By ship Katherine, [...] 1716. The bench thought five pounds a year a sufficient equivalent for his old lodgings. He said he paid fifteen pounds a year for the house he lived in. It could not be known here what to determine. As had been told in the directors' last letter, the making of precedents generally proved of ill consequence. The directors should think it better, if he disliked the five pounds, to allow him the usual lodgings, or rather that the following expedient be considered of in this case. The Company were the lords of the manor. The Company provided the minister, and paid him a certainty, which was not always so in many English parishes. For these the parishioners did, however, take care of the minister's house, and by a joint purse or voluntary contributions repair or rebuild it. It was not there as much reason for it at St Helena. Endeavour was therefore to be made at a proper time to know what the inhabitants would do for the building, by way of subscription, of a proper parsonage house, and to encourage them to go on, engage for the Company a part thereof. This was so reasonable that when they considered it well, they could make no plausible objection thereto.
Interpretations The chaplain's lodging dispute reveals the limits of Company paternalism in religious provision. The chaplain claimed fifteen pounds a year for his actual house, against the bench's offered five. The directors decline to settle the figure from London, citing the danger of precedent, and propose instead a structural solution drawn from English parochial practice. In an ordinary English parish, the rector or vicar received tithes from the parishioners and lived in a parsonage maintained by the parish; the Company's settlement reversed this, with the Company supplying a salary certainty to the minister but providing no parishioner-funded house. The proposed expedient, that the inhabitants of St Helena raise the cost of a parsonage by subscription or voluntary contribution, transfers part of the cost from the Company to the planters, on the analogy that they stand in the position of an English parish. The phrase lords of the manor identifies the Company's tenurial position at the island in feudal-derived language. As lords of the manor, the Company held the freehold of the whole island and granted leases or copyhold-like interests to the planters, who stood in relation to the Company as tenants would to an English manorial lord. The phrase is more than rhetorical, since it establishes the legal frame within which the directors propose to require the planters to contribute to a parsonage: a manorial lord could expect his tenants to maintain certain parochial buildings even where he himself was the patron of the living. The making of precedents warning identifies a recurring concern in the directors' correspondence. A particular concession to one chaplain on lodging, if treated as the standard, would bind the Company to support the same allowance for every future chaplain regardless of the cost of housing on the island at the time. The directors prefer to keep the question open, with each case decided on its facts, even at the price of leaving the present chaplain dissatisfied. The omitted returns identified at paragraph 76, principally the list of servants dining at the Company's table and the monthly account of charge, identify the audit mechanism by which the home bench monitored running expenditure. The Company's table was the governor's, where senior servants and visiting officers ate at Company expense. A list of those entitled to dine, combined with a monthly account, allowed the directors to detect both unauthorised additions to the table and gradual inflation of the food bill. The complaint that these returns had been omitted shows that the bench's recent reporting had been incomplete in precisely the areas most useful for cost control. Speculations The directors' proposal to raise a parsonage by subscription points to a calculated reading of the planters' standing in the island's social order. By inviting them to contribute as parishioners of an English parish would, the home bench treated them as a settled community rather than as transient tenants, and so reinforced the political project of population retention identified at paragraphs 69 and 71. A planter who had subscribed to the building of the parsonage acquired a stake in the parish, and so a further reason to remain on the place. The cautious framing of the proposal, that the inhabitants would on consideration make no plausible objection, suggests the directors were uncertain whether the planters would in fact subscribe. The Company had no manorial court at the island that could compel a parish rate, and the proposal therefore depended on voluntary assent. The directors' suggestion that the Company would engage for part of the cost is a calibrated incentive: a matching contribution from the Company would convert a request for charity into a partnership offer, and so improve the prospects of subscription. | |
107 | Capt. Jn[o] Hunter Com[d] - 1716 other necessary Informations w[hi]ch We Expressly required what remains is That you carefully peruse our Letters and among others your Instructions and the Cardonnells Gen[era]ll wherein you will see that you have fallen Short and in what Particulars and have not given Such answers to Some parts of them as you ought Let these things be amended that we may not fill our Letters with recapitulating former Orders and Shewing your defective compliance therewith but on the Contrary may approve your atten tion to and observance of our Said Orders which will be very pleasing to us Since writing the foregoing We are come to an Agreement with Some Merchants to Licence their Tradeing to Madagascar and in Consideration thereof they are to deliver Slaves for our use free of Charge at S[t] Helena the Particular Numbers of each Ship you will have an Acc[oun]t of in the Packett Signed by the Secretary if it be sure before this of in the Ships Dispatch they are to be all Sound healthfull and Merchantable Slaves Indians or of Madagascar two thirds Males one third females none of them under Sixteen or above thirty years of age If our Govern[r] judge any so delivered dont answer he is to have them changed for Such as doe and the Master is to pay Fourty Pounds a head for all deliverd Short wherefore Advise us what Slaves you receive from each Ship and take care they do answer our agreem[en]t Give the Masters Rec[ei]p[t]s for what they deliver Particularly describing how many of each Sex and their Ages as near as you can Guess Set them all to proper Employments & by this this will we hope for so far answer the benefitt you say We may expect by having So many Slaves to do the Necessary works on the Island In the Packet we send you Copy of the Clauses of the Covenants entered into by us and the Masters of Each Ship relating to the Slaves for your Notice and observation If you Should Licence any others you may Compute the Number of Slaves W[h]ereof every Five Hundred Pounds of the Cargo Carried We are to have Nine of which two thirds Males and So pro rata if there be a Casionall part they are to deliver a boy or Girle instead of a man But by their Shewing the Counterpart of their Covenants | Captain John Hunter, commander, 1716. Other necessary informations had been expressly required. What remained was that the council carefully peruse the directors' letters, and among others their instructions and the Cardonnell's general, wherein it would be seen that the council had fallen short, and in what particulars, and had not given such answers to some parts of them as ought to have been given. Let these things be amended, that the directors might not fill their letters with recapitulating former orders and showing the council's defective compliance therewith, but on the contrary, showing the council's attention to, and observance of, the said orders, which would be very pleasing.
Interpretations The Madagascar slave-delivery clause introduces a novel funding mechanism for slave supply at St Helena. Independent merchants who wished to trade to Madagascar required a Company licence, since the East India Company held the monopoly of English trade east of the Cape. The home bench had now sold those licences not for cash but for slaves, delivered free of charge at the island. The Company thus converted a regulatory right into a labour supply, with the cost falling on the licensees rather than on its own treasury. The deliverance ratio for additional licences is set at nine slaves per five hundred pounds of cargo carried away, two-thirds male, which fixes the rate of payment in human terms and treats slaves as a unit of account against trade value. The merchantable slaves standard, with the specifications of soundness, age band of sixteen to thirty and the two-thirds male ratio, identifies the commercial grading already applied in the Atlantic slave trade. Slaves outside the bands could be refused and the master charged forty pounds a head for shortfall. This converts the delivery clause into an enforceable supply contract, with the governor as the local arbiter of quality and the master as the principal financially liable. The mechanism resembles the demurrage and quality clauses of contemporary commodity charters. The two-thirds males and one-third females ratio identifies the directors' design as primarily for labour rather than reproduction. A balanced settlement would require closer to equal numbers; the heavy male bias indicates that the immediate purpose was field, construction and stores work, with reproduction at the island treated as a secondary consideration. The age limit of thirty further confirms the labour focus, since older slaves would have a shorter remaining productive span. The forty pounds head charge for short delivery sets the directors' valuation of a delivered slave at the island. The figure can be read against the £50 0s 0d valuation of Abigail, the female slave of the widow Grace Coulson, set out in the Bever indictment of 24 January 1715, which gives a comparable benchmark for an established slave on the island. The slightly lower figure for a fresh delivery is consistent with the discount usually applied to newly imported slaves before seasoning. Speculations The directors' choice to take payment for Madagascar licences in slaves rather than in money points to a calculated reading of the labour bottleneck at the island. The council had pressed for more slaves in the letter responded to at paragraph 67; the directors had been reluctant to commit to a recurring Indian supply, and the licence-for-slaves arrangement now offered a way of meeting the request without drawing on Company funds. The arrangement converted a problem of insufficient slaves into a problem of regulating private Madagascar traders, which the Company could do at no cost. The careful grading provisions, with the right to reject and a forty pounds penalty for shortfall, suggest the directors anticipated that licensees would attempt to discharge their quota with poor or marginal slaves drawn from the cheapest end of the Madagascar market. By giving the governor a power of refusal exercisable in the road before the ship sailed, the directors made the licensee bear the risk of quality, and so transferred to the merchants the entire cost of any disputed delivery. The placement of the penalty at master rather than owner level, with forty pounds a head, identifies the ship's master as the practical enforcer at the point of delivery, with his own funds at stake. | |
108 | By Ship Katherine 1716 Covenants which do you demand to see you may be Ascertained of the true Number We understand a Sloop from Antigua last August or there abouts came to your Island to Trade and did get Goods but you never told us one word of it tho[ugh] We have Letters Since this is very ill don We positively forbid your Letting any of those Mada gascar Ships or any other Ships which touch at S[t] Helena to buy or Letting them have any East India Goods whatsoever and if we find any do get Goods for We Shall know it one way or other We will not continue any of you in our Service We don't understand your drawing that Bill on Us of £ 646 .. 16 .. - pay[abl]e to Cap[t] Ryan notwithstanding what you write in Par[.] 115 § 16 by the S[t] George We shall not Accept it till We find how we Shall be reimbursd the money We are Your Loving Friends Rob[t] Nightingal[e] Joseph Eyles Jos[.] Hodges Jn[o] Browne Nath[.] Herne Rob[t] Child Chair[ma]n Jo[s] Woodward Henry Lyell John Gould J[.] Ward John Mucrik[?] Rob[t] Pierce W[i]ll[ia]m Goselair[?] Tho[.] Heath Jos[.] Andrews Peter Godfrey | By ship Katherine, [...] 1716. The covenants, on demand of which, might be inspected for the bench to be ascertained of the true number.
The directors' loving friends: Rob Nightingale Joseph Eyles Jos Hodges Jno Browne Nath Herne Rob Child, Chairman Jos Woodworth Henry Lyell John Cleeve J Ward John Slurik Rob Pierce Wm Goseliur Tho Heath Jos Andrews Peter Godfrey Interpretations The Antigua sloop episode identifies a recurring leak in the Company's monopoly. The East India Company held the exclusive English right to trade in East India goods, but vessels from the West Indies, particularly the sugar islands, called at St Helena on transit voyages and could acquire calicoes, silks and other Asian goods from the island's stocks or from departing Indiamen. Once at Antigua, these goods could be sold into the Atlantic market in direct breach of the monopoly. The directors' positive prohibition against any Madagascar ship or any other ship buying East India goods at the island is therefore not a new rule but a strengthening of an existing one, prompted by the council's silence on a particular case. The threat of dismissal for any councillor found to be involved identifies the bench itself as the principal suspected channel for such transactions. The Madagascar ships now reappear in a different aspect. The arrangement at paragraph 77 had been to use them as a source of slaves under licence; here, those same ships are recognised as a vehicle for monopoly-breach if allowed to load goods on their return through the island. The directors' rule thus separates the two functions: the ships deliver slaves in, but take no Company goods out. The bill on the directors for £46 16s 0d, drawn payable to Captain Ryan, is refused acceptance pending an explanation of how the Company is to be reimbursed. This identifies the standard test applied to bills of exchange drawn at the island on the home office: the underlying transaction had to be accounted for before the bill could be paid in London, and the bench's references to paragraphs 115 and 116 of the St George letter had not satisfied the directors. The treatment is consistent with the bills-of-exchange reform initiated on 19 July 1715 and operative as a standing order by 2 August 1715, under which the bench at the island had begun refusing bills that lacked sufficient justification. The home directors now apply the same discipline to bills drawn at the island and presented in London. The list of signatories names the Court of Committees of the East India Company. Sir Robert Child appears as chairman, with Joseph Eyles, Henry Lyell, John Cleeve, Robert Pierce, Thomas Heath, Peter Godfrey and the others making up the committee. The full signature of the court at the foot of the letter, rather than the chairman alone, gives the despatch its formal weight as a collective act of the directors rather than a single executive instruction. Speculations The directors' threat that no councillor would be continued in the service if found to deal with monopoly-breaking ships is unusually personal. The phrasing points to a specific suspicion already formed at home, probably arising from the very silence the directors complain of: the Antigua sloop had got goods and the council had said nothing, which suggested at minimum complicity in concealment and at worst direct participation by a councillor. The wording is calibrated to deter further such trades by putting each member's tenure at stake, on the calculation that an individual councillor would rather refuse a single transaction than risk dismissal. The refusal of the £46 16s 0d bill to Captain Ryan, despite the bench's explanation in paragraphs 115 and 116 of the St George letter, suggests that the directors regarded the underlying transaction as insufficiently linked to a Company purpose. A bill drawn on the home office had to be matched by an asset or service of corresponding value entering the Company's account at the island. Where the connection was not plain, the directors preferred to leave the bill unpaid and let the local payee enforce his claim against the drawer, rather than commit Company funds against an unverified obligation. | |
109 | By Ship Success Our Governour & Council of S[t] Helena. London the 22 Feb[rua]ry 1716. The Last Letter We wrote you was of y[e] 14 March 1715 by the Katherine which being come to your hand[s] We need not Send Copy. Since w[hi]ch We have rec[eive]d Severall Letters from You by Our Shipping (Vizt) of y[e] 26 December 1715: by the Cardigan of y[e] 20 Jan[uar]y by y[e] Kent of y[e] 24 Feb[rua]ry by the Thistleworth of y[e] 14 March by y[e] Duke of Cambridge of y[e] 10 May 1716 by y[e] [...] of y[e] 22 D[itt]o by y[e] Mary of y[e] 15 June by the Bouverie Heathcote & Derby & by y[e] 2 of Aug[ust] Last by the Queen with these We received the Severall Papers in their Packetts & also your Consultation Books in p[?]ece Meals commencing the 8 November 1715 & Ending y[e] 8 August 1716 W[h]erein We find reason to complain That our Orders have not been So duly attended to & Observed as they ought but in the Last Consultations by the Queen from the Arrival of the Katherine Some amendment appears tho[ugh] not so much as there should how far We have yet reason to find fault What remarks We Shall make on y[e] Letters Consultations & Papers before us & what Direccions Prohibitions or Cautions will occur to Us to give you thereupon you will find herein under Our Establis[h]t Generall Heads And We Onc[e] again positively require you to range your Letters to Us in the Same manner that y[ou] know how to do it is plain from that by y[e] Queen Margin Notes: Recital of rec[eive]d Letters & co[?] | By ship Success. To the Governor and Council of St Helena. London, 22 February 1716. (Recital of received letters and books.)
Interpretations The opening recital of the despatch follows the directors' established general heads, the standard ordering of correspondence by subject under which each successive letter was prepared at home. The arrangement allowed the home bench to track each topic across multiple despatches and to detect omissions in the council's returns. The complaint that the council had not yet ranged its own letters in the same manner identifies a procedural failure already raised in earlier correspondence: a letter that mixed topics required the directors to extract and reorder the material themselves, with the risk of items being missed. The list of received correspondence covers a continuous flow from December 1715 to August 1716, with named ships at each delivery point. The Cardigan, Kent, Thistleworth, Duke of Cambridge, Britain, Mary, Bouverie, Heathcote, Derby and Queen appear here for the first time in the present working volume. The pattern of arrivals identifies the homeward sequence of Indiamen passing the island during this period, each carrying a council despatch with consultations and accounts to date. The consultation books delivered in piecemeal between 8 November 1715 and 8 August 1716 represent nine months of the bench's running record. The directors' acknowledgement that some amendment appeared in the last consultations by the Queen, from the arrival of the Katherine, identifies the Katherine of 1716 as the point at which the council began to act on the present letter under analysis in the preceding paragraphs. The Katherine having delivered the home directors' correspondence at the island, the council had revised its conduct, and the improvement was visible in the consultations from that arrival onward. Speculations The directors' acknowledgement that not so much amendment had appeared as there should suggests a calculated pressure-management of the council. The home bench credits visible improvement but withholds full approval, preserving leverage for further compliance. The phrasing points to a deliberate technique: a complete commendation would have removed the incentive to continue the reforms, while an unqualified rebuke would have discouraged the effort already made. The arrangement of the bench's letters under established general heads was probably more than an administrative convenience. By requiring every council despatch to be structured under the same headings the directors used in London, the home bench imposed its own categorisation of the island's affairs on the council's reporting. Matters that did not fit a recognised head would either be omitted or be raised under an ill-fitting one, where they could be more easily set aside. The positively required compliance suggests the council had resisted the format in earlier correspondence, and the directors were now forcing the point. | |
110 | By Ship Success Queen[.] & We find from henceforward o[ur] Orders Slighted or but partly comply'd with We shall resent it as it deserves The Instructions you carried with you in the Rochester the Letters Since & part icularly y[e] by y[e] Katharine contain a plain & intelligable account what we expect from yo[u] & in them & y[e] other Letters there in referrd to you will find particular rules to Guide you in all the Branches of Our Affairs under your care if you would but Once apply yo[ur] Selves heartily to put them in due Execution & do what yo[ur] own reasons should tell you is most for the Interest of those Whose bread you Eat We now proceed to the Generall heads Vizt First concerning ships return'd & Sent or Sending Out. Since Our Last it hath pleased God yt foll[owing] Ships arrived Safely with Us Vizt the Cardigan y[e] 9th the Kent y[e] 20th of Aprill last from Fort S[t] George, the Thistleworth from Bombay y[e] 14 May, the Duke of Cambridge from thence y[e] 1st June, the Mary from Fort S[t] George y[e] 27th July, the Bouverie from thence the Rother from Mocha but last from Bombay the Derby & Heathcote from the Bay all arrived in or near the Downs the 15th August also the y[e] Queen from Bombay & Callicut the 27th October The Ships We have taken Up this Sea son for all parts of the East Indies are (Vizt) The Hannover 460 Cap[t] Sam[?] Osborne For Bengall directly The Princess Ann 350 Cap[t] Nich[.] Lithorne Fr Mocha The Margin Notes: to follow former Instruc[?] Ships ar[r]? Ships Outward Bound | By ship Success. The directors had observed that, from the arrival of the Queen, the council's orders were no longer to be slighted or but partly complied with. Any such failure in future would be resented as it deserved.
First, concerning ships returned and sent or sending out.
Interpretations The disciplinary opening establishes the home directors' position as one of conditional patience. The acknowledgement that the Queen's arrival marked a turning point in compliance is paired with a warning that any return to the earlier slighting of orders would draw a heavier response than the corrective remarks of the previous letter. The phrase resented as it deserved is calibrated to leave the form of the sanction open, so that the home bench preserves discretion as to whether the next failure draws administrative correction or dismissal of councillors. The reference to the bread of those whose service the council ate identifies the moral framing the directors applied to their servants. The councillors received their salaries, their gratuities and their table provision from the Company, and were therefore under an obligation of fidelity calibrated to that maintenance. The metaphor was a recognised one in early eighteenth-century employer discourse, and its use here reinforces the personal accountability of each council member to the Court of Committees whose names had been subscribed to the despatch by the Katherine of February 1716. The arrival list at paragraph 3 covers a sustained homeward flow from the major Indian factories. Fort St George at Madras, Bombay on the western coast, the Bay of Bengal and Mocha on the Red Sea each appear, with the Heathcote notably running from Mocha but last from Bombay, identifying a two-leg homeward route by which the Red Sea coffee trade was combined with the Bombay piece-goods loading on a single voyage. All ships made the Downs in or near 15 August save the Queen, which made a later passage on 27 October from Bombay and Calicut. The outward ships at paragraph 4 identify the season's departures. The Hannover at 460 tons is the larger vessel, despatched direct to Bengal under Captain Samuel Osborne, while the Princess Anne at 350 tons under Captain Nicholas Luhorne is set for Mocha and the Red Sea coffee trade. The pairing of routes covers the two distinct commercial branches of the Company's eastern operations, with the heavier tonnage on the higher-value Bengal route. Speculations The directors' careful crediting of the Queen as the first ship under which the council's compliance had improved suggests a deliberate marker in the audit record. By naming the vessel and the date of arrival, the home bench established a benchmark against which any subsequent slipping could be measured. A relapse after the Queen would not be a continuation of the old failure but a fresh and named breach, with the consultation books of the intervening months as the documentary record. The bread of those whose service the council ate carries an implicit reference to the dining arrangements at the Company's table on the island, the list of which had been required at paragraph 76 of the previous letter. By using the metaphor of bread in the very letter that pressed for the table return, the directors fused the moral and the audit point: the councillors fed at the Company's expense, and the list of who ate would show whom the Company was sustaining and therefore whom it was entitled to bind. | |
111 | Cap[t] Benj[ami]n Graves Com[d] The Townshend - 370 Cap[t] Charles Kesar The Essex - 300 Cap[t] Cha[s] Newton } for China & home The Cardigan - 400 Cap[t] Hen[ry] Clegg The S[t] George 425 Cap[t] Ant[.] Ryan } for the Bay The Bouverie 450 Cap[t] Tho[.] Wotton The D[uke] of Cambridg[e] 430 Cap[t] Dan[.] Small } for Fort S[t] Geo[rge] The Morice 400 Cap[t] Joshua [G]eaves } for Bombay The Duke of York 400 Cap[t] Abr[.] Daccoses The Benjamin 160 Cap[t] Dan[.] Bradley - for Bencoolen The Successe 250 Cap[t] Benj[.] Graves - for S[t] Helena & b[ack] The Thistleworth 250 Cap[t] Cha[.] Small - for Bengal[?] The Hannover Sailed Out of the Downes the 25th October, The Princes[s] Ann the 25 of Novemb[er] & from Cadiz where She took in her Treasure the 14 Dec[ember] The Townshend Mess[r]s [...]ock Morton & Godfrey Supra Cargoes & Tho[.] Carter Writer and the Essex Mess[r]s Ezekerley Wilkinson & Newnam Supra Cargoes & Waldo Du Bois Writer Sailed Out of the Downes out of the Downes the Downes the 28 Dec[.] & from Spithead the 13 Janu[ar]y the Cardigan & Pliccigg[?] departed the Downes y[e] 24 Janu[ar]y The Bouverie the 31 The Duke of Cambridge & Benjamin the 15 of this Inst[.] Feb[rua]ry We take notice of what you write concerning the Ostend Ships Victoria or S[t] Mathew Cap[t] Sayhfield and the Charles Galley Captain Pierribrants & were well pleased with your behaviour towards y[e] [...] as mentioned in y[ou]r Letters & Consultations [t]hat you forced the first to come to an Anchor by fireing at her & were so honest to Us as to deny their stay in the road & would not afford either of them any manner of Assistance or Provisi ons rightly judging the ill consequences of Such [...] | Captain Benjamin Graves, commander. The Townshend, 370 tons, Captain Charles Kesar, and the Essex, 300 tons, Captain Charles Hawton, for China and home. The Cardigan, 400 tons, Captain Henry Glegg, and the St George, 425 tons, Captain Anthony Ryan, for the Bay. The Bouverie, 450 tons, Captain Thomas Wolton, and the Duke of Cambridge, 430 tons, Captain Daniel Smale, for Fort St George. The Morice, 400 tons, Captain Cudbert Beavers, for Bombay direct. The Duke of York, 400 tons, Captain Abel Davenport. The Benjamin, 160 tons, Captain Daniel Bradley, for Bencoolen. The Success, 250 tons, Captain Benjamin Graves, for St Helena. The Thistleworth, 250 tons, Captain Charles Smale, for Bengal.
Interpretations The roster at the head of the entry set out the season's outbound fleet, sorted by destination. The Bay of Bengal voyages drew the Cardigan under Glegg and the St George under Ryan, both substantial vessels at 400 and 425 tons. Fort St George at Madras received the Bouverie under Wolton and the Duke of Cambridge under Smale at 450 and 430 tons, the heaviest pair of the season. The China and home voyage paired the Townshend and the Essex, each carrying a board of supercargoes rather than a single commander's commission, the Townshend under Lock, Morton and Godfrey with Carter as writer, the Essex under Fazakerley, Wilkinson and Newnam with Du Bois as writer. The supercargo system at China reflected the special structure of the Canton trade, where the Company's commercial agency was conducted by a committee of merchants negotiating with the Hong rather than by the ship's master alone. The single ship despatched specifically for St Helena was the Success under Captain Benjamin Graves at 250 tons. This vessel carried the present letter and gave the despatch its identification at the head of the consultation. The Thistleworth at the same 250 tons under Captain Charles Smale, a different Smale from the commander of the Duke of Cambridge, was set for Bengal. The Ostend ships Victoria (also called St Mathew) under Captain Sarsfield and the Charles Galley under Captain Berribrant introduced a particular legal and commercial problem. Ostend was the principal port of the Spanish Netherlands, and the Imperial-licensed Ostend East India venture, later formalised as the Ostend Company, was at this period the principal interloper on the English and Dutch East India monopolies. An Ostend ship calling at St Helena for water, provisions or repair could be treated as a friendly vessel under the law of nations, but providing assistance to her would have aided a commercial competitor in direct breach of the Company's interest. The bench's refusal of stay, assistance or provisions, and the firing on the Victoria to bring her to anchor, were approved by the directors as a correct calibration: forcing the vessel to come to under guns established the island's jurisdiction over her, while the refusal of provisions ensured that no Company resource was diverted to her use. Speculations The directors' explicit commendation of the bench's behaviour towards the Ostend ships was unusual in the present run of correspondence, which had otherwise been principally concerned with complaint. The contrast suggested that the home bench had been preparing to write sharply on the matter had the council provisioned the interlopers, and that the council's correct conduct had averted a confrontation already drafted. The careful naming of both ships and both captains, with the alternative name St Mathew recorded against the Victoria, pointed to detailed reporting from the bench that the directors had credited as well-judged. The act of firing at the Victoria to bring her to anchor, rather than simply ordering her off, identified a deliberate exercise of armed sovereignty against an Ostend vessel under Imperial colours. The directors' approval signalled that the Company would back the bench's use of the island's guns against a foreign-flag interloper, even at the risk of diplomatic complaint from the Imperial court. The calculation underlying this approval was probably that the Ostend competition presented a sufficient commercial threat to the Company's monopoly to justify firm action at every point of contact, and that the home Court of Committees would defend the bench against any consequent representation from Brussels or Vienna. | |
112 | By Ship Success new attempts to the Trade of the Nation as well as to Us, On the first News of the Dutch[?] being at Suratt & calling in at S[t] Helena, We laid the Acc[oun]t (by Petition to his Majesty) before the Privy Council & with a becoming Earnestness represented the threat[e]ning Mischeifs likely to[?] ensue To his Majesty in His Customs To the Tr[ade] & Navigation of Great Britain in Generall & this Company in particular That We had reason to believe Some of his Majestys Subjects were at the bottom of this Project notwithstanding the pretence of the Emperours Comission or the Count de Clermonts Pass which that Ship procured wh[ich] upon His Royal Highness the Prince (in His Maj[esty]s absence) issued out a Proclamation (Copys th[ereof] enclosed) to Strengthen the Acts of Parlia[men]t w[hi]ch not only forbid all his Maj[es]ty Subjects visiti[ng] or trading to the East Indies or to Serve in any Ship with foreign Comissions bound thither but lik[e] wise recalls Such as Shall be there The Attorn[ey] Generall has instructions from his Royal High ness to consider & report how far any of his Maj[es]ty[s] Subjects English Scotch or Irish concerned in the[se] Voyages of Such Ships are punishable by the Laws now in being We have also Encouragem[ent] to believe That the Parliament will at y[e] ap proaching Session Supply the Defects if any & provid[e] Such further restraints as may effectu[ally] deter any future attempts by his Maj[es]ty[s] Subject[s] We have reason to believe the Dutch Comp[any] are Sensible This evil will Effect them Also yo[u]r Margin Notes: ab[ou]t y[e] Interlopers | By ship Success. (About the interlopers.) New attempts to the trade of the nation, as well as to the Company, had been considered. On the first news of the [Dutch] being at Surat and calling in at St Helena, the matter had been laid by petition to His Majesty before the Privy Council. With becoming earnestness, the threatening mischiefs likely to ensue had been represented to His Majesty in his customs, to the trade and navigation of Great Britain in general, and to this Company in particular. Reason had been given to believe that some of His Majesty's subjects were at the bottom of the project, notwithstanding the pretence of the Emperor's commission, or the Count de Clermont's pass, which that ship procured. Upon this, His Royal Highness the Prince, in His Majesty's absence, had issued out a proclamation, copies whereof were enclosed, to strengthen the Acts of Parliament. The proclamation not only forbade all His Majesty's subjects from visiting or trading to the East Indies, or serving in any ship with foreign commissions bound thither, but likewise recalled such as should be there. The Attorney General had instructions from His Royal Highness to consider and report how far any of His Majesty's subjects, English, Scotch or Irish, concerned in the voyages of such ships, were punishable by the laws now in being. Encouragement had also been received to believe that the Parliament would at the approaching meeting supply the defects, if any, and provide such further restraints as might effectually deter any future attempts by His Majesty's subjects.
Interpretations The petition to His Majesty in Council established the principal channel by which the Company invoked royal authority against interlopers. The Court of Committees had moved at the highest constitutional level, presenting the threat to the Crown's customs revenue, to the national navigation interest and to the Company's monopoly as a single bundle. By framing the harm to His Majesty's customs first, the directors aligned the Company's private interest with the fiscal interest of the Crown, which was the surest way to secure executive action. The customs duties on East India goods at import into England formed a substantial component of the royal revenue, and any trade that bypassed the Company also bypassed the duty. The proclamation issued by His Royal Highness the Prince, in the absence of His Majesty, supplied the executive instrument to reinforce the existing Acts of Parliament. The Prince here was George Augustus, Prince of Wales, acting as guardian of the realm during the absence of His Majesty King George I in Hanover. The proclamation operated on two fronts: prohibitive, forbidding subjects from sailing in foreign-commissioned ships to the East Indies, and recalling, requiring those already so engaged to return. The recall element converted the prohibition into a retroactive instrument, capable of stripping the interloper ships of their British seamen wherever they were found. The Emperor's commission and the Count de Clermont's pass identified the legal cover under which the interloper was operating. An Imperial commission issued under the authority of the Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI, sovereign of the Spanish Netherlands after the Treaty of Utrecht, gave the Ostend venture a colour of lawful trade under the law of nations. The Count de Clermont's pass functioned as a personal sponsorship from a high-ranking noble, lending diplomatic protection to the voyage. The directors' position was that, behind these foreign documents, English subjects were the real principals, and that the Crown could reach them through its jurisdiction over its own subjects regardless of the foreign flag. The Attorney General's instructions identified the criminal-law dimension. The law officer was directed to report how far English, Scotch or Irish subjects involved in such voyages were punishable under existing law, which signalled that prosecutions of named individuals were under consideration. The reference to the approaching meeting of Parliament held out the prospect of fresh legislation to fill any gaps that the Attorney General might identify. The connection back to the consultations of 2 August 1715 on the Eagle Galley mutiny case, in which mutineers and would-be pirates faced Company prosecution, was structural: in each instance, the home authorities sought to extend the reach of English law to subjects acting outside the realm under irregular foreign colours. Speculations The directors' detailed reporting of the diplomatic and legal action to the council at St Helena suggested a deliberate purpose beyond simple information. The home bench had been preparing the council for an extended campaign of refusal at the island, in which Ostend and similar vessels would be turned away without provisions despite their Imperial colours, and the bench needed to be able to cite the proclamation in answer to any captain who pressed his right of resort as a friendly foreigner. By sending copies of the proclamation, the directors had supplied the council with the documentary instrument to back the firing on the Victoria and the refusal of the Charles Galley already commended at paragraph 6. The mention of His Majesty's absence, with the Prince acting in his place, pointed to the timing pressure under which the proclamation had been issued. A measure of this constitutional weight would ordinarily have awaited the King's return, but the directors had pressed for action before the Surat-bound interloper could return through the Atlantic with a cargo. The Company's calculation had probably been that an after-the-fact proclamation would serve neither as deterrent nor as legal foundation, and that the Prince's regency authority had to be used to secure the instrument while it could still affect the voyage. | |
113 | Cap[t] Benj[ami]n Graves Com[d] for Persons in Holland are concerned in this Project how far they will contribute to y[e] Suppres sing it, what Success my Lord Cadogan His Maj[es]ty[s] Embassador Extraordinary & Plenipotentiary to the Hague Shall have in Executing y[e] Orders given him in this Affair as well to y[e] Ministers of the Emperour there & in Flanders as to the States of Holland what other Steps are takeing to put a full Stop to y[e] further Spreading of y[e] mischievous Practice as also what will be incumbent on y[ou]r parts if any more of these New Interlopers should touch at S[t] Helena for preventing any future attempt You will have an Acc[oun]t of & full directions how to Act therein from S[ir] Gregory Page Henry Lyell Esq[r] S[ir] Rob[t] Child & W[i]ll[ia]m Dawsonne Esq[r] whom We have ap pointed to be a Secret Comittee for y[e] purpose and whose Orders or the Orders of any three of them We hereby require y[e] y[ou]r Gov[ernor] Singly & you y[e] Govern[or] & Councill to Observe & follow as fully as if Signed by y[e] whole Court & We will indemnify you for so doing We have write to y[e] Coast Bay Bencoolen and Bombay That if any such Ships come to those parts they should Seize & keep in safe custody any of them notwithstanding their pretence of Foreign Comissions (from what Prince State or Potentate [s]o[e]ver) whether real counterfeit or Surreptitiously ob tain[e]d We say y[e] same to you: We have great reason to fear from Informations to be depended on That divers ill disposed Persons of Severall Nations have applied to the Maltheeses for Comissions to fight ag[ainst] y[e] Mahometans Moors & Persians because tho[?] Margin Notes: Secret[?] Com[m]ittee Inf[?] thereon Seize Inter lopers tho[?] Pretens[?]of Foreign Comiss[ions] ab[ou]t Maltheese[?] Comissions | Captain Benjamin Graves, commander. The directors had noted that persons in Holland were concerned in the project. How far they would contribute to its suppression remained to be seen. The success that my Lord Cadogan, His Majesty's Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary at The Hague, would have in executing the orders given to him in this affair, both with the ministers of the Emperor there and in Flanders, and with the States of Holland, was also to be seen. What other steps were being taken to put a full stop to the further spreading of the mischievous practice would appear in due course. (Secret committee thereon.) As to what would be incumbent on the bench, if any more of these new interlopers should touch at St Helena, for preventing any future attempt, the council would have an account of, and full directions how to act therein, from Sir Gregory Page, Henry Lyell Esq, Sir Robert Child and Mr Dawsonne Esq. They had been appointed to be a secret committee for that purpose. Their orders, or the orders of any three of them, the directors hereby required the governor singly, and the governor and council, to observe and follow as fully as if signed by the whole court. The Company would indemnify the bench for so doing.
(As to Mathew commission.) The same was said to the council at St Helena. Great reason was had to fear, from informations to be depended on, that several persons of several nations, of a low and ill disposed character, had applied to the Malthese for commissions to fight against the Mahometans, Moors and Persians. Because the Interpretations The diplomatic offensive at The Hague identified the Company's strategy as one of coordinated pressure on multiple courts. My Lord Cadogan, William Cadogan, 1st Earl Cadogan, served as British Ambassador Extraordinary at The Hague and held the personal confidence of King George I. By placing the matter in his hands, the Company secured the highest grade of diplomatic representation at the Dutch capital, where pressure could be applied simultaneously on the States General of the United Provinces, on the resident Imperial minister representing the Emperor Charles VI, and on the Flanders interest through which the Ostend trade was organised. The reference to persons in Holland concerned in the project confirmed that the financial backers of the interloper venture were established in the Dutch Republic, even where the legal cover came from Imperial Ostend. The secret committee was a distinct constitutional device within the Company's own governance. Four named directors, Sir Gregory Page, Henry Lyell Esq, Sir Robert Child and Mr Dawsonne, had been delegated authority to issue orders binding on the bench as if signed by the whole Court of Committees. Sir Robert Child had already appeared as chairman of the full court at the foot of the Katherine letter. The reduced quorum of three out of four allowed the committee to operate without delay, since unanimous action of the whole court would have been impracticable for time-sensitive instructions. The Company's undertaking to indemnify the bench identified the principal hazard: an order from the secret committee might require the council to act against an Ostend ship in ways that could draw a civil suit, and the indemnity reassured the bench that personal financial exposure was covered by the Company. The seizure order at paragraph 8 extended the Company's enforcement reach across its full eastern establishment. The Coast of Coromandel, the Bay of Bengal, Bencoolen and Bombay were each instructed to seize and detain interloper ships notwithstanding foreign commissions, regardless of issuing authority and regardless of whether those commissions were genuine, forged or improperly procured. This identified a legal doctrine of disregard: the Company would not examine the validity of foreign papers, since any such examination would concede the legitimacy of the underlying commission. The same instruction now reached St Helena, placing the island within the same enforcement network as the eastern factories. The Malthese commissions identified a distinct legal route by which adventurers could obtain colour of lawful violence at sea. The Order of Saint John at Malta, as a sovereign religious order, issued commissions to fight against the Mahometans, Moors and Persians under the long-standing crusade rationale. Such commissions could be used to cover acts of piracy against any Muslim shipping in the Indian Ocean, and could equally be used by interlopers to mask their commercial voyages with a religious-military pretext. The directors' concern was that low and ill disposed persons of several nations were applying for such commissions in numbers, which suggested a coordinated effort to extend the cover beyond the Mediterranean theatre for which the Order's commissions had been designed. Speculations The directors' choice to vest discretionary authority in a four-man secret committee, rather than in the chairman alone, pointed to a calculated distribution of risk. A secret committee left the full Court of Committees deniable in the event of diplomatic complaint from the Emperor or the States General, since the offending order would have come from a named subset rather than from the Company as a whole. The committee members had thereby accepted personal exposure that the Company indemnified them against, which was the same protection now extended downward to the bench at St Helena. The structure mirrored the one applied in the earlier Eagle Galley mutiny prosecution of 2 August 1715, where the bench had been required to bear the procedural risk of trying mutineers in confinement under Company authority, with the directors as the ultimate guarantor. The combination of diplomatic pressure at The Hague with armed seizure orders at every Company station suggested that the home bench had concluded that the interloper threat could not be defeated by either instrument alone. Diplomatic pressure alone would generate protracted negotiations during which the interloper voyages would continue; seizure alone would invite reprisal claims through which the Imperial and Dutch courts could press for restitution. By running both lines together, the Company aimed to make each Ostend voyage commercially unviable through the combined risk of capture at the Cape, refusal of provisions at St Helena, seizure at the Indian factories, and recall of British subjects from the crews under the proclamation. | |
114 | By Ship Success the Knights of Maltha are always at Wa[r] with y[e] Turks who are of that Religion, an[d] & by Vertue thereof beleiving they Shall be Sereen'd from being accounted Pyrates are go ing to cruize on all Mahometans Moors and Persians as well as Turks That they propos[e] to visit y[e] Red Sea Gulph of Persia & Places thereabouts giving for reason y[at] y[e] Richest Ships are to be Met with there That they will Endea vour also to gett Muscovite Comissions to be us[e]d when proper for their design as this Account gr[eat] ly Alarms Us We have not been wanting to re[pre] sent it to the Privy Council lately & to express Our Deep concerne not knowing how far the threat[e]ning mischeif may Spread it Self On perusing yo[u]r Consultation of y[e] 11 Ma[y] when y[e] Victoria arived S[t] Helena We find th[e] Gov[ernor] to be commended for his Zeal for Our Service in fireing upon her & that M[r] Goswell and M[r] Bazett did not do their Duty at Muddens point for w[hi]ch they are highly Culp ble & ought to be censured Severely for not obeying Our Generall Orders & y[e] Governours grounded thereupon We find therein Some of Our unfaithfull Servants at Surat Asisted th[e] foe in w[hi]ch We shall reward them as they deserv[e] & put it out of their power to Act a Second part therein We Observe y[e] different Opinion[s] of the Captains & others at y[e] Consultation w[hich] like the Governours much y[e] best w[hich] if he Margin Notes: also Muscovite Comissions Gov[ernor] commend[e]d Cap[t] Goswell Cap[t] Bazett blamd | By ship Success. The Knights of Malta were always at war with the Turks, who were of that religion. By virtue thereof, believing they would be screened from being accounted pirates, those with such commissions were prepared to cruise on all Mahometans, Moors and Persians as well as Turks. They proposed to visit the Red Sea, the Gulph of Persia and places thereabouts, giving for reason that the richest ships were to be met with there. (Also Muscovite commissions.) They would also endeavour to get Muscovite commissions, to be used when proper for their design. As this account greatly alarmed the directors, they had not been wanting to represent it to the Privy Council lately, and to express their deep concern, not knowing how far the threatening mischief might spread itself.
Interpretations The Maltese commission analysis identified the legal cover under which the projected piracy was to operate. The Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, sovereign at Malta, was technically at perpetual war with the Ottoman Porte by reason of its religious foundation, and could therefore issue letters of marque against Ottoman shipping that carried genuine legal weight in European courts. The directors' concern was that the holders of such commissions were prepared to extend their reach beyond Ottoman vessels in the Mediterranean, treating any Muslim ship as legitimate prize on the rationale that Mahometans, Moors and Persians were of the same religion as the Turks. The Red Sea and the Gulf of Persia were named as the intended cruising grounds because the richest cargoes, principally Mocha coffee and Indian and Persian goods bound for Mecca and Basra, passed through those waters with limited European naval protection. The Muscovite commission identified a parallel legal instrument from a different sovereign. Tsar Peter I had established Russia as a recognised European power, and a Russian commission would have given a cruiser equivalent legal standing under the law of nations. The willingness of the adventurers to seek commissions from any available authority confirmed that the underlying voyage was commercial piracy dressed in whatever sovereign colour could be procured. The directors' report to the Privy Council placed the matter as a national rather than a Company concern, since indiscriminate attacks on Muslim shipping in the Indian Ocean would have drawn reprisals against all European trade in the region. The censure of Captain Haswell and Captain Bazett at Mundens point introduced a sharp local dimension. Mundens point was the principal defensive battery at the entrance to James valley, commanding the approach to the road where shipping anchored. The two captains had not done their duty at this position when the Victoria arrived on 11 May, a failure that contrasted directly with the governor's zeal in firing upon her. The reference to the Company's general orders, and the governor's grounded thereupon, identified two layers of authority: the standing instructions from London, of which the directors' present orders against interlopers formed part, and the local commands issued by the governor in application of those general orders. Both had been disobeyed at Mundens. Mr Bazett had appeared in the consolidated record across earlier consultations: he had been responsible for stores accounts at the interrogation of 1 April 1714 on the arrack leakage; named to the appraisal panel for the Carne yams on 23 August 1715; named to the inventory of plantation house and Lufkins on 5 April 1715; and identified as the recipient of the Hollwell salary referral and other accounting duties through the period. The unfaithful servants at Surat identified a third front in the directors' enforcement effort. Company servants stationed at the principal Mughal port had assisted the interlopers, presumably by supplying intelligence on the movements of Indiamen, by negotiating local provisions for the interloper crews, or by acting as factors for the Imperial-licensed cargoes. The directors' undertaking to reward them as they deserved and to put it out of their power to act a second part therein identified a programme of dismissal and probable prosecution, with the operative effect of removing the servants from any future position in which they could repeat the offence. Speculations The directors' careful separation of the governor's commendation from the censure of Haswell and Bazett pointed to a deliberate use of the audit record to set precedent. By recording approval of the governor's zeal and disapproval of the two captains' default in the same paragraph, the home bench established a contrast that would be cited in any subsequent occasion of a foreign ship arriving in the road. The next governor or captain who failed to act could be pointed to this entry as the recognised standard. The reference to the consultation of 11 May 1716, with its different opinions of the captains and others, suggested that the bench had been divided on whether to fire on the Victoria, and that the governor had carried the action against significant internal opposition. The directors' approval thereby endorsed the governor's authority to act decisively over the objections of his own captains in a future case. The choice to censure Haswell and Bazett by name in the present despatch, while leaving the actual penalty undefined, pointed to the directors' usual practice of administrative discipline calibrated to circumstance. The bench at the island would receive the censure and would be free to impose the appropriate consequence, whether suspension of gratuity, withholding of salary or removal from a particular command, on the same model as the storekeeper's second discussed at paragraph 63 of the Katherine letter. The flexibility allowed the local penalty to match the local proofs without committing the directors in London to a specific sanction that might later prove disproportionate. | |
115 | By Ship Success the Knights of Maltha are always at Wa[r] with y[e] Turks who are of that Religion, an[d] & by Vertue thereof beleiving they Shall be Sereen'd from being accounted Pyrates are go ing to cruize on all Mahometans Moors and Persians as well as Turks That they propos[e] to visit y[e] Red Sea Gulph of Persia & Places thereabouts giving for reason y[at] y[e] Richest Ships are to be Met with there That they will Endea vour also to gett Muscovite Comissions to be us[e]d when proper for their design as this Account gr[eat] ly Alarms Us We have not been wanting to re[pre] sent it to the Privy Council lately & to express Our Deep concerne not knowing how far the threat[e]ning mischeif may Spread it Self On perusing yo[u]r Consultation of y[e] 11 Ma[y] when y[e] Victoria arived S[t] Helena We find th[e] Gov[ernor] to be commended for his Zeal for Our Service in fireing upon her & that M[r] Goswell and M[r] Bazett did not do their Duty at Muddens point for w[hi]ch they are highly Culp ble & ought to be censured Severely for not obeying Our Generall Orders & y[e] Governours grounded thereupon We find therein Some of Our unfaithfull Servants at Surat Asisted th[e] foe in w[hi]ch We shall reward them as they deserv[e] & put it out of their power to Act a Second part therein We Observe y[e] different Opinion[s] of the Captains & others at y[e] Consultation w[hich] like the Governours much y[e] best w[hich] if he Margin Notes: also Muscovite Comissions Gov[ernor] commend[e]d Cap[t] Goswell Cap[t] Bazett blamd | Captain Benjamin Graves, commander. In future, the governor was to do his utmost for the Company's service in what was committed to his care. This would, in good measure, atone for some things taken to be amiss. The argument then used, and when the Charles Galley was at the island, relating to the constant custom of all nations allowing pratique, or at least the freedom of wood and water in their ports, must never be admitted for good by any of the bench. As to these ships, St Helena was the Company's property. The Company kept a dead yearly charge for the benefit of its own ships. Nobody had any right to make use of it in any wise against the Company's liking. These ships broke in on the Company's privilege, and did the Company harm, and therefore should have no benefit there. As to the settled trading Companies, whether Dutch, French or Danes, the Company did not intend to deny them the liberty of the island for water or provisions, or the privilege of the road, because they gave the Company's ships the like when wanted in their ports. The bench was, however, to be sure that none took the advantage but those who really belonged to those Companies.
Interpretations The pratique doctrine identified the legal point on which the bench at the island had been operating an erroneous policy. Pratique was the grant of permission to come ashore and trade after the satisfaction of quarantine and customs formalities, recognised in continental and English maritime practice as a matter of comity between nations. The bench had reasoned by analogy from this general custom to the right of a foreign ship calling at St Helena to receive wood and water at minimum. The directors here rejected the analogy entirely on the ground that St Helena was Company property and not a national port. The dead yearly charge identified the standing cost of maintaining the island establishment, garrison, fortifications, plantations and stores, borne by the Company as a private commercial proprietor for the benefit of its own shipping. A foreign vessel taking provisions at the island therefore drew on a private subsidy paid by the Company's adventurers, not on a public resource of the English Crown. The distinction drawn between interlopers and settled trading companies established the operative working rule for the bench's reception of foreign-flag ships. The Dutch United East India Company, the French Compagnie des Indes Orientales and the Danish Asiatic Company were each recognised national monopolies of long standing, with which the English Company enjoyed reciprocal access. The bench was therefore to give these vessels water, provisions and the privilege of the road on the principle of mutual concession, since the English Company's ships received the same treatment at Batavia, the French Indian factories and the Danish establishment at Tranquebar. The Ostend venture, by contrast, was an interloper on the monopolies of all four established Companies, and reciprocity could not be claimed. The bench was further required to verify that any vessel claiming the privilege as a settled trading company ship was genuinely such. The qualification recognised the risk that an interloper would arrive flying the colours of a recognised Company and would claim provisions on that footing. Verification could be made by examining the ship's papers, the master's commission and the consistency of her cargo and crew with a recognised Company voyage. The same documentary scrutiny had already been applied in the Ostend cases of the Victoria and the Charles Galley at paragraph 6. The Swedish privateer warning identified a quite distinct threat in the home waters. Sweden under King Charles XII was at this period engaged in the closing phase of the Great Northern War against Russia, Denmark, Saxony-Poland, Hanover and Prussia. Swedish privateers operated under royal commissions against the shipping of the allied powers, principally in the Baltic and the Sound. The intelligence reported was that English seamen had been observed on board captured prizes boasting of a project to purchase ships at Calais, fit them out under Swedish commissions and colours, and use them to surprise homeward and outbound East Indiamen in or near the Downs. This combined the interloper problem with the privateering problem: English subjects operating under a foreign sovereign commission, using the cover of legitimate prize-taking to commit what would in effect be piracy against their own nation's shipping. King George I as Elector of Hanover was directly at war with Sweden, which gave the Swedish commissions colour against any British merchantman. Speculations The directors' careful framing of St Helena as private Company property, rather than as a national or imperial possession, pointed to a deliberate legal position taken to forestall any future claim against the bench's refusals. By declining to admit the pratique doctrine at all, the directors prevented the formation of a precedent on which a future foreign captain could rely. The dead yearly charge argument was not merely descriptive but functioned as a legal foundation: since the Company bore the cost, the Company controlled the access, and no general custom of the law of nations operated to constrain that control. This position would later be tested when foreign vessels in genuine distress claimed humanitarian succour, but the directors had laid the groundwork here for the bench to refuse even those claims if the ship was an interloper. The Calais project reported by the masters identified a specific concentration of risk against East India shipping in or near the Downs. The directors' notice to all captains, taken together with the seizure orders to the eastern factories and the proclamation against subjects serving in foreign-commissioned ships, formed the third element of an integrated defensive scheme. Each Indiaman was to be armed and prepared for attack as it lay in the Downs awaiting wind, and the captains were to be alert to the possibility that an apparently Swedish privateer might in fact be a re-flagged interloper crewed by English seamen. The pattern matched the multi-front strategy already evident in paragraph 7, with diplomatic pressure at The Hague, executive proclamation through the Prince Regent, criminal investigation by the Attorney General, and now active maritime vigilance against the privateering route by which the same persons might attempt the same trade in a different legal disguise. | |
116 | By Ship Success that they may keep a good Look out when th[ey] come near our Channell whilst in it & on the entrance into the Downes That they Stay w[ith] as Little as possible & trust no Colours Let them also know That y[e] Sallee men have late[ly] broke y[e] Peace with Us & taken Some of Our Ships We have not yet open War w[i]th the Sweden but very likely there Soon will be One declared therefore be you on yo[u]r Guard & trust no Ships lest they Should be Swedes in disguise & Enemys We have this Year New modelled the Charterparty reduced the Severall Parts into a Progressive Order The Clauses of Freight and Demorage & other Covenants w[hi]ch lay before scatter[e]d up & down in Severall parts of the Charterparty & in the Endorsements are now joyned together many of them in Order of time according to y[e] Ships proceedings from her first taking Up to the End of the Voyage & others according to the Covenants which respect the Part Owners & Masters to be perform[ed] on their parts or the Company to comply with on theirs Some Covenants in the former are in this omitted others alter[e]d & some Addition[s] made & in the Copy or Book Charterparty as We call it are also Large Marginal Notes pointing out the Contents of y[e] Covena[n]ts against w[hi]ch they are Sett of these We have given an Acc[oun]t to Our Settlements in India by way of recap[itulation?] to Margin Notes: Sallee Men Crab[?]s Peace Not Yet War [w/?] Sweden Charterparty (now Sent) new modelled | By ship Success. The captains, with the council, had been given notice hereof, that they might keep a good lookout when they came near the channel, whilst in it, and on the entrance into the Downs. They were to stay there as little as possible, and to trust no colours. (Sallee men breaking peace.) The bench was also to know that the Sallee men had broken the peace with the Company, and had taken some of the Company's ships. (Not yet war with Sweden.) Open war with Sweden had not yet been declared. Very likely, however, there would soon be one declared thereon. The bench was to be on its guard, and to trust no ships, lest they should be Swedes in disguise and enemies.
Interpretations The Sallee men were the corsairs of Sallee, the Atlantic port on the Moroccan coast that operated as a quasi-autonomous privateering republic under the nominal authority of the Sultan of Morocco. Sallee rovers had preyed on English, French and Dutch shipping in the Atlantic approaches throughout the seventeenth century, and treaties of peace with the English Crown had been intermittent. The breaking of the peace identified here meant that homeward Indiamen passing the latitude of the Moroccan coast on their final leg to the channel were now at risk of capture by Sallee cruisers operating on the formal authority of a sovereign treaty rupture, in addition to the threat from Swedish privateers and Calais-based interlopers in the channel itself. The Swedish position remained one of imminent rather than actual war at the date of the despatch. King George I, in his electoral capacity as Elector of Hanover, had joined the alliance against Sweden in the Great Northern War in 1715, but a formal declaration of war between Great Britain and Sweden had not yet been issued. The directors' instruction to trust no ships, lest they should be Swedes in disguise and enemies, captured the ambiguity precisely: a Swedish privateer encountering an English ship at sea before formal declaration could still take her on the calculation that war would shortly follow and the prize would be condemned in retrospect. The bench was therefore to act as if war existed regardless of the formal position. The charter party reform identified a major administrative restructuring of the Company's principal commercial instrument. A charter party was the contract between the Company and the owners of a ship taken up for a particular voyage, setting out the terms of freight, the demurrage payable for delay, the obligations of the master and the rights of the Company as charterer. The new model arranged the clauses in progressive order following the voyage sequence: clauses relating to the initial taking-up of the ship grouped first, clauses on the outward voyage next, then those on lading at the Indian factories, the homeward passage and the final delivery in the river. Clauses respecting the part owners and masters were grouped together, as were those binding on the Company. The book charter party, with large marginal notes summarising the content of each clause, functioned as the reference copy for use at the factories. The progressive ordering was a significant procedural advance. Under the older arrangement, a master or captain seeking to ascertain his obligations at a particular stage of the voyage had to search through the entire instrument, since clauses on related matters were scattered through the document and across endorsements added at successive renewals. The new model placed the relevant provisions where they would be needed in the order of operations, which would reduce the scope for inadvertent breach and for dispute over which clause applied at a given point. The marginal notes provided a finding index, allowing a clause to be located by its subject rather than its position. Speculations The directors' detailed reporting of the charter party reform to the bench at St Helena, when the island was not itself a party to the charter parties and had no role in their negotiation, suggested that the new instrument would have direct operational consequences at the road. Each Indiaman calling at the island would be subject to the new clauses, and the bench would need to know the terms in order to enforce them against masters seeking to alter their voyage, refuse passengers or claim provisions. The reference back to the council's earlier handling of the Allison change of voyage and sale of goods on 21 June 1715, closed in the consolidated record, identified the kind of matter on which the charter party terms would govern the bench's response. The simultaneous publication of the same reformed charter party to the Indian settlements identified the Company's design as one of uniform application across all stations where Indiamen called. By giving the bench at St Helena the same reference instrument as the councils at Madras, Bombay, Bengal and Bencoolen, the directors ensured that a master could not seek to exploit divergent interpretations of his obligations at different stations on the same voyage. The progressive ordering made consistent application easier, since each station encountered the master at a particular stage of the voyage and could apply the clauses governing that stage without needing to construe the whole instrument. | |
117 | Cap[t] Benj[.] Graves Com[d] to them in divers particulars which dont im m[e]diately conce[r]ne you & therefore We dont add the Same here w[ha]t doth or in Some measure may is as foll[ows] (Vizt) You will find in §[.] 5 a plain Rule for adjusting y[e] Price & paym[en]t of Goods Da maged outward bound & We require you from time to time to take care to acquaint the Mast[ers] early with w[ha]t Goods are damaged for if you dont We shall bear the Lo[s]s & not y[e] Ship & be sure to ad just y[e] damage according to the Tenour of the Present Charterparty You will perceive by this Charterparty all unlicensed Goods are declared & Covenanted to be forfeited according to the Act Whereas in y[e] former there was a Sort of Liberty in the paying twenty p[er] Cent & Double freight So that if they bring to You Unlicenc[]ed Goods & would impose upon You their Own prices You may lett them know That they ought not to have Traded therein W[i]z[?] y[ou] will Advise Us therof especially if they therewith Endeavour to Supply the Private Storehouses you so justly complain of as detrimentall to Ours That you may be y[e] better appri[s]ed of y[e] Alterations in the present Charterparty We Send You herewith its Copy for your perusall & have filled Up y[e] Blanks of y[e] by y[e] Success for yo[u]r better instruction Wherefore appoint a day after her Dispatch to read it over deliberately in Consultation for all yo[u]r informa tion That you may thereby consider if any y[e] Clauses or Covenants therein s[ai]d are likely to Margin Notes: acq[uain]t Cap[t] early of Goods damag[ed?] Unlicen[se]d Goods forfeit[ed] [?]ot Sold to private persons how ever ab[ou]t it C[hart]erparty [?] to read & [?] Char[t]erparty | Captain Benjamin Graves, commander. The reformed charter party concerned the Indian settlements in divers particulars, which did not immediately concern the bench at St Helena. The directors therefore did not add the same here. What did, or in some measure may, was as follows. (Acquaint captains early of goods damaged.) In folio 5 of the charter party, a plain rule would be found for adjusting the price and payment of goods damaged outward bound. The directors required the bench, from time to time, to take care to acquaint the masters early with what goods were damaged. If the bench did not, the Company would bear the loss, and not the ship. The bench was to be sure to adjust the damage according to the tenor of the present charter party. (Unlicensed goods forfeit.) By the new charter party, all unlicensed goods were declared and covenanted to be forfeited according to the Act. By the former charter party, there had been a sort of liberty by the paying of twenty per cent double freight. So if the masters brought unlicensed goods to the bench, they would impose upon the bench their own prices. The bench might let them know that they ought not to have traded therein. The bench was to advise the directors thereof, especially if any therewith endeavoured to supply the private storehouses on the island, of which so just complaint had been made as detrimental to the Company. (Copy of new charter party.) That the bench might be better apprised of the alterations in the present charter party, a copy was sent herewith. The blanks of that by the Success had been filled up, for the bench's better instruction. The bench was therefore to appoint a day after the Success's despatch to read it over deliberately in consultation, for all the bench's information. The bench could thereby consider whether any of the clauses or covenants therein, by which it ought to Interpretations The damaged goods clause at folio 5 of the new charter party established an audit obligation on the bench at St Helena that fell at the precise point of the homeward leg. Goods loaded at the Indian factories for the Company's account travelled in the holds of the chartered ships, exposed to leakage, breakage, salt water and rot during the long passage to the island. On arrival in James Road, the bench was required to identify damaged consignments and to advise the master early, so that the cause of the damage and the apportionment of liability could be settled while the relevant witnesses and stores remained available. Delay would shift the loss from the shipowner to the Company, because a master could plausibly argue that damage identified only on later inspection in the Thames had arisen between the island and home rather than under his charge. The plain rule for adjusting the price and payment converted the bench's inspection into the operative valuation event. The unlicensed goods reform identified a substantive change in the Company's policy towards private trade. Under the former charter party, a captain or officer who carried East India goods for his own account outside his licensed allowance could pay a double freight of twenty per cent as a kind of penalty-tariff and retain the goods. This system had operated as a tolerated channel of private trade, with the Company collecting a premium freight in exchange for accepting the breach. The new instrument removed the option entirely: unlicensed goods were now forfeit under the Act, with no monetary composition available. The Act referred to was the controlling East India statute, which by this period had repeatedly confirmed the Company's monopoly and provided for forfeiture of goods imported in breach. The reference to private storehouses on the island identified the local manifestation of the same problem. Captains who had carried unlicensed goods on the homeward leg could land them clandestinely at St Helena, deposit them in the storehouses of resident planters or merchants, and either sell them on for the homeward consumption of subsequent ships or arrange their later collection. The detrimental practice complained of identified a leak in the Company's monopoly comparable to the Antigua sloop episode addressed at paragraph 78 of the Katherine letter. The bench was now required to identify any master attempting to supply such storehouses and to advise the directors directly, separately from the standard returns. The instruction to read the new charter party deliberately in consultation, on an appointed day after the Success sailed, established the document as a foundational reference rather than a passing communication. By requiring the reading to be entered as a consultation, the directors ensured that each councillor would have personal notice of the clauses and could not later plead ignorance of any provision. The day after despatch was specified because the council's attention during the Success's stay would be occupied with her business, and the reading required undivided consideration. Speculations The directors' decision to extract from the new charter party only those clauses immediately relevant to the bench, rather than relying on the council to identify the relevant provisions itself, pointed to a deliberate restriction of the bench's discretion in interpreting the instrument. The home directors selected what the council needed to know and what it did not, which left the bench without the full picture of the charter party's structure even as it was required to enforce particular clauses. The arrangement preserved control of charter party policy in London while devolving enforcement to the island. The pairing of the damaged goods rule with the unlicensed goods reform in the same despatch suggested a calculated dual pressure on shipmasters. A master would now face inspection on arrival both for goods damaged in the holds and for goods carried outside his licensed allowance, with no monetary composition available for the latter. The bench's role at the point of inspection therefore took on a heightened audit function, and the master's exposure to forfeiture and to liability for damage was sharpened. The directors had probably calculated that masters would now have a stronger incentive to declare their cargoes fully on arrival at the island, since concealment risked forfeiture of both the goods and any associated freight, while accurate declaration could at least preserve the freight on the carried portion. | |
118 | By Ship Success to Operate as to Our Ships touching at yo[u]r Island Out or home & enter yo[u]r Remarks Consultation for the remembrance of your Selves & guidance of the Gov[ernou]r & Councill in future The other Charterparty of the Success [Suc]cess We Send with her to Bencoolen Having told you these things We now re turn to take notice of what occurs to Us un der this head in yo[u]r Letters Consultations & Papers in the Packetts beginning w[i]th yo[u]r Admir[al] ab[ou]t unlading y[e] Cargo by y[e] Catharine Ob[?] your Letter of y[e] 12th August Says took up Sebenteen days time tho there was no hindrance from y[e] Weather You did right in protesting against y[e] Cap[tai]n for not compleating all in Ten days and leaving y[e] Merits of y[e] Cause to be ulttimately decided here However remember The was a la[r]ge Ship & her Cargoe cumbersome & bulky w[hi]ch [?] not be y[e] case of this & therefore is not to be tak[en] as a presedent We find a proper Entry in Consult[ation] of y[e] Severall days wherein y[e] rec[eive]d Goods & w[ha]t Boa[ts] came ashore in each continue y[e] Same method for this Ship & all others in future One thing Yet wanting therein (Viz[t] To give us an Acc[oun]t of y[e] Boats whether y[e] Ships or y[ou]r & their numb[er] then for Us to make a Tollerable Computation of y[e] Quantity of Goods brought a Shore at each [...] As We acquainted you last Year y[e] Owners w[oul]d to this Year they did insist on the Usuall Custom[?] Margin Notes: Some Remarks of Charter party in Consult[ation] ab[ou]t y[e] Kath[arine] unlading right in protest[?] ent[r]y [...] daily prop[er] & to be continu[ed] | By ship Success. The charter party was to operate as to the Company's ships touching at the island, out or home. The bench was to put its remarks of the charter party in consultation, for the remembrance of the bench itself and for the guidance of the governor and council in future. The other charter party of the Success had been sent with her to Bencoolen.
(Entries here mentioned proper, and to be continued.) The directors found a proper entry in consultation of the several days wherein the received goods and the boats came ashore. In each, the bench continued the same method for this ship and all others in future. One thing was, however, yet wanting therein, namely, to give an account of the boats, whether the ship's or the bench's, and their number. From this, the directors could make a tolerable computation of the quantity of goods brought ashore at a time. As had been acquainted last year, the owners would, as to this year, deal with the bench on the usual Interpretations The unlading dispute identified a recurring contractual flashpoint between the bench and the ship's master. The charter party stipulated a fixed number of days, here ten, within which the master was bound to land his outward cargo at the island. Delay beyond that period generated demurrage, the daily compensation payable by the party causing the delay. The Katherine's sixteen days, in fair weather, exceeded the allowance by six days, and the bench had entered a protest against the captain to preserve the Company's right to recover. The directors approved the protest as the correct procedural step, and approved the deferral of merits to London where the question of liability could be adjudicated on the documentary record. The directors' qualification that the Katherine had been a large ship with cumbersome and bulky cargo, and that the case was not to be treated as a precedent, identified the contractual point with precision. The ten-day allowance under the charter party was a standard term applied to vessels of a standard size and cargo profile. A larger ship carrying heavier or more awkward goods reasonably required longer, and the charter party term should not be applied mechanically to defeat the master where the underlying conditions had changed. The bench's correct conduct of the Katherine protest preserved the procedural position without committing the Company to an unsustainable rule. The boats and lading record introduced an audit refinement aimed at improving the directors' ability to assess unloading performance from London. The bench had begun entering in consultation the days on which goods came ashore and the receipt of those goods, which gave a daily timeline. What the bench had not entered was the number and ownership of the boats used. A ship landing her cargo by her own ship's boats, with the limited crew available for boatwork while the rest were employed on shipboard tasks, would necessarily land more slowly than the same ship using a fleet of bench boats manned with island labour. By recording the boat numbers and ownership, the bench would give the directors the data to distinguish a master's genuine effort from a master who was holding back his boats in order to claim demurrage on the resulting delay. The reference to the owners dealing with the bench on the usual terms identified the standard commercial arrangement under which the part owners of the chartered ships paid the bench for ship's services rendered at the island. This included pilotage in and out of the road, provisioning, water and any landing assistance supplied by the bench's own boats. The arrangement converted such services into a billable account that the bench rendered to the owners through the Company's London office. Speculations The directors' careful treatment of the Katherine protest, with approval of the bench's procedure but rejection of any precedent value, pointed to a calibrated balance between two conflicting interests. A strict application of the ten-day rule against masters of large ships would produce a steady flow of demurrage cases that would have to be defended in London, with adverse decisions setting precedents harmful to the Company's relations with shipowners. A relaxed application would deprive the bench of leverage against masters who genuinely delayed for their own commercial purposes. The directors' position, that the protest was correct but the Katherine was not a precedent, preserved both the bench's procedural power and the Company's flexibility in actually pressing the claim through to recovery. The instruction to record the number and ownership of boats employed in unlading suggested that the directors suspected masters of manipulating the unloading rate to generate demurrage claims against the Company, by holding ship's boats back while the bench's boats laboured alone. If the records would show that the master had supplied few or no boats while the bench had supplied many, the demurrage claim could be defeated on the documentary record without the need for oral evidence months after the event. The new boat-count entry thus operated as an evidentiary safeguard built into the consultation procedure itself. | |
119 | Cap[t.] Benj[.] Graves Com[d] of Ten days time to be allowed for unlading the Ship beyond w[hi]ch they expected Demorage & We did not think fitt to press them too much however y[ou]r Intimations thereupon were not a miss But y[ou]r remark We must add That as the rule has been of Long Standing & ground ed upon large Experience So it is very plain That heretofore Ten working days was thoug[ht] a reasonable time on both Sides & shews y[at] then there was more expedition used & y[e] Persons em ployed were more diligent than of late The Advices We expect from You ab[ou]t our Shipping coming to or leaving S[t] Helena with y[e] respective times & other matters relat ing thereto together with y[e] particular News you hear of ours or other European Ships in y[e] East Indies & when they are expected have been so full that We need only Say re peruse & comply therewith on all Occasions & amongst y[e] rest with w[hi]ch contained in y[e] 23 Par[.] of our Letts[?] we do y[e] Last Year by y[e] Kath[arine] The Letters now before us give a good Specimen y[ou] do rightly observe our directions in part on y[ou]r head You give yo[u]r Selves to Censure Us at parti cularly y[?] of y[e] [...] yo[u] took ab[ou]t the Nathaniel of the Assistance afforded y[e] Disbouverie as to her damaged Goods and the Quantity of Bales rewasht at Lemon Valley & y[e] Plantation house with the Margin Notes: Work[?] days ought enc[?] Advices ab[ou]t Shipping in part well don & Comply Note dow advising ab[ou]t y[e] Nath[aniel?] Disbouverie | Captain Benjamin Graves, commander. The allowance was for ten days time for unlading the ship. Beyond this, demurrage was expected. The directors did not think fit to press the bench too much. The bench's intimations thereupon were not amiss. The remark must, however, be added that, as the rule had been of long standing and grounded upon large experience, it was very plain that heretofore ten labouring days had been thought a reasonable time on both sides. Showing that there was more expedition used, and that the persons employed were more diligent then, than of late.
Interpretations The labouring days reference identified the operative meaning of the ten-day rule under the charter party. Demurrage allowances were calculated in labouring days, that is, days on which the unlading could in fact proceed, excluding Sundays and days lost to weather. The directors' historical note that ten labouring days had heretofore been thought reasonable on both sides converted the bench's protest against the Katherine into a finding of declining performance: the present standard had fallen below what had been routinely achieved in earlier years, with implications for both the bench's organisation of landing labour and the masters' commitment of ship's boats and crew. The decline in expedition pointed not to changing physical conditions but to a relaxation of effort by both the bench and the ships' companies. The shipping advices identified one of the bench's principal intelligence functions. As the only Atlantic possession of the Company between Europe and the Cape, St Helena was the natural reporting point for the movement of all Company and foreign European shipping passing through the South Atlantic. The bench was to record the arrival and departure dates of each Indiaman, the timing of each foreign vessel encountered, the news brought of ships still at the Indian factories or expected, and any intelligence about voyages still in progress. This information, transmitted in the regular despatches, allowed the directors in London to track the Company's homeward and outward shipping with a precision that no single port in Europe could provide. The reference back to paragraph 23 of last year's letter by the Katherine, which had given the same instruction, confirmed the standing nature of the requirement. The qualified compliance noted in the second part of paragraph 13 identified a recurring pattern: the bench observed the directors' directions in part only. The directors' letters now before them gave a good specimen of partial obedience, which fell short of the full reporting the standing order required. The diagnostic value of the directors' phrasing lay in its precision, that the present specimens were good as far as they went but did not cover all the matters the standing order had specified. The Nathaniel and Assistance references opened a new operational matter. The Nathaniel of Bencoolen identified a ship carrying that station's loading homeward, with the Bouverie afterwards calling at the island and the bench managing damaged goods at the two principal landing and storage points. Lemon Valley operated as a secondary anchorage and landing place on the south west coast of the island, used principally for ships in quarantine or for goods that needed separate handling away from the main road at James valley. The Plantation House was the senior residence and store complex of the bench's establishment, identified across the consolidated record as the place where Edward Mashborne had lived until his death on 31 March 1715, where his widow Mary Mashborne had been permitted to remain by order of 5 April 1715, and where Bazett and Tovey had carried out the stock inventory directed on 5 April 1715. The reworking of damaged bales at these two distinct locations identified a parallel processing arrangement, perhaps using Lemon Valley for damaged consignments that needed separation from sound stocks at James valley. Speculations The directors' note that more diligence had been used in earlier years pointed to a specific institutional memory in London of how the unlading process had been conducted under previous administrations. The directors most likely held the historical consultation records and the corresponding ship's logs, against which the present timings could be compared. The implicit comparison was probably with the Boucher period and before, where, despite the criticism of Boucher's general management developed at paragraph 57 of the Katherine letter, the actual mechanics of cargo handling had apparently been more efficient than the present bench achieved. The careful tracking of damaged goods through reworking at two separate locations suggested that the bench was already operating a sophisticated cargo-recovery process, but that the directors regarded the documentation of that process as more valuable than the process itself. By insisting on detailed entries of how many bales were reworked at Lemon Valley and how many at the Plantation House, the directors prepared the audit material to assess both the efficacy of the recovery and the appropriate allocation of the resulting loss between the ship and the Company under the new charter party rules at folio 5. | |
120 | By Ship Success the Condition they then appeared in Such ne tices have their Use here they often prove nec sary & are always proper The 69 & 70 Par[.] of yo[ur] Letter of y[e] 12 of Aug[ust] by y[e] Queen appear to us rather an Evasion y[an] a fair & good Answer to what We wrote You about the Antigua Sloop Trading at S[t] Helena Let Us have no more of that Sort of management Truth is always open & bold & Loves the light as it discovers it the better whilst Artifices & clandestine Practices Stand in need of y[e] dark to conceal them or of pretence or after excuses to put a fair colour upon them, Can you think that to Say She will not come again for Some reasons w[hi]ch accur'd to you afterwards is a fair Answer to y[e] part of Our 78 Par[.] w[hi]ch finds fault for y[ou]r giving Us no Account if Sho was there Shall We tell you That it is Strongly re ported some of You are in great Expectation for her & very Uneasy for fear She should not In that Letter Par[.] 27 We complain of yo[u]r deliatoryness & negligence in not Answering the Cardonnells Letter in about Two months & yet the Same fault yet continues, the Ship Kath[arine] arrived You y[e] 17th June the Queens Letter dated y[e] 12 August is full Eight Weeks after & yet Margin Notes: not So well acc[oun]t of Antigua Sloop Same fault in delays of acc[oun]t of Kath[arine] [?]le ar[r]i[ve]d Down[?] | By ship Success. The condition the bales then appeared in was such as to have their use at the island, where they often proved necessary and were always proper.
Interpretations The Antigua sloop matter brought the directors back to the breach of monopoly addressed at paragraph 78 of the Katherine letter. The bench's response in paragraphs 69 and 70 of its letter of 12 August by the Queen had stated, by way of explanation, that the sloop would not come again for reasons that had occurred afterwards. The directors here characterised this as evasion rather than answer, since it addressed the future probability rather than the past fact for which an account had been demanded. The distinction is significant: the directors had asked why the sloop had been allowed to get goods and why no report had been made; the bench had answered with a forecast about future visits, which did not engage either question. The maxim that truth was always open and bold, and loved the light identified the directors' interpretive framework for evaluating the bench's correspondence. Where a councillor or the bench as a whole gave an answer that approached the matter sideways, the home directors treated the obliquity itself as evidence of the underlying wrong. Artifices and clandestine practices needed cover, and either concealment or after-excuses to put a fair colour upon them indicated the operation of one or the other. Applied to the Antigua sloop, the bench's framing of its answer in terms of future absence rather than past presence pointed to a calculated avoidance, which by the directors' rule confirmed the substance of the complaint. The report that some of the bench had been in great expectation of the sloop, and very uneasy for fear she should not come, identified the particular kind of complicity at issue. A councillor expecting the arrival of an interloper, with private interests at stake in the goods she would purchase or supply, would have direct reason to suppress the report and to frame any answer in evasive terms. The phrase strongly reported indicated that the directors had specific intelligence from a named source at the island, probably a master, supercargo or passenger of recent acquaintance, whose account had reached London independently of the bench's own despatches. This created a parallel evidence stream against which the bench's reporting could be checked. The delays of consultation books at paragraph 16 identified a related procedural failure. The bench was required to forward the consultation books to London promptly on each homeward sailing, so that the home directors could read the consultations of recent meetings in close proximity to the events recorded. The directors had complained at paragraph 27 of an earlier letter of the bench's dilatoriness in not answering the Cardonnell's letter in about two months. The same fault now continued: the Katherine had arrived at the island on 17 June with the home letter, and the bench's reply by the Queen was dated 12 August, a full eight weeks later. The eight-week interval gave the bench ample time to compose a satisfactory response, and the persistence of the delay suggested neither pressure of business nor difficulty of substance but a settled practice of slow reply. Speculations The directors' decision to record the rumour about some of the bench's expectation of the sloop in the formal despatch suggested a deliberate use of the audit record to put each councillor on individual notice. By placing the report in the letter rather than addressing it to particular names through private channels, the home directors made the matter part of the consultation book record at the island, where it would be read aloud and entered against every councillor present at the reading. Any councillor whose conscience was clear could disavow the rumour on the record; any whose conscience was not clear would either disavow falsely, with the audit implications that followed, or would sit silent, with the same implications by inference. The technique converted the rumour into an instrument of internal pressure within the bench itself. The eight-week interval between the Katherine's arrival on 17 June and the Queen's letter of 12 August was probably not the result of administrative drift alone. A bench composed of councillors with extensive plantation interests would have other calls on their time, and the despatch of a homeward Indiaman was a major commercial event during which the council members had personal cargoes to arrange, freight to negotiate with the master and passengers to settle. The directors' complaint pressed against the priority the councillors had given to their private business over the home letters, and the persistence of the fault despite earlier complaint suggested that the underlying balance of incentives at the island still favoured the private business over the audit reply. | |
121 | Cap[t] Benj[.] Graves, Com[d] to a very great part of that Letter at least of th[e] Materiall Clauses w[hi]ch particularly respect y[e] Gen[era]ll management of Our Affairs We have no Answer what can be said to this why was not a Letter ready to be Sent against the next Ship that imported with you Lest (as was y[e] case of y[e] Queen) a Ship might arrive & not Stay above four or five day[s] We will not rest easy Under Such mannagem[en]t[s] Some other matters might be mention[e]d und[er] this Head but being done last Year & before We refer you thereto for yo[u]r Guidance & Shall only add That this Ship is to take in at y[e] Maderas Twenty five Pipes of Wine for you of which you will have Invoice & Bill of Lading from Hay ward Merchant there Let Us know in what condicon it comes & how it proves We have Or[de]r[e]d the Cap[t] to bring you Some Vine Plants enquire for & take great care of them Let y[e] Planters who will be carefull to raise Vines have any of them You can Spare Send by this Ship to Bencoolen Some Yams in Suckers or in w[ha]t way Soever best to preserve them to raise a Stock there for the Blacks & Europeans too because We are told they are wholesome if You have any Potatoes Send Some of them also with proper Direccions for raising & improving both Secondly concerning Goods or Stores Sent from England or rec[eive]d from India What this Ship brings from hence besides the Margin Notes: Madera Wine, p[i]p[e]s & Vines To send Yams to Bencoolen | Captain Benjamin Graves, commander. To a very great part of that letter, at least of the material clauses which particularly respect the general management of the Company's affairs, the directors had no answer. What could be said to this? Why was not a letter ready to be sent against the next ship that imported with the bench, lest, as was the case of the Queen, a ship might arrive and not stay above four or five days? The directors would not rest easy under such management.
(To send yams to Bencoolen.) Some yams, in tickets or in whatsoever way might best preserve them, were to be sent to raise a stock there for the blacks, and Europeans too, because the directors were told they were wholesome. If the bench had any potatoes, some of those also were to be sent, with proper directions for raising and improving both. Secondly, concerning goods or stores sent from England or received from India.
Interpretations The unanswered material clauses identified the substantive failure underlying the eight-week interval complained of at paragraph 16. The bench's reply by the Queen had not addressed the principal matters of general management raised by the directors at home. The directors' proposed solution, that a letter should be kept ready against the next ship's arrival, identified an administrative practice of continuous correspondence rather than reactive composition. The bench was to prepare its answers in standing form, with each councillor's contribution made up as the relevant matter arose, so that the despatch could be closed and despatched on whatever ship next presented, whether that ship stayed five days or fifteen. The Queen's rapid passage of four or five days had caught the bench unprepared, and the directors required the practice changed. The Madeira wine arrangement identified the established commercial route between the Atlantic islands and St Helena. Madeira wine, a fortified product of the volcanic island off the African coast, travelled exceptionally well on the long Atlantic and Indian Ocean voyages, since the heat and motion of the passage matured the wine rather than spoiling it. Twenty-five pipes amounted to a substantial consignment, since a pipe was approximately 105 gallons. The naming of Hayward as the merchant at Madeira identified the bench's regular correspondent there, through whom the invoice and bill of lading would document the shipment for audit purposes on arrival. The directors' interest in the condition and quality of the wine on arrival pointed to ongoing quality assurance of the supplier. The vine plants and the yam and potato consignment to Bencoolen revealed a coordinated programme of agricultural development across the Company's eastern establishment. The plants from Madeira were directed in part to the planters at St Helena who would be careful to raise vines, with the surplus to be carried onward to Bencoolen. The encouragement of vine cultivation at St Helena had been noted at paragraph 72 of the Katherine letter, as part of the broader programme of improving the plantations through citrus, vine and food cultivation. Yams, identified in the consolidated record as the principal local provisioning crop and the subject of the Carne yams valuation panel of 23 August 1715, were now to be exported as planting stock to support the same provisioning need at Bencoolen, where the garrison and slaves required a comparable carbohydrate base. The directors' addition of potatoes as a candidate crop, with proper directions for raising and improving both, identified St Helena as both a relay point and a horticultural experiment station for the Company's tropical settlements. The reference to blacks and Europeans too as the intended consumers of the yams at Bencoolen recognised the dual labour and garrison structure at the Sumatran factory. Slaves drawn from the Indian Ocean and East African coasts, together with European soldiers and Company servants, formed the principal population, and the cultivation of yams would supplement the rice and tropical fruits already grown in the locality. Speculations The instruction to keep a letter ready against the next ship suggested that the directors had concluded the bench's correspondence problem was structural rather than circumstantial. A bench composed of councillors with extensive private interests would always be tempted to give priority to the unloading and reloading of each ship over the composition of a careful reply to home directives. By requiring the answer to be ready in advance, the directors removed the time pressure that the councillors had been using as the practical justification for partial or evasive replies. The technique paralleled the bills-of-exchange reform of 19 July 1715, where the bench at the island had been required to lay down written proposals on a standing basis rather than producing them under the pressure of a particular bill in dispute. The simultaneous instruction to send vines, yams and potatoes to Bencoolen identified a deliberate use of St Helena as a horticultural relay rather than as a final destination for agricultural inputs. The island was placed in the Atlantic crossing, but Bencoolen lay east of the Cape and could not easily be supplied with planting stock from Europe directly. By staging the plants through St Helena, where the moderate climate would allow them to recover from the Atlantic crossing before being sent on with care for preservation, the directors maximised the chances of viable arrival at the eastern factory. The arrangement converted St Helena into a node in a planned agricultural network spanning Madeira, the island and Bencoolen, rather than a single isolated provisioning station. | |
122 | By Ship Success the Wine aforesaid you will find by her In voice & Bill of Lading & among other things That there is a parcell of Pitch & Tar you So much wanted, the Comittee of Shipping pr[o] vided other Stores according to w[ha]t they found ne cessary from yo[u]r Gen[era]ll Letter & y[e] Ship could take in but had you sent a Gen[era]ll Indent or at least men tion[e]d w[ha]t you stood in most need of besides Pitch & Tar & not have put it yet further off to a nother time as yo[u]r 9 par[.] by y[e] Queen Says y[ou] do till y[ou] can make y[ou]r Indent compleat We might have known what to Send Whereas as y[e] Case now Stands y[e] Comittee govern[e]d themselves by such part of yo[ur] Letter w[hi]ch advises only of Some Goods burning to Accounts & were or would be Soon dispe[r]sed of Your Indent by y[e] S[t] Geo[rge] was eno[ugh] to fill up two or three large Ships, had you well con siderd you would at least have divided it & have mentiond what was Absolutely necessary of every Sort of Goods or Stores, then added a nother Paper of w[ha]t would in yo[u]r Opinion have turn[e]d to Acc[oun]t if We had Tonnage Sufficient to a third of what Additionall Stores or Goods were proper but not So necessary & which most[?] tho[?] would give Us a true view what to be first Sent & what added if y[e] Ship could take it in Timber & Deals are so bulky they soon fill up a Ship whereas many of y[e] other necessarys lye in a tollerable room Remember to Govern yo[u]r Selves by y[e] consideracon[?] whenev[er] Margin Notes: Pitch & Tar Sent Gen[era]ll Indent should have had Sent w[ha]t was want[ed] Indent by Ship S[t] Geo[rge] too large | By ship Success. The wine aforesaid would be found by her invoice and bill of lading. Among other things, there was a parcel of pitch and tar, so much wanted by the bench. (General indent should have been sent of what was wanted.) The Committee of Shipping provided other stores according to what they found necessary from the bench's general letter, and what the ship could take in. Had the bench sent a general indent, or at least mentioned what it stood in most need of, besides pitch and tar, and not have put it yet further off to another time, as the 9th paragraph by the Queen said the bench would, the directors would have known what to send. Whereas, as the case now stood, the committee governed itself by such part of the letter which advised only of some goods running to account, and were, or would be, soon disposed of.
The bench's indent by the St George was enough to fill up two or three large ships. Had the bench well considered, it would at least have divided it, and have mentioned what was absolutely necessary of every sort of goods or stores. The bench should then have added another paper of what would, in its opinion, have turned to account if there was tonnage sufficient, of a third of what additional stores or goods were proper but not so necessary, and which most. This would have given the directors a true view what to be first sent, and what added if the ship could take it. Timber and deals were so bulky that they soon filled up a ship, whereas many of the other necessaries lay in a tolerable room. The bench was to remember to govern itself by what the directors Interpretations The pitch and tar consignment identified two indispensable naval stores used in the maintenance of the Company's shipping and of the local craft at the island. Pitch sealed seams and protected timbers against marine borers; tar preserved cordage and rigging. Both were Baltic products, principally drawn from Sweden, Russia and the eastern shore of the Baltic before being shipped to England for Company use. The bench's long want of these stores reflected a chronic supply shortage at the island, where every careening of a visiting Indiaman, and every repair of the bench's own boats, drew on the standing stock. The general indent system identified the Company's standing mechanism for matching demand at the factory to supply from London. An indent was a formal list of stores required, prepared by the bench and sent home in the regular despatch, against which the Committee of Shipping at home would assemble the next outward cargo. The directors' criticism here separated two distinct failures by the bench. First, the bench had failed to send a general indent at all by the Queen, postponing the document to another time and leaving the Committee of Shipping without a list to work from. Second, when the bench had sent a comprehensive indent by the St George, that document had been so large that it could not be filled in any one ship. The directors' proposed solution at paragraph 19 identified a tiered ordering system for stores. The bench was to divide its requirements into three classes: absolutely necessary, would turn to account if tonnage permitted, and proper but not so necessary. Each class was to be presented on a separate paper. This would have given the home Committee a triage list, allowing it to load the absolute necessities first, add the second category to fill remaining space, and reserve the third category for any surplus capacity. The system recognised the fundamental constraint of a sailing-ship supply chain: the next outward Indiaman had a fixed tonnage, and the bench's requirements would always be calibrated against that physical limit. The contrast drawn between timber and deals, which soon filled up a ship, and other necessaries which lay in tolerable room identified the volumetric problem in naval supply. Deals were sawn softwood planks, the standard building material for both ship construction and shore buildings; timber was the heavier sawn or hewn material used for framing and beams. Both occupied substantial cubic space relative to their value, which meant that any large building project at the island, such as the fortifications addressed at paragraph 73 of the Katherine letter and the new church proposal at paragraph 74, would crowd out smaller and more valuable stores on the same ship. The bench was therefore to differentiate between bulk and value in its requests, since timber sent in excess could exclude needed metalwork, cordage, salt provisions and trade goods. Speculations The directors' frustration at the contrast between the missing general indent of the Queen and the over-large indent of the St George pointed to a structural problem in the bench's procurement planning. A bench that postponed the indent on one despatch and then loaded all requirements onto the next was probably operating without a standing inventory system that would allow continuous tracking of stocks against expected consumption. Without such a system, each indent had to be compiled from scratch by reference to recent shortages, which produced either incomplete lists (when the compilers ran out of time) or unfeasibly long ones (when they erred on the side of inclusion). The directors' tiered ordering system was a procedural workaround for the underlying inventory failure. The careful instruction on bulk versus volume suggested that the directors had identified specific recent cases where bulky timber consignments had displaced more valuable stores on the same outward ship, with the result that essential supplies arrived in inadequate quantity. The bench's preference for substantial timber consignments was probably driven by the fortification and building programme, which absorbed timber in large quantities and which generated visible work onshore. Smaller stores, by contrast, were consumed quietly in the daily operation of the establishment without producing the same visible improvement. The directors' instruction here pressed against the bench's tendency to favour visible building projects over routine maintenance supplies in its requisitioning priorities. | |
123 | Cap[t] Benj[.] Graves Com[d] whenever you are drawing out yo[u]r Indents It will or should guide you in making Such demands as may appear reasonable Whereas in y[e] aforesaid Indent y[e] Comittee were Shockt at as very sight of it It looke[d] as if you had no thought of y[e] Charge of Tonnage or Demorage but expecte[d] We Should hire two or three Ships on purpose to Supply you We find in these Letters the same cause of complaint as mentiond in Ours by the Kathar[ine] many things of the Like Nature interspeist[?] here & there in yo[ur] Letters & particularly about Naval Stores, Artificers & Blacks We told you then how it Should be remedy[e]d take care it be So in all time coming that your Letters may not be Swelled to an Annecessary Length Continue to Advise the quantitys & values of each Specie of Goods Short delivered You either from hence or India or what have been Adul terated or changed in the Voyage as You did in the Case of the Catharine Cardigan Kent Derby &[c] take it always for a Rule Deals are Six Score to y[e] hundred, Our Accountants Office have Orders to express it so in the Invoices & Bills of Lading in future & be sure not to leave behind any par ticular Invoices of Goods as You mentioned was done in the Katherines Haberdashery Ware The Medicines this Year were provided at Apothecarys Hall We are Assured they are very good Advise how they prove You have been pretty particular in y[e] Gen[era]ll Letter in your remarks on the Goods rec[eive]d by the Margin Notes: Letters too large Advice of Goods Short &[c] 6 Score Deals to y[e] H[un]d[re]d[?] Adv[i]ce ab[ou]t y[e] Medicines remarks on Goods rec[eive]d well done | Captain Benjamin Graves, commander. The directors' principles would ordinarily guide the bench in making such demands as appeared reasonable. Whereas, in the aforesaid indent, the committee looked at it as if the bench had no thought of the charge of tonnage or demurrage, but expected the directors should hire two or three ships on purpose to supply them.
(Remarks on goods received some.)
Interpretations The unreasonable indent rebuke at the head of the entry crystallised the core operational discipline the home directors required of the bench. Tonnage was finite and demurrage was paid in time, with both translating into hard freight cost. A bench that submitted requirements without weighing them against the carrying capacity of available ships forced the home committee either to abandon parts of the indent or to charter additional vessels at extraordinary cost. The directors' rejection of the latter option was categorical: there would be no hiring of two or three ships on purpose to supply the island. The letter-length complaint at paragraph 20 pursued a procedural reform first pressed in the despatch by the Katherine. Particular topics, principally naval stores, artificers and slaves, had been scattered through the bench's correspondence under multiple headings, requiring the home directors to extract and reassemble each subject from across the letter. The reform required consolidation of each topic under a single head, paralleling the ranging under established general heads addressed at paragraph 1 of the present despatch. The continuing failure suggested that the bench had not yet adopted a working composition method that grouped material at draft stage rather than as despatched. The six-score deals rule at paragraph 21 identified a specific trade convention now to be reflected in the formal documentation. A hundred of deals in the timber trade meant six score, that is one hundred and twenty pieces, rather than the literal hundred. The convention had probably arisen as a customary allowance for breakage and rejected stock in long-distance shipment, but in commercial dispute it could produce serious miscounting if one side reckoned by the literal hundred and the other by the trade hundred. By instructing the accountant's office to express the invoices and bills of lading on the six-score basis going forward, the directors removed the ambiguity from the documentary record. The Company's existing audit standard, applied across the Katherine, Cardigan, Kent and Derby short-delivery and adulteration enquiries, would now run against an unambiguous unit. The reference to the Katherine's haberdashery ware identified a recent case where particular invoices had been omitted, producing a documentary gap that could not be reconstructed at the receiving end. The Apothecaries' Hall provision at paragraph 22 identified the principal London source for the Company's medical supplies. The Society of Apothecaries operated under royal charter from premises at Blackfriars and supplied the regulated drug trade to the City and to overseas establishments. Medicines supplied through the Hall carried an implicit warranty of standard composition that loose private purchasing did not, and the directors' assurance that they were very good rested on the Hall's reputation for compounded preparations. The instruction to advise how they proved at the island gave the bench an explicit feedback function, since drugs that performed poorly in the moderate climate at the island would point to either compounding defects or storage damage in transit, both of which could be addressed at home. The short-delivery and adulteration audit at paragraph 21 connected to the bench's ongoing inspection function under the new charter party. The bench was to record both quantities and values of each species short delivered, and to identify any consignment that had been adulterated or changed during the voyage. This audit data fed back into the Company's enforcement of the charter party clauses at folio 5 addressed at the Success letter's earlier paragraph 11, and into the new strict forfeiture rule for unlicensed goods. The mention of the Katherine, Cardigan, Kent and Derby identified the specific ships against which short-delivery returns had been made, which would form the documentary basis for any recovery against the masters or part-owners. Speculations The directors' insistence on the six-score deals rule, with an instruction to the accountant's office to express it so in the invoices and bills of lading in future, suggested that a recent dispute had turned on the unit count for deals supplied at the island. A master or part-owner had probably contended in London that the bench had received the full count as a literal hundred, while the bench had reckoned on six-score and had recorded a shortfall. By standardising the unit in the principal documents going forward, the directors closed the route by which such disputes could later be reopened on the original ambiguity. The reform formed part of the broader documentary discipline addressed across the present despatch, which sought to convert each transactional encounter at the island into an unambiguous audit record. The Apothecaries' Hall supply, with its explicit feedback request, pointed to an earlier period of unsatisfactory medical supply that the present arrangement aimed to remedy. The directors' careful framing, that they were assured the medicines were very good, but that the bench was to advise how they proved, suggested that the Hall arrangement was new or recently reformed, and that the directors were testing it through the bench's reporting. A negative report from the island would shift the Company's contracted source for the following season, while a positive one would consolidate the Hall as the standing supplier. The technique paralleled the bench's general role as a feedback channel for the Company's home suppliers, with the moderate climate at the island providing a useful intermediate test environment between the cool conditions at home and the heat encountered at the Indian factories. | |
124 | By Ship Success the Katharine continue the Same in future as often as their is occasion Advices of this Sort have their Usefullness We find by yo[u]r Cons[ultation] of y[e] 31 July 1716 you have comply[e]d with y[e] part of Our Orders to Enter therein the price of the Severall Goods receiv[e]d by the Cath[arine] according to Invoice & at what price they are to be retailed out of the Storehouse Take care to do the Same on all occasion & y[t] y[e] Store keeper have Copy thereof for his Government We now proceed to consider y[e] Advices relat ing to Goods rec[eive]d or wanted from India in the Order of time of the Letters, Consultations & Pa pers in the Packets In par[.] 3 of Thistleworth you desire One thousand Blew Shirts & Cloathing for the Blacks & in other Letters Checkerd Shirts had you as well remembered our Orders before as yo[u]r Lett[er] to Cap[t] Martin of y[e] 8 August Shews you did when the Queen was with you, You might have en quired of Our Coast Bay or Bombay Ships & from them have gotten a Bale or two of such Sort of Cloth to Answer yo[u]r necessitys by Vertue of the Orders Sent from hence w[hi]ch You mention[e]d in that Letter to him rather than have furnished yo[u]r Selves by Blew Cloth & Chints out of y[e] Privat[e] Storehouses as appears by yo[u]r Cons[ultation] of y[e] 15 Nov[ember] 1715 which We must by no means allow of we cant but wonder that you should incourage Trade when yo[u]r Letters Shew you are so Sensible the detriment those Storehouses do Ours W[?] Margin Notes: to do by all Goods as by y[e] Kath[arine] India Goods wanted to be taken out of Ships compl[y]d | By ship Success. The bench was to continue the same in future as the Katherine had done. As often as there was occasion, advices of this sort were to have their usefulness.
Interpretations The price entry rule at paragraph 24 confirmed an existing audit discipline rather than introducing a new one. The bench's consultation of 31 July 1715 had complied with the directors' standing order to enter the invoice price of each consignment received against the retail price at which the storekeeper would sell it from the Company's stores. This double entry, invoice and retail, fixed the markup on each item at the moment of receipt and made any subsequent variation a recorded act requiring its own entry. The instruction that the storekeeper have a copy for his government converted the consultation entry into the working price list at the issue point, removing his discretion to adjust prices without a fresh consultation order. The slave clothing supply identified the operational mechanism for routine consumption goods supplied through the Company's own shipping network. Blue shirts and checkered shirts formed the standard issue clothing for slaves at the island, durable cotton garments produced principally in southern India for the Company's domestic and overseas use. The bench's request of one thousand blue shirts and clothing for the slaves in paragraph 3 of the Thistleworth letter, together with the earlier orders for checkered shirts referenced through the letter to Captain Martin of 8 August, identified the recurring annual requirement for slave clothing maintenance. The directors' criticism focused on the source from which the bench had actually obtained the cloth. The proper channel was the Company's own Indiamen calling at the island on their homeward voyage from the Coast of Coromandel, the Bay of Bengal or Bombay, each of which carried bulk cotton goods in its homeward lading. The bench could have requisitioned a bale or two from such a ship under the standing orders that authorised exactly this kind of internal supply, and would have answered its immediate need without recourse to any private source. Instead, as the bench's own consultation of 15 November 1715 had recorded, the bench had purchased blue cloth and chintz from the private storehouses on the island, the very same establishments whose detriment to the Company had been complained of in the bench's letters and addressed by the directors at paragraph 78 of the Katherine letter and paragraph 15 of the present despatch. The contradiction the directors identified was internal to the bench's own conduct. The same bench that had complained of the private storehouses as detrimental to the Company had purchased its own slave clothing requirements from those storehouses, thereby providing them with paying custom and confirming their utility at the island. The directors' wonder at this conduct expressed an audit point: the bench could not consistently treat the storehouses as a problem and as a supplier in the same season. The remedy was already available within the existing order framework, since the right to draw cloth from a passing Indiaman had been authorised under the standing orders the bench itself had referenced in writing to Captain Martin. The chintz reference identified the high-value Indian printed cotton trade, distinct from the plain blue cloth used for slave shirts. Chintz, the brightly printed and glazed cotton produced principally at Masulipatam and along the Coromandel coast, was a premium textile carried in the homeward East India trade for sale into the European market. The bench's purchase of chintz from the private storehouses was particularly objectionable because it placed the Company in the position of buying back from local resellers exactly the kind of high-value goods that its own ships carried direct from the source. The reseller margin captured by the storehouse keeper was a pure loss to the Company. Speculations The 15 November 1715 consultation entry that revealed the private storehouse purchase identified the bench's own honest record-keeping as the source of its embarrassment. A bench that had been more inclined to conceal would have suppressed the entry; the careful recording of the transaction in consultation showed that the bench did not at the time perceive the inconsistency between its complaint and its conduct. The directors' wonder, rather than direct accusation, suggested they read the consultation entry as evidence of administrative thoughtlessness rather than of complicity in the private trade. The instruction to draw future supplies from passing Company ships served as the operational correction, while leaving the bench's competence rather than its honesty as the implicit issue. The choice of blue and checkered patterns for slave shirts probably reflected practical economy rather than aesthetic preference. Blue dye, principally indigo from the same Indian regions that produced the cotton, was stable in tropical light and washing; checkered weaves used coloured warp and weft threads that disguised wear and stains better than plain weaves. The standardisation of the issue allowed bulk purchase of identical bales from the established Indian weaving centres, with the resulting uniformity also serving the identification function that distinguished Company slaves from those of private planters at the island. | |
125 | Cap[t] Benj[.] Graves Com[d] notice you therein Say you agreed to take Sixty pe[ces?] of that Blue Cloth at Twelve Shill[ings] a peice being Cap[t] Tolsons & y[e] Course Chints at Six Shillings being five & twenty Pieces for y[e] Black Wenches dont you consider our money here pays for them when you draw bills on Us & That Cap[t] Tolson or whoever Else brings Goods cant afford them (considering their Inter[est] Insurance & Bottomree) so cheap as Ours taken out of Our Ships as afores[ai]d We Observe indeed a plau sible pretence of y[ou]r Lowering y[e] price of that Cloth and that y[e] Councell Set Twelve Shill[ings] price upon it y[e] Six shill[ings] on y[e] Chints be y[t] as it will We are not satisfied with y[t] management It doth not look well Let it be so no more nor can We approve of yo[u]r Sending us Twenty Pieces of Blue Cloth to Us as the Same Was Sent home directed because it was so rotten as to be unfit for any Service If you did but think a little what Should We do with it here could not One peice have done as well to Shew how badly We was dealt with as it is there worded as the Whole quantity, nor do You tell Us from Whence You had that Blue Stuff of which You Say you have about two Hundred Pieces We dont very well like y[e] reason given in yo[u]r 5 Par[.] of y[e] Lett[er] of y[e] 26 Dec[em]b[er] 1715 Why Cap[t] Grange[r] was to Sell his Arr[ack] out to y[e] Planters before the Duty of Twelve Pence a Gallon was to comense & much less that Our money must in event pay for it & y[e] other Goods is Sold to those who had Credit in the Stores for which it Seems You gave them Bills on Us but of this Affair of Credit We shall [m]ake Margin Notes: ab[ou]t Cap[t] Tolsons[?] Cloth & Chints[?] 20 pieces Sent home y[e] S[t] Geo[rge] ab[ou]t Cap[t] Grangers Sell. Arr[ack] before y[e] Duty of [...] comense[?] | Captain Benjamin Graves, commander. The notice taken therein said the bench had agreed to take sixty pieces of blue cloth at twelve shillings a piece. (At Captain Tolson's.) These were from Captain Tolson. The course chintz was at six shillings a piece. (Cash chints.) This was for the black wenches. Twenty-five pieces had been taken for the black wenches. The bench did not consider what the Company's money there paid for them. The bench drew bills on the directors. Captain Tolson, or whoever else brought goods, could not afford them so cheap as the Company's, taken out of the Company's ships, as aforesaid. The directors observed a plausible pretence given for lowering the price of that cloth. The bench's consultation had set twelve shillings as a price upon it. Six shillings was set on the chintz. The bench had thought this as well as it would. The directors were not satisfied with that management. It did not look well. Let it be so no more. (60 pieces sent home directed.) The directors did not approve of the bench's sending twenty pieces of blue cloth as the same. (By the St George.) The directions had been to send sixty by the St George. The cloth was so rotten as to be unfit for any service. Had the bench thought a little what the directors might do with it here, that could not have been done. One piece would have done as well to show how badly the bench had been dealt with. It was so worded as the whole quantity. The bench did not say from whence it had that blue stuff. The bench said it had about two hundred pieces.
Interpretations The blue cloth and chintz purchase identified the same problem already addressed at paragraphs 24 and 25. The bench had bought cloth at the island rather than drawing it from the Company's own homeward ships. Twelve shillings a piece was set for the blue cloth. Six shillings a piece was set for the coarse chintz. Twenty-five pieces of the chintz had been taken for the black wenches. The directors objected on price grounds. Captain Tolson had to cover interest, insurance and bottomry on his cargo. The Company's own ships did not. A bale taken from a passing Indiaman therefore cost the Company nothing in finance charges. The bench's purchase from Tolson rolled all those costs into the price. Bottomry was the standard finance instrument for private trade voyages. The shipowner pledged the hull and cargo as security for a loan taken to fund the voyage. The rate of interest was high. It compensated for the risk of total loss at sea. A captain who returned to England paid off the bottomry bond out of his sales. Any goods he sold cheap at an intermediate port made the bond harder to clear. The rotten consignment of blue cloth identified a separate failure. Sixty pieces had been directed for despatch home by the St George. The bench had sent only twenty. The whole consignment was described in the bench's letter as unfit for service. The directors criticised the over-supply. One piece would have served as a sample. Twenty pieces took up tonnage to no purpose. The bench had also failed to identify the source of the cloth. About two hundred pieces of the stuff were said to be on the island. The directors wanted to know who had supplied it. The Granger rum sale at paragraph 26 raised a different mechanism. Captain Granger had sold rum to the planters at the island. The sale had been made before the duty of twelve pence a gallon was reduced. The bench had not stopped him. The directors traced the financial flow. The planters paid Granger with credit at the Company's stores. They drew goods against that credit. The bench then drew bills on the directors to cover the storekeeper's books. The result was that the Company's money in London ultimately settled Granger's rum sale at the island. The duty of twelve pence a gallon identified a local impost on imported spirits. The bench had power to set or reduce duties on goods landed at the island, subject to confirmation from home. The reduction referred to had perhaps been a relief intended to lower the price to the planters. By selling before the lower duty took effect, Granger captured the higher gross price while the eventual cost passed back through the credit chain to the Company. Speculations The repeated purchases of cloth at the island, rather than drawing from passing Indiamen, suggested a settled bench preference for the local channel. The reason was probably convenience. A bale drawn from a Coast or Bay ship required a formal requisition under standing orders. A purchase from a captain or a private storehouse needed only a price and a bill. The bench had taken the easier path. The directors' careful unpacking of the cost difference, with interest, insurance and bottomry identified as the components that made the local price higher, was aimed at pressing the bench to take the harder path even where it was inconvenient. The bench's failure to name the source of the two hundred pieces of blue stuff is the most pointed detail in the entry. A simple oversight would have been corrected on a follow-up. A deliberate omission would protect a councillor or planter who had supplied the cloth. The directors did not name a suspect. The silence in the bench's letter became itself the suspicious item, much as the silence on the Antigua sloop at paragraph 15 had been read as evasion. The directors were probably preparing the ground for a separate enquiry into the source of the cloth, to be pursued through the secret committee or through intelligence brought home by a future ship. | |
126 | By Ship Success make mention in its proper place In consideration of what you write in Par[.] 12 & 13 of y[e] Thistleworth Letter of y[e] 24 Feb[rua]ry We permit you to take a Pecul or two of each Sort of Tea out of Our China Ships Yearly takeing care that allow'd to y[e] Soldiers for pre serving their health be of y[e] courser Sort as You propose but then be sure they are not defrauded of any part of it & that for y[e] rest it be Sold to Our best advantage We take notice of what You Advice y[ou] were Supply[e]d w[i]th from y[e] Cape by Cap[t] Berend & Cap[t] Aolden & will not find fault with yo[u]r drawing Bills for those Supplys So appear to be done as a real designe for yo[u]r Islands Service & considr ing you paid but four Shillings a Gallon for the Arrack but yo[u]r Cons[ultation] are Silent as to what was paid for the Sheep Rice Wheat &[c.] w[hi]ch must never be So again We likewise find in y[ou]r Cons[ultation] direccions Sometimes for y[e] Gov[ernor] & One of y[e] Council Sometimes for two of y[e] Councill to buy Such & Such Goods but no Entry what was So bought either as to Quantity or price w[hi]ch if fully made would always Speak for it Self & be a Memorand[um] for futurity, We find in divers other matters comitted to One or more of y[e] Councill care no mention is made of what was done thereupon This Savours of great negligence & carelesness at best but is yet worse if y[e] keeping such things in the Dark is out of designe Let Us have no more reason for this complaint but for the fut[ure] Margin Notes: To take Tea out of China Ships Buy Arrak at 4/-[?] Sol[d at] yt[?] [an?]rmd But the Price of other Goods not mentioned a fault | By ship Success. The matter would be mentioned in its proper place.
Interpretations The tea allowance identified a recognised perquisite of the bench at the island. China ships, that is, Indiamen returning from Canton with cargoes principally of tea, called at St Helena on the homeward leg. The bench was authorised to take one or two peeculs of each sort of tea from each ship for the island's own consumption. A peecul was the standard Chinese commercial unit of weight, equivalent to approximately 133 pounds avoirdupois. One or two peeculs of each sort of tea therefore amounted to several hundred pounds weight of finished tea per ship, a substantial supply for the garrison and councillors. The differentiation between coarse and fine tea identified the social grading of the issue. The coarser sort, principally bohea and common congou, was directed to the soldiers as a health-preserving ration. The finer sort, principally green teas and the better black teas, was reserved for sale to the Company's best advantage, that is for resale at the island at premium prices to inhabitants and visiting ship's officers. The directors' concern that the soldiers not be defrauded of any part of it identified the operative risk: that the bench would substitute lower grades or short measures in the soldiers' issue while reserving the better stock for profitable resale. The instruction placed an audit obligation on the bench to maintain the distinction between the two streams. The arrack purchase identified a recognised supply route for the island's spirits requirement. Captain Strond and Captain Holden had brought arrack from the Cape, a Dutch settlement and a regular Atlantic provisioning station. Arrack was the standard distilled spirit of the Indian Ocean trade, made principally from palm sap or rice. The four shillings a gallon paid was within the range the directors regarded as proper. The bills drawn on London to settle the purchases were not faulted. The design was clearly for the island's service. The fault identified by the directors lay elsewhere. The bench had recorded the arrack price in consultation but had not recorded the prices paid for sheep, rice, wheat and other concurrent purchases. The omission converted a complete transactional record into a partial one. A partial record left the bench's procurement open to challenge on every item not specifically entered. The directors' insistence that all such prices be recorded converted each purchase into a documented event traceable in the audit chain. The standing direction system identified a delegated procurement procedure. For certain classes of goods, the consultation had authorised the governor and one councillor, or two councillors acting together, to make the purchase without further reference to the bench. The two-signature requirement provided a check against individual fraud. The directors' complaint was that the entries of what had actually been bought under these standing directions were missing. The procedure had been faithfully followed at the authorisation stage. The transactional record after authorisation had been left incomplete. The directors framed the failure on a sliding scale: negligence at best, design at worst. Speculations The directors' careful framing of the recording failure, with negligence at best and design at worst as the alternative readings, was a deliberate technique. The bench could not afford to be silent in answer. A defence on the ground of negligence would commit the bench to administrative incompetence. A defence on the ground of design would commit it to concealment. By laying both readings on the consultation record at the island, the directors forced the bench to give specific accounts of past purchases against which the design reading could be tested. The choice of bohea and congou for the soldiers identified the standard low-grade tea supply of the early eighteenth century, drawn principally from the Fujian coast. The same teas formed the basis of the English working tea market at home. The directors' authorisation of the same grade for the soldiers at the island confirmed that the garrison was supplied at a level comparable to the English domestic tea market rather than at a privileged colonial premium. The bench's resale of the finer teas at the island was therefore not depriving the soldiers of an entitlement they would have had at home, but converting a Company perquisite into an opportunity for local commercial profit. The directors permitted both arms of the arrangement provided the soldiers received their fair share of the coarser stock. | |
127 | Cap[t] Benj[.] Graves Com[d] future remember to Observe our Orders on this head & parti cularly what wrote in Par[.] 11 & 12 last year consider all well that you may know what We Expect and not really or Pretendedly mistake our Direccions which We have put into Such plain words that the Capacity of a youth if willing might understand them We shall write to Bombay the Substance of what you Advise touching Goa Arrack and your want of Pallampores & Quilts for Bedding and Rice You have followed our Orders in advising us by your Letters the Sort & qua[n]titys of yo[u]r Goods receiv[e]d from India by Severall Ships and in your Consultation appears the Entry of the Price they are to be retail[e]d at Excuse the writing for Par[.] 43 of your Letter of the 12 August last you refer us to the Consultation Book for the Particulars of the Goods arrive by y[e] [...] [m]ake of it here for this reason That it may be So Expect when Such Acco[un]ts are too Long to be inserted in the generall Letter and in that Case mention only a Short acc[ou]nt of the Substance of what you So refer to But remember to Express the dates of the Said Consultations and if more than one the date of each In your Consultation of the 8th August last you Order an Inv[en]t[o]r[y] to be taken by M[r] Goswell & M[r] Bazett of all the remains in our Stores for our Inspection to Accompany your Indent That We may thereby Judge of the Particulars of your Demands therein We mention it here to remember you of it &[c] for this further reason That Margin Notes: ab[ou]t India Goods rec[eive]d Entry of Prices of Goods &[c] approve [E]xcuse the writing for last you refer us to the Cons[ultation] The Substance of [good?]s arrived [...] to insert in Gen[era]ll Letter Inventory of Store Goods to be sent yearly & Signd by y[e] Govern[or] | Captain Benjamin Graves, commander. The bench was in future to observe the directors' orders on this head. Particular attention was to be paid to what was written in paragraphs 11 and 12 last year. The bench was to consider it all well. The bench would then know what was expected. The bench was not really, or pretendedly, to mistake the directors' directions. The directions had been put into such plain words that the capacity of a youth, if willing, might understand them. The directors would write to Bombay the substance of what the bench had advised. This touched Goa arrack. It touched also the bench's want of palempores and quilts for bedding, and rice. The bench had followed the directors' orders in advising by its letters the sort and quantities of goods received from India by several ships. The entry of the price they were to be retailed at appeared in the bench's consultation. Excuse was made for the writing. In paragraph 43 of the bench's letter of 12 August last, the bench referred the directors to the consultation book for the particulars of the goods arrived by the said ship. Mention was made of it here for this reason. The same was to be expected when such accounts were too long to be inserted in the general letter. In that case, only a short account of the substance of what the bench referred to was to be mentioned. The bench was, however, to remember to express the dates of the said consultations. Where more than one was cited, the date of each was to be given. In the bench's consultation of 8 August last, the bench had ordered an inventory to be taken by Mr Goswell and Mr Bazett of all the remains in the Company's stores. This was for the directors' inspection. It was to accompany the bench's indent. The directors might thereby judge of the particulars of the bench's demands therein. The directors mentioned it here to remind the bench of it, and for this further reason. That Interpretations The paragraphs 11 and 12 reference identified an existing reporting standard the bench had failed to meet. The directors had set out their orders in words of deliberate simplicity. The capacity of a youth, if willing, might understand them. The phrasing reduced the available defences. The bench could not plead obscurity. It could only plead unwillingness. The Bombay correspondence at paragraph 29 identified the Company's internal supply network. Goa arrack was the distilled spirit produced under Portuguese authority at the Indian colony of Goa. It was a premium grade of arrack distinct from the Cape supply addressed at paragraph 28. Palempores were large Indian cotton bedcovers, often printed or painted, produced principally on the Coromandel coast for export. Quilts were the matching padded bedcovers. Both items formed the standard bedding supply for the garrison and Company servants at the island. Rice was the staple grain. The directors' decision to write to Bombay, rather than to source the goods from London, identified the Indian factory as the proper supply point for these items. The arrangement avoided the long Atlantic shipment of bulky textiles and rice that could be drawn from the much closer Indian source. The price entry rule at paragraph 30 refined the audit discipline addressed at paragraph 24. The standing order required entry in consultation of the invoice price and the retail price of each consignment. The bench had complied in principle. Some entries had been made by reference back to earlier consultations rather than by direct repetition. The directors accepted this as a practical compromise. Two conditions attached. A short account of the substance was to be given in the letter. The dates of all consultations referred to were to be expressed. Where more than one consultation was cited, each date had to be given separately. The rule converted the reference-back convention into a documented cross-reference rather than a vague gesture. The inventory order at paragraph 31 identified a substantive new procedure. The bench's consultation of 8 August last had directed Mr Goswell and Mr Bazett to take an inventory of all remains in the Company's stores. This was to accompany the bench's indent on the next homeward ship. Mr Goswell appeared here for the first time in the present working volume. Mr Bazett had figured across the earlier consultations in the consolidated record. He had handled the arrack leakage interrogation of 1 April 1714. He had signed the inventory of the stores certified on 8 July 1714. He had been named to the appraisal panel for the Carne yams on 23 August 1715. He had been directed to the plantation house and Lufkins inventory of 5 April 1715. The pairing of Goswell with Bazett identified the new procedure as a two-signature audit. One councillor and one stores officer produced the count between them. The inventory served a specific function. The directors could judge each item in the indent against the corresponding entry in the stock return. A request for sixty bales of cloth would be tested against the remaining stock figure. A request that exceeded reasonable replenishment of stock would draw scrutiny. The procedure converted the indent from a unilateral demand into a quantitatively justified requisition. Speculations The directors' choice of the phrase the capacity of a youth, if willing, might understand them was unusually pointed. The home directors had concluded the bench's failures of compliance could no longer be excused on grounds of difficulty or ambiguity. The orders were not difficult. They had not been ambiguous. Any continuing failure must therefore proceed from unwillingness. The phrasing set up the next round of criticism on the ground of the bench's character rather than its capacity. The pairing of Goswell with Bazett on the new inventory function suggested a deliberate distribution of audit responsibility. Bazett was the experienced stores man with a long record of accounts and certifications. Goswell was the new presence, brought in as a check on the established figure. The combination prevented Bazett from signing off his own stock count alone. The technique paralleled the standing direction system at paragraph 28. That procedure required either the governor and one councillor or two councillors acting together for delegated purchases. Both arrangements embedded a second signature at the point of audit. They made fraud more difficult by requiring complicity rather than mere silence. | |
128 | By Ship Success That We require the like Inventory to be sent us Yearly after being Examined as We direct it be first by the whole Councell and that it be Signed by the Accomptant & Storekeeper to vouch the truth of it and by the Governour for the time being certifying that it had Past the Councells Approbation Having thus gone thro[ugh] what We Judge necessary to take notice of as to the Goods Sent you from India We come now to Consider the Severall Parts of your Letter relating to the Coyns Dollars Spannish Bits Fanams, Copper money and our Bills you will See so much of our minds in our last Letter as may well Serve for an answer to most part of those in Par[.] 20 and in some following Par[.] other matters relateing thereto But tho[ugh] you had that Letter full eight weeks yet you have not vouchsafed Us one word of answer to them To begin therefore with the 14 to 15 Par[.] of your Letter of the 20 Janu[a]ry 1715 We have Considered them and find the Secret meaning of all to be that you want Dollars and perhaps it is not difficult to guess why But as wee wrote you last year We find no good reason to induce Us to Send you any If they come upon the Island by Private hands let them pass from one to another at what Price the Planters please but into our Stores We will take none above Five Shillings a peice and those the usuall weighty not light Dollars for Some are So very light there is reason to believe they have been clipt Consider if they Should go out at Six Shillings from Us, you'l Say We get Margin Notes: Coyns of[?] Sorts Doll[ar]s no[t to?] rec[eive]d ab[o]ve [5/?] | By ship Success. The directors required the like inventory to be sent yearly. It was to be first examined as the directors directed. It was to be examined by the whole council. It was to be signed by the accountant and the storekeeper to vouch the truth of it. It was to be signed by the governor for the time being, certifying that it had passed the council's approbation.
Interpretations The inventory certification procedure at the head of the entry identified a four-layer audit chain for the yearly stock return. The accountant signed first to vouch the figures. The storekeeper signed next to vouch the underlying stock. The whole council examined the return collectively. The governor signed last to certify that the return had passed the council's approbation. The combined signatures converted the inventory from a stores-office document into a certified council instrument. Each signatory accepted personal responsibility for the truth of the count at his own level. The mechanism extended the two-signature audit principle addressed at paragraph 31 into a full corporate audit of the annual stock position. The dollars discussion at paragraph 32 returned to the recurring coin question already developed in the Katherine letter. The bench had again pressed for a supply of Spanish silver dollars. The directors again declined. They identified the secret meaning of the bench's request as a simple desire for dollars without good Company reason. The phrasing perhaps it was not difficult to guess why pointed to private trade considerations among the councillors. Dollars were the principal international silver coin of the Atlantic and Indian Ocean trade. They were carried by every Indian ship leaving the island, used by private merchants for cargo purchase at the Cape and at Madeira, and accepted everywhere. A councillor in possession of dollars had a portable and convertible asset. A councillor in possession of fanams or copper had a coin good only for local payments. The five shillings ceiling identified the directors' valuation policy for dollars received at the stores. The market exchange of the Spanish silver dollar in the early eighteenth century was approximately four shillings and sixpence at home. The bench had been pressing for the dollar to circulate locally at six shillings to discourage its export. The directors here held the line at five shillings and only for weighty pieces. Light dollars, those that had been clipped or sweated to remove silver, would not be taken at the higher price. The mechanism preserved the silver content as the real measure of value, regardless of the face rate at which private holders chose to circulate the coin among themselves on the island. The directors permitted private circulation at any rate the planters pleased. The Company's own stores would value strictly by weight. The clipping concern identified a recognised offence against the coinage. A clipper trimmed silver from the edge of a dollar before passing it on at face value. The clipped silver was sold by weight as bullion. The remaining coin continued to circulate at face value, with the loss falling on the eventual holder. The directors' refusal to take light dollars protected the Company's stores from absorbing the clipped loss. Holders of clipped coin at the island would have to pass them among themselves at private discount. The bench's eight weeks delay in answering the directors' previous letter on the coin question reappeared as a complaint here. The same procedural failure identified at paragraph 16 applied to this substantive matter. Eight weeks had elapsed between the Katherine's arrival and the Queen's letter. No word of answer had been vouchsafed to the coin paragraphs. Speculations The directors' use of the phrase secret meaning, and the suggestion that the reason for the bench's request was not difficult to guess, pointed to a settled home view that some councillors were trading on their own account in dollars. A councillor who could draw dollars from the Company's stores at five shillings, and pass them privately at six or more at the island, captured the difference as personal profit. The same coins could then be used to buy private cargoes from passing ships for shipment home. The directors' refusal to send dollars at all closed this channel. The bench could no longer obtain official supplies that could be converted into private trade. The five shillings ceiling for weighty dollars was probably calibrated against the contemporary London bullion market. The directors knew that they could obtain dollars in London at approximately four shillings and sixpence the piece, sometimes less. A receipt rate of five shillings at the island therefore left a small margin to cover the cost of carriage and risk, while protecting the Company from any loss on the silver content. The careful exclusion of light coin preserved this calculation. Had the directors accepted dollars at five shillings regardless of weight, the difference between five shillings and the bullion value of a light dollar would have created an arbitrage for any holder who could pass clipped coin into the stores. | |
129 | Cap[t] Benj[a] Graves Comand[r] gett the Proffit on the advance but then every time they return into our Stores they gett Six Shillings worth of Goods for five shillings and any other Dollars brought privately to do y[e] Same workmanship Provisions and every thing Else purchased w[i]th money rises in Proportion whoever pays in those Dollars to our Cash and takes Bills on Us in event makes us pay about Twenty p[e]r Cent more than We Should The Accidental advance of Silver at Madrass wont carry the weight you mention it for It is but a meer temporary reason and cant last long but if it should We Maj[esty] which touch w[i]th you onloaded go to Bencoolen where the Dollars always go at five Shillings and if it Should happen that those on board should be tempted to carry any thither We must be Contented tho[ugh] that is not very likely unless they think they Can make more of their Goods at S[t] Helena than Bencoolen which rarely happens If you peruse the Rochesters Lette[r] Sent with you You will find We could not then gett Leave to Send out English Farthings & half Pence nor can We yet and We will never do any thing Clandestinely so that w[ha]t you wrote on that head ought to be Censured If then Maddrass Copper Coyns are worth more than farthings & half Pence put them off at their intrinsick worth in weight & goodness of Copper of three to a Penny & three for two pence If you have raised them as Proposed the Small to a half Penny the bigger to a Penny apeice We Shall acquiesce If not put them off as above lest by Such rise above their true value We be gradually Served at S[t] Helena as We were by our unfaithfull People at Bencoolen who Doubled Margin Notes: Reasons w[hy?] ab[ou]t the Copper Money | Captain Benjamin Graves, commander. (Reasons why.) The bench would get the profit on the advance. But every time the dollars returned into the directors' stores, the bench would get six shillings' worth of goods for the five shillings. Any other dollars brought privately in did the same thing. Provisions rose in proportion. Everything else purchased with money rose in proportion. Whoever paid in those dollars to the Company's cash, and took bills on the directors, in event made the directors pay about twenty per cent more than they should. The accidental advance of silver at Madras would not carry the weight the bench mentioned it for. It was but a mere temporary reason. It could not last long. But if it should, the Company's ships which touched at the island, and unloaded at Bencoolen, where the dollars always went at five fardings each, and if it should happen that those on board should be tempted to carry any thither, the directors must be contented with that. It was not very likely, unless they thought they could make more of their goods at St Helena than at Bencoolen. That rarely happened. If the bench perused the Rochester's letter sent with the bench, it would find the directors had not yet given leave to send out English farthings and halfpence. Nor could they yet. The directors would never do anything clandestinely. (About the copper money.) So that the bench, on that head, ought to be censured. The Madras copper coins were worth more than farthings and halfpence. Put them off at their intrinsic worth in weight and goodness of copper. Three to a penny, and three for twopence. If the bench had raised them as proposed, the small to a halfpenny and the bigger to a penny apiece, the directors would acquiesce. If they were not put off as above, lest by such rise above their true value the directors should be gradually served at St Helena as they were by the unfaithful people at Bencoolen, especially [...] Interpretations The dollar circulation analysis at the head of the entry developed a sharper version of the directors' position already set out at paragraph 32. A dollar received into the Company's stores at five shillings, then paid out again for goods, would draw six shillings' worth of stock if the bench permitted six-shilling circulation. The differential of one shilling per dollar represented a pure loss to the Company on every transaction in either direction. The compound effect of the inflation was that provisions and other purchases rose in proportion as dollar circulation rose. Any private holder paying dollars into the Company's cash and taking bills on London in return would, in effect, draw on the directors at twenty per cent above the true value. The arithmetic identified the precise mechanism by which the bench's preferred dollar policy would transfer value from the Company to private holders. The accidental advance of silver at Madras identified a particular event the bench had cited as justification for raising the dollar rate at the island. Silver had recently advanced in price at Fort St George, perhaps owing to a temporary shortage of bullion in the local market. The bench had argued that this confirmed the case for matching the higher value at the island. The directors rejected the argument as resting on a temporary local circumstance. A local fluctuation at one Indian port could not justify a permanent revaluation at the Atlantic island. The directors' broader policy required consistency of valuation across the Company's stations rather than chasing local market movements. The Bencoolen comparison identified a parallel station at which the dollar circulated at five fardings each. The five-farding rate was approximately the same intrinsic silver value as the five-shilling rate at the island. The consistency between the two stations confirmed the directors' policy. A ship's officer carrying dollars from St Helena to Bencoolen could not improve his position by transhipping. The Company's valuation was the same at both ends. The bench's attempt to set a higher local rate at the island would, if successful, create a brief arbitrage that could not survive the next Indiaman's voyage. The English farthings and halfpence reference identified a specific request the bench had made to the directors. The bench had asked for English copper coin to circulate at the island in place of, or alongside, the Madras copper. The directors had declined. They could not give such leave at present. They would never act clandestinely. The bench's continued pressure on this point deserved censure. The Madras copper, the cash coined at Madras for use across the Company's eastern establishment, was worth more than the corresponding English farthings and halfpence by intrinsic copper weight. The directors' proposed rate was three coins to the penny, or three for twopence. If the bench preferred to value them higher, at the small to a halfpenny and the bigger to a penny apiece, the directors would not object. They would, however, oppose any rate above the true intrinsic value. The Bencoolen warning identified a recent corruption case at the eastern factory. Unfaithful people at Bencoolen had served the directors badly by precisely the mechanism the bench was now proposing at the island. The valuation of coin above its true worth had drained Company stores in exchange for inflated paper sums. The directors held the Bencoolen example up as the precedent against which the St Helena bench was to measure itself. Speculations The directors' careful distinction between private circulation, at any rate the planters pleased, and the Company's stores rate, fixed at five shillings for weighty dollars, identified a deliberate use of the stores valuation as the operative control. The directors had recognised that they could not regulate private circulation at a remote island where every planter and visiting ship's officer held some coin. What they could regulate was the rate at which the Company itself took coin in or paid it out. By holding that rate at the silver value, the directors converted the Company's stores into a fixed-price reference point against which the inflated private rate became visible. A councillor or planter holding dollars at six shillings privately would, when transacting with the Company, lose the inflation. The arrangement made the inflated private rate commercially unsustainable for transactions with the Company itself. The unfaithful people at Bencoolen reference probably named a specific group already under investigation at home. The directors' use of the Bencoolen failure as the operative warning at the St Helena bench identified an enforcement programme that ran across the Company's stations. The same officers who had drafted the present despatch were probably also drafting the remedial instructions to Bencoolen. The technique of citing one station's failure to discipline another station's bench paralleled the use of intelligence streams across the Company. A bench that knew its conduct could be checked against a parallel case elsewhere had less room to argue local conditions as a defence. | |
130 | By Ship Success doubled the value of the Copper Cash sent them for Small money from Fort S[t] George at four hundred to the Dollar by passing them away at two hundred This in time as they mannaged the matter cost Us Some thousands of Pounds for their Natives Soon raised their Labour Provisions &[c] accordingly and as for Pepper they would take nothing but Dollars If any bring in Severally English Farthings or half Pence let them cond[?] y[e] People will raise their value among themselves You need not object but in our Stores Let them pass for no more then they do here When We Sent you out you carry[e]d with you about One hundred Pounds value in Spanish Bitts You have received from Madrass the Fanams & Copper Coyns of which We order'd them to Send one Hundred Pounds value in each You had Sent you Four Hundred Pounds value in Bills Surely this Seven Hundred Pounds was more than Sufficient to Circulate all Sorts of petty debts and thereby Prevent writing the many Small Articles in the Books for Haberdashery ware and other Sorts of Necessarys of little value by paying for these in money We allowed you to give Bills on Us for all the Said notes brought into your Cash by the owners which took away all reasonable objections of their worth Especially when it is further considered We gave you leave to deliver out Goods from the Stores to prevent those Transferrs & Consequently So much writing to every body who brought those Bills Put this Altogether and then tell Us Margin Notes: Bencoolen practice w[i]th Copp[e]r Cash Money from England &[c] ab[ou]t Plank Bills | By ship Success. (Bencoolen practice with copper cash.) The Bencoolen people had doubled the value of the copper cash sent for small money from Fort St George. The Madras cash had been sent at four hundred to the dollar. The Bencoolen people had passed it away at two hundred. The mismanagement in time cost the directors some thousands of pounds. The natives soon raised their labour and provisions accordingly. As for copper, they would take nothing but dollars. If any English farthings or half pence were brought in severally, let the people raise their value among themselves. The directors did not object. In the directors' stores, however, let them pass for no more than they did here.
By paying for these in money, the directors had allowed the bench to give bills on the directors for all the notes brought into the bench's cash by the owners. This had taken away all reasonable objections of their worth. (About blank bills.) The directors had also given the bench leave to deliver out goods from the stores, to prevent those transfers, and consequently so much writing to every body who brought those bills. Put this all together, and then tell Interpretations The Bencoolen example identified a specific recent failure of coin management. The Bencoolen council had doubled the rate of the copper cash. The natives there had responded by doubling their prices for labour and provisions. The Company lost the differential as inflation across all its local purchases. Madras copper cash was the small change of the Company's eastern establishment. The Madras mint struck it at a fixed rate of four hundred coins to the dollar. The Bencoolen council passed it at two hundred to the dollar. The face rate was thus doubled above the intrinsic copper value. The dollar preference of the local people at Bencoolen confirmed the failure. They refused the inflated copper and accepted only silver. The English farthings and halfpence noted in the present despatch could be raised privately at the island. The Company's stores would, however, take them only at face value. Spanish bits were the smaller silver coins of the Spanish American mints. They circulated as fractional dollars across the Atlantic and Indian Ocean trade. The bench had received approximately one hundred pounds in bits on first taking up the establishment. Fanams were small southern Indian silver coins. Madras supplied them at the directors' order. The seven hundred pound calculation set out the directors' full provision for local currency. One hundred pounds in Spanish bits. One hundred pounds in fanams. One hundred pounds in copper. Four hundred pounds in bills, that is paper notes from half a crown to forty shillings. The total sum should have circulated all petty debts on the island. The notes-and-bills mechanism identified a careful accounting design. Owners of the notes brought them into the Company's cash. The bench gave bills on London in exchange. The arrangement converted small local paper into single large transferable instruments payable in England. The stores delivery alternative was a parallel mechanism. The bench could pay note-holders in goods from the stores rather than in bills. This avoided the writing of many small bill entries. Each transfer of a note was eliminated by direct settlement at the issue point. Speculations The doubling of the Madras copper rate at Bencoolen identified the same fraud pattern that the directors feared at St Helena. A councillor who paid for goods in inflated copper at face value, while charging real silver costs to the Company's accounts, captured the differential as private profit. The natives detected the inflation faster than the Company did. They raised their own prices to restore the silver equivalent. The directors' careful unpacking of the seven hundred pound calculation was probably aimed at closing the bench's repeated requests for more coin. By showing on the audit record that adequate provision had been made under all four heads, the directors made it harder for the bench to argue shortage of cash as a justification for unusual transactions. Any further claim would have to address the specific failure of one of the four streams rather than press for a general supplement. | |
131 | Cap[t] Benja[min] Graves Comander Us what real necessity was there for leaving off the Markett as mentioned in Said Par[.] 14 and if Seven hundred Pounds vallue was not eno[ugh] to pay off the Garrison for a year as you alledge in Par[.] 15 Yet it could at least for four or Six months to prevent the Old method which you own is a bad one of Entering every thing at the Stores agame However at your Desires and to Enlarge that Summe We now Send you four Hundred Pounds more in Bills Vizt Two hundred Bills Each of twenty Shillings and one hundred of Forty Shillings bound up in Books to be dated Signed Numbred & made use of in all Points as directed in Par[.] 37 by the Rochester for those then Sent with you We did not at first think it necessary to have any Plates graven for Ten Shillings Bills nor do we now tho[ugh] you write for them but as you desired larger Bills We have sent Such You tell Us Some of the Bills are wearing out whenever they do So as to be useless take them up and Send them to Us with a Particular List of the dates Numbers & Sums and Duplicates of the Said List by the two next Ships for our Information in case of the firsts Miscarriage which List the Govern[r] & Council must Sign to vouch their being true & Exact We find in your Consultation of the 7 Feby an attempt to lessen the Credit of those Bills wherein James Rider and Rob[t] Bells wife were Concerned but Privately Sett on by M[r] Powell because it affects his Private Storehouse you did well to punish Bell by Margin Notes: £ 700 Sufficient to pay the Garrison £ 400 in Bills Sent as Bills wear out send them home & a Sup[ply] in Lieu Rider & Bells refusing Bills[?] | Captain Benjamin Graves, commander. (£700 sufficient to pay the garrison.) What real necessity was there for leaving off the market, as mentioned in paragraph 14? Seven hundred pounds value was not enough to pay the garrison for a year, as the bench alleged in paragraph 15. It would, however, at least pay for four or six months. This would prevent the old method, which the bench owned was a bad one. That method was entering every thing at the stores again. (£400 in bills sent.) At the bench's desires, and to enlarge the sum, the directors now sent four hundred pounds more in bills. These were two hundred bills, each of twenty shillings. There were also one hundred bills of forty shillings, bound up in books. They were to be dated, signed and numbered. They were to be made use of in all points as directed in paragraph 37 by the Rochester, for those then sent with the bench. (As bills wear out send them home signed by Governor in lists.) The directors had not at first thought it necessary to have any plates graven for ten-shilling bills. They did not do so now, though the bench wrote for them. As the bench had desired larger bills, the directors had sent such. The bench was to tell the directors when some of the bills were wearing out. Whenever they did so as to be useless, the bench was to take them up. The worn bills were to be sent to the directors. They were to come with a particular list of the dates, numbers and sums. Duplicates of the list were to be sent by the two next ships, for the directors' information in case of the first miscarriage. The governor and council were to sign the list to vouch its being true and exact.
Interpretations The market question identified a recurring point of friction between the bench and the directors. The bench had ceased its weekly market arrangement. The directors challenged the justification. Even partial coverage of the garrison's pay for four to six months would have been better than reverting to the old method. The old method was the practice of paying soldiers and others in goods drawn from the stores. The bench itself had acknowledged the practice as bad. The objection was structural. Each issue from the stores against pay required a written entry, multiplying the storekeeper's books. The four hundred pounds in bills supplemented the existing paper money supply. The denominations were calibrated to the typical wage and provisioning transaction. Two hundred bills at twenty shillings each covered medium payments. One hundred bills at forty shillings each covered larger settlements. The books were the bound volumes from which each bill was to be cut on issue. The signing, numbering and dating procedure identified the standard authentication chain for paper money. The combination of all three made forgery difficult. A bill that did not match the issuing book entry could be challenged at any holder. The reference back to paragraph 37 by the Rochester identified the original instructions under which the system had been established. The ten-shilling denomination request had been declined twice. The directors saw no need to engrave new plates for so small a unit. The combination of forty-shilling, twenty-shilling and the existing smaller denominations already covered the practical range of transactions on the island. The withdrawal-and-replace procedure identified an audit-driven currency renewal cycle. Worn bills were to be taken up, listed by date, number and sum, and returned to London. Duplicate lists were to follow by the next two ships, guarding against loss of the first list at sea. The governor and council signed jointly to vouch the truth of the return. The Rider and Bells matter at paragraph 34 identified an attempt to undermine the bills' credit. James Rider and the wife of Robert Bells had refused to take the bills at face value. The directors traced the refusal to private encouragement by Mr Powell. Gabriel Powell had appeared across the consolidated record. He had been the appraiser for the Carne yams on 23 August 1715. He had been bound over in a two hundred pound bond, criticised by the directors at paragraph 59 of the Katherine letter. He had supplied the plantation criticism reported at paragraph 68 of the same letter. Powell's private storehouse identified the operative motive. A successful Company paper currency reduced the planters' need to settle small transactions through the private storehouses. Powell had a direct commercial interest in undermining the bills. By encouraging Rider and Bells to refuse them, he sought to discredit the paper at the island. Speculations The directors' instruction to sign and number every bill, together with the worn-bill return procedure, suggested a deliberate auditable closed system. Every bill could in principle be traced from issue book through circulation to retirement. A bill that appeared in retirement without matching an issue entry would prove forgery. A bill that left circulation without retirement would prove embezzlement. The two duplicate lists by the next two ships protected the audit chain against any single ship's loss. The identification of Powell as the private instigator of the Rider and Bells refusal pointed to specific intelligence from a named source at the island. The bench's consultation entry of 7 February had recorded the public refusal by Rider and Bells. Someone, perhaps the governor himself, had then identified Powell as the hidden mover. The directors took the report seriously enough to commend the punishment of Bell as an appropriate response. | |
132 | By Ship Success by demanding payment of what he owes Us and a fine for his Insolence when you thought fitt to give him Some respite It had been much better if you had obliged him to Clear his debt in our Books of which We shall Say more under another head Thirdly touching our Servants Civill or Military, The Accounts of S[t] Helena in generall and also touching our Slaves Cattle Land & Revenues We are weary of Complaining That our Accounts are not Sent us We want to know what is becom[e] of the Cargos Sent from hence which from May 1708 without reckoning Vice Catherines come to Nineteen thousand three hundred & forty pounds Besides the Bills drawn on Us Since the Said may to this time is about three & twenty thousand Pounds and beside the Severall Goods & Stores brought you from all Parts of India and the loss upon them and on our Goods from hence which must make a large Increase We can have no Satisfaction till yo[u]r Books come to Shew us what remains We have there and how the rest hath been laid out that We might quicke[n] them We proposed & directed last year to Stop the Gratuity preemptorily to the Accomptant & Store keeper as in Par[.] 54 and to Suspend them or either of them from Sallary and Diet if they were Negligent as in Par[.] 51 We find in the Consultation of the 21 July Margin Notes: Want of accts[?] Some of Cargoes Sent out & Bills drawn Gratuity to be Pre empted | By ship Success. The directors had thereby demanded payment of what Bell owed them, with a fine for his insolence. The bench had thought fit to give him some respite. It had been much better if the bench had obliged him to clear his debt in the directors' books. More would be said of this matter under another head. Thirdly. Touching the directors' servants civil and military, the accounts of St Helena in general, and also touching the directors' slaves, cattle, land and revenues.
(Gratuity to be paid stopt.) The directors might quicken the bench. The bench had proposed, and the directors had decreed, last year to stop the gratuity peremptorily to the accountant and storekeeper, as in paragraph 51. The directors were also to suspend them, or either of them, from salary and diet if they were negligent, as in paragraph 51. The directors found in the consultation of the said Interpretations The Bell punishment matter closed the immediate point on private undermining of the bills. The directors approved the demand for payment of debt. They approved the fine for insolence. They disapproved the respite the bench had granted Bell on the underlying debt. The respite was the operative complaint. By giving Bell time on his debt, the bench had effectively reversed the financial pressure. A debtor under demand could not credibly attack the bills. A debtor with respite could continue to do so. The third general head opened with a comprehensive scope. It covered the bench's civil and military servants. It covered the accounts of St Helena in general. It covered slaves, cattle, land and revenues. These were the substantive matters on which the audit depended. The cargoes value identified a substantial unsettled account. £19,340 0s 0d in goods had been despatched from London since May 1708. This excluded the Katherine's cargo. £23,000 0s 0d in bills had been drawn since the same date. The combined accounts ran to over £42,000 0s 0d at issue. The unsettled value at the island had to be larger still. Indian goods drawn into the stores added to the figure. Losses on damaged or short consignments had to be deducted. The whole structure required the bench's books to reconcile. Without those books, the directors had no audit basis. The gratuity stop identified the principal disciplinary instrument the directors had in reserve. The accountant and the storekeeper received gratuities above their salaries. These could be stopped peremptorily for failure to bring up the books. Salary itself could be suspended if the negligence continued. Diet, the right to dine at the Company's table, was a further sanction. The paragraph 51 reference identified the standing authorisation for these sanctions. The mechanism was already in place. The directors needed only to confirm its application. The reminder to the bench was therefore not new authority but a prompt to use existing authority. The accountant and the storekeeper were the two principal offices on which the audit depended. The accountant kept the books. The storekeeper held the goods. Neither could function without the other. The directors targeted both equally, since failure by either would block the audit chain. Speculations The directors' weariness with complaining about the accounts pointed to a long pattern of delay. The May 1708 starting date covered nearly nine years of unsettled cargoes. The bench had been told repeatedly. The accounts had not been brought up. The directors now moved from complaint to action through the gratuity stop. The careful coupling of the two sanctions, gratuity stop and salary suspension, suggested a graduated discipline. A gratuity stop alone might be absorbed by an officer with private resources. A salary suspension was harder to absorb. A diet suspension removed the Company's table support entirely. Each step raised the personal cost. The directors had probably calibrated the sequence to produce compliance before the heaviest sanction was actually needed. | |
133 | Cap[t] Benj[.] Graves Comand[r] July they were called upon to give in their answer to our Said Letter for what concerned them the Queen did not come away till fourteen or Sixteen days after and you had received that Letter about Six weeks before yet not one word Sent us either in the Generall Letter or in any Particular one from either of them tho[ugh] We have one from M[r] Tovey the Secretary for So far as concerns him We find they have often been called upon to prepare and finish them The 29 Nov[em]b[er] 1715 when M[r] Hancell the Accompt ant was enquired of about the Accounts he answered they had been done long ago had there been Books to Coppy them before the Cardonnell arrived but they were almost done and would be Compleated in a Short time and M[r] Bazett Said the Same We observe they both Sign the Entry in the Consultation and if the Excuse was then real which to Us is doubtfull yet the Cardonnell had been there Severall months before So that it ought not to have been admitted for So long alone In the Consultation of the 13 [Decemb] Decemb[er] which both Sign They Say the Books are done but not quite Copyed over In that of the 21 Feby[?] they are reminded a gain and when they pretended the writing work was too much for them M[r] Fairfax Midshipman of the Thistleworth is allow[e]d to assist them tho[ugh] there had been Six writers in the Stores wheras heretofore there used to be but two In that Consulta tion it is mentioned they were both very much behind in their Accounts and M[r] Hancell Signs it In the Acc[oun]t received by the Margin Notes: excuse of Store acc[oun]ts Cap[t] Hancells Answer [?] their excuses [?] [?] [?] delivered & finally found for not being done & Sent | Captain Benjamin Graves, commander. (Default of store accounts.) On 16 July the bench called upon the accountant and storekeeper for their answer to the directors' said letter, as concerned them. The Queen did not come away till fourteen or sixteen days after. The bench had received that letter about six weeks before. Yet not one word had been sent to the directors. Neither the general letter, nor any particular one from either of them, contained any answer. The directors had, however, one from Mr Tovey the secretary, so far as concerned him. The accountant and storekeeper had often been called upon to prepare and finish them. (Captain Hancock's answer.) On 29 November 1715, Mr Hancock the accountant was enquired of about the accounts. He answered they had been done long ago, had there been books to copy them, before the Cardonnell arrived. They were almost done. They would be completed in a short time. Mr Bazett said the same. The directors observed they both signed this entry in the consultation. Whether the excuse was then real was doubtful. The Cardonnell had, however, been there several months before. The excuse ought not to have been admitted for so long alone. In the consultation of 13 December, which both signed, they said the books were done but not quite copied over. (Few more excuses.) In that of 21 February they were reminded again. They pretended the writing work was too much for them. (Mr Fairfax allowed to assist found for not being down at fort.) Mr Fairfax, midshipman of the Thistleworth, was allowed to assist them. There had heretofore been six writers in the stores, whereas at present there were but two. In that consultation it was mentioned that both were very much behindhand in their accounts. Mr Hancock signed it in the answer received by the Interpretations The 16 July call identified the bench's procedural compliance with the directors' standing order. The accountant and storekeeper had been formally summoned to answer the directors' letter. The summons was entered in consultation. The audit chain was in principle preserved at this stage. The fourteen-to-sixteen day gap before the Queen's departure identified the operative failure. The accountant and storekeeper had a clear two-week window to compose their answers. Six weeks had already elapsed since the directors' letter arrived. The window was not used. Mr Tovey the secretary appeared as the partial exception. He had sent his own answer covering his department. The contrast was telling. One officer had complied within the time available. The other two had not. The directors thereby identified compliance as possible and the failure as personal rather than systemic. The 29 November 1715 entry recorded the first formal excuse. Hancock and Bazett both pleaded want of books to copy from. They claimed the accounts were almost done. They promised completion shortly. Both signed the consultation entry together. The Cardonnell timing exposed the weakness of the excuse. That ship had been at the island several months before. The books should have arrived then. Even allowing for delay, the excuse could not stretch over several months alone. The 13 December entry continued the pattern. The books were now said to be done. They were not yet copied over. The distinction shifted the failure from preparation to fair-copying. Both Hancock and Bazett signed again. The 21 February reminder elicited a new excuse. The writing work was too much for two officers. The bench had reduced the stores writers from six to two. The accountant and storekeeper were therefore allegedly unable to complete the fair copies. They were also behindhand in their primary accounts. The Fairfax assistance identified the bench's response. Mr Fairfax, a midshipman from the Thistleworth, was permitted to help. This drew clerical labour from a passing ship. The arrangement was irregular but expedient. It bypassed the bench's own staffing constraint by using temporary external labour. The six-to-two reduction in writers identified the underlying establishment cut. The earlier strength of six allowed the books to be kept current. The reduction to two had been imposed by economy. The accountant and storekeeper could plead the reduction as a structural cause of their backlog. Speculations The cumulative pattern of excuses across November, December and February suggested a deliberate strategy by Hancock and Bazett. Each excuse was different. Each was answerable on its own terms. The pattern as a whole, however, was one of continuous deferral. By offering a fresh excuse at each consultation, the two officers prevented any single excuse from being tested to a conclusion. The reduction of the writers from six to two was probably the bench's own economy measure under earlier directors' pressure to limit establishment costs. The directors at paragraphs 55 and 56 of the Katherine letter had insisted that two clerks were sufficient at the secretary's office, with stores writers and councillors assisting at peak times. Hancock and Bazett were now using that economy as cover for their accounting failure. The directors' position was therefore caught between their own cost discipline and the audit failure that discipline had enabled. | |
134 | By Ship Success the Cardigan of the Generall Table Expences N[o] 6 it is Said you cant Send the Exact Charge because the Accomptant and Store keeper have not yet made up the Acc[oun]ts In Some of the Consul where the Storekeepers monthly Acc[oun]ts of Goods Sold are Entered It is mentiond That they were of So many months date backward[?] the Governour could not pretend by his Memory to Examine them as they Should be when We lay all this together before you as it appears from the Entrys above what can be Said why this Ship which came not away till October last Should not have brought them when they were if the above recital[s] be true So near done Eight months before and when you all knew the Occasion of Sending out M[r] Haswell was to take care of our Accounts so long neglected That We may apply Some thing toward a Partial remedy We now add that we will allow neither of them any Part of our Designed gratuity to them either for this time forward or from its intended Commencem[en]t unless by their amendment they Shall merrit it Better of which We will be Judges not you If our last years Orders to you beforementioned have not the good Effect We wish for We hope and Positively Expect you have Suspen[de]d them from Sallary or diet or both as they deserve in the manner therein directed for Such delays in not Sending our Acc[oun]ts can answer no good ends but are of the worst Consequence to us as will appear by what follows of our Observations on Margin Notes: Accompt[an]t nor Storekeep[e]r allowed Intended Gratuity | By ship Success. The bench's letter by the Cardigan, at paragraph 6, said the exact charge for the general table could not be given. The accountant and storekeeper had not yet made up the accounts. In several consultations, the storekeeper's monthly accounts of goods sold had been entered many months after the events. The governor could not be expected to check such old entries from memory. When the directors laid all this together, the failure was plain. The Success did not sail until October. The accounts had been declared near completion eight months earlier. There was therefore no good reason why the ship had not carried them home. The bench knew that Mr Hancock had been sent out specifically to bring the accounts up. Yet the directors' accounts continued to be neglected. (Accountant nor storekeeper allowed gratuity.) The directors now applied a partial remedy. Neither Hancock nor Bazett would receive any part of the gratuity intended for them. The withdrawal applied both for the time going forward and from the originally intended start date. Restoration depended on personal amendment. The directors, not the bench, would judge whether any improvement merited it. The directors had given the bench orders the previous year on this point. If those orders had not produced the desired effect, the directors hoped and positively expected that the bench had suspended Hancock and Bazett from salary, or diet, or both. Such delays in sending out the accounts served no useful purpose. They produced the worst consequences for the directors, as would appear from the observations that followed on Interpretations The table expenses identified a discrete accounting head. The Company's table at the governor's house fed the senior servants and visiting officers at Company expense. The expense had to be reported in detail to London. The bench could not even give the exact charge for this single head. The storekeeper's monthly accounts of goods sold had been entered late. They were several months out of date by the time they reached consultation. The governor could not check stale entries from memory. The audit chain was broken at its first link. The Success's October sailing exposed the failure on the bench's own evidence. The accounts had been declared near completion eight months before. The ship had not left until October. Eight months was ample time to finish what had been described as nearly done. The Hancock recruitment identified a specific intervention. The directors had sent Hancock out as the new accountant to bring matters current. He was the same officer whose excuses had filled the November, December and February consultations. The bench knew his purpose. His delay was therefore inexcusable on any view. The gratuity withdrawal identified the immediate sanction. The directors had intended a gratuity for both Hancock and Bazett. The whole sum was now withheld. It would not run from any earlier start date. Recovery depended on personal amendment, with the directors as judges of any improvement. The directors' decision to reserve judgement to themselves at home was significant. The bench at the island could not certify Hancock or Bazett as worthy of restored gratuity. The mechanism prevented the bench from collusively rehabilitating its own officers. The salary and diet suspension authorisation remained in force. The directors expected the bench to have applied it. The phrasing positively expected made any failure to suspend a disciplinary matter against the bench itself. The worst consequence framing identified the systemic risk. Unsettled accounts at the island prevented any London audit. They prevented detection of fraud at the issue point. They prevented enforcement of charter party claims. They prevented the bills-of-exchange discipline from operating properly. Speculations The directors' decision to keep the judgement on amendment at home pointed to a settled distrust of the bench's audit capacity. A bench that could not produce its own accounts could not credibly certify whether its officers had earned restoration of the gratuity. By taking the judgement to London, the directors converted the gratuity into a personal incentive directed at Hancock and Bazett individually. The eight-month gap between the declared near completion of the accounts and the Success's sailing suggested that the accounts had not in fact been near completion when Hancock and Bazett had said so. The repeated promises across the November, December and February consultations may have been deliberate misrepresentation rather than honest optimism. The directors' phrasing on the earlier image, whether the excuse was then real was doubtful, had left both readings open. The cumulative pattern tilts towards the misrepresentation reading. | |
135 | Cap[t] Benj[.] Graves Comand[r] of the Inhabitants debts Viz[t] We have once and again Complained of these debts & have told you That We have been informed People worth nothing even the Soldiers have had Credit in the Stores for a Bribe to the Storekeeper for great Sums and for the Same reason good debts have been discharged by allowing Transferrs of others insolvent The Enquiry into this we directed last year in Par[.] 51 2 & 3 and do expect from all of you but Particularly recomen[d] it to the Governours Care to See those Direccions fully Comply'd to in all the Parts and no procrastinating or evilling it off on any Pretences whatsoever If by Accident any Hardship Should be done to one or more So Soon as We know it We will ease them and our Estate is always at Stake to make them reparation but dont any of you under that excuse Stand Still till you hear further from Us We Find in your Consultation of the 24 March where the Governour reports what discourse he had had with the Debtors he had Sent to about their debts That M[r] Bazett was against asking any of them for Interest notwithstanding the Governour[s] reason That Such a demand would make them more in earnest to pay their debts especially those of long Standing This is a very ill return for our kindness to him for so many years when he was a Refugee helpless and unable to provide for himself Our Governours care to get in our debts as the duty Margin Notes: People worth nothing has had Cre[di]t abuse Direccions to be Com[ply]d w[i]th Bazette[?] denied for be fashling[?] on the Govern[or?] Govern[or?] | Captain Benjamin Graves, commander. The directors now turned to the inhabitants' debts.
The directors had directed an enquiry into this in the previous year, in paragraphs 71, 72 and 73. The directors now repeated the order to the whole bench. The governor was particularly to ensure the directions were fully complied with in all parts. There was to be no procrastination or putting off on any pretence. If any hardship should accidentally fall on one or more debtors, the directors would ease them as soon as they knew of it. The Company's estate was always at stake, and would make them reparation. No member of the bench was, however, to stand still under that excuse until further word came from the directors.
This was a poor return for the Company's kindness to Bazett over many years. He had been a refugee, helpless and unable to provide for himself. The governor's care to bring in the debts was Interpretations The bribery mechanism identified the operative form of corruption inside the stores. A soldier or person of no property received credit on the stores books. A sum changed hands privately to the storekeeper. The Company lost the credit, since the debtor could never pay. The storekeeper kept the bribe. The debt transfer mechanism worked the same fraud from the opposite end. A solvent debtor discharged his account through transfer to an insolvent debtor. The Company's recoverable claim was thus replaced by an unrecoverable one. The storekeeper presumably received a private inducement for accepting the substitution. The paragraphs 71, 72 and 73 reference identified standing directions already issued the previous year. The enquiry had not been pursued. The directors now placed the responsibility on the governor personally, not on the bench collectively. This shifted the locus of accountability from a diffuse council to a single named office. The hardship provision identified the directors' calibration of the enforcement. The bench was to press the debtors. Genuine hardship cases would, however, receive relief from London on report. The Company's overall estate provided the cushion for such relief. No councillor could plead anticipated hardship as a reason to delay action against any particular debtor. The Bazett refugee reference at paragraph 37 identified a personal history not previously visible in the consolidated record. Bazett had at some earlier point been a refugee. He had been helpless and unable to provide for himself. The Company had given him shelter and employment. His present opposition to charging interest on long-standing debts was treated by the directors as ingratitude. The interest question was the immediate procedural dispute. The governor had wanted to charge interest on the unpaid debts. Bazett had opposed the charge. The governor's argument was practical. A demand for interest would press the debtors harder, since each month of delay would increase what they owed. Bazett's opposition would, by contrast, leave the debts in suspension at their original sums. Speculations The directors' decision to single out the governor for personal responsibility, rather than the bench as a whole, pointed to a calibrated escalation. A collective duty could be diffused across the councillors, with each pleading the inaction of the others. A personal duty on the governor identified one office holder against whom failure could be measured. The governor would have to act, or be seen not to have acted, on his own account. The disclosure of Bazett's refugee history in a formal despatch to the bench was unusual. The directors normally avoided personal histories in correspondence read aloud in consultation. The choice here was probably deliberate. Bazett's opposition to charging interest was framed as a personal failure of gratitude, in front of his colleagues. The technique converted a procedural disagreement into a question of character, with implications for his future position on the bench. | |
136 | By Ship Success Entry appears to us is very commendable and what We would not pass over unobserved as We also must not the entry[?] and remarks about William Beale Punchmar there mentiond to owe us £ 115 who Said the reason why he stood So much D[ebto]r was because he could not get Bills entred in the Storehouse for he could not afford to let them gaine So much by his Bills as they did by the others who Sold Arrack but he would give Ten Pounds in Silver if the Governour would Order he Bills to be Transferr[e]d to his Credit, Is not this a flagrant Instance of our Storekeepers & perhaps Accomptants dishonesty for if the Bills were good there was no reason to pay for entring them Doth not this plainly discover how the Insolvent Persons hath become our Debtors and those who were able to pay have dealt with the Private Storehouses The Declaracon made thereupon by the Govern[ur] That no Transferr Should thence forward be made in our Books, or on our Accounts but in Consultation was a very good remedy We Suppose it is now a Rule for the future with what therein follows that if any one of the Council can give a good reason against Such Transferr it Shall not be allowed we further charge the Majesty be for it and lest it Should be drop't We hereby direct[?] and require that this be a Standing Rule in all time to come We further add That We expect you make Publick enquiry who hath made any and what presents and to whom for getting Transfer[r]s of Margin Notes: Commended for endeavours to gett in debts ab[ou]t W[i]ll[ia]m Beals Bills unliken[ess?] [...] suspect of fraudul[en]t Practice[?] No Transferr but in Consult[ation] Approved Rules about Transfers Expected | By ship Success. (Commended for endeavours to get in debts.) The bench's entry on the matter was very commendable. The directors must not pass over the entry and remarks about William Beale, pinch-man, mentioned to owe the Company one hundred and fifteen pounds. (About William Beale's bills.) Beale had said the reason he stood so much in debt. He could not get bills entered in the storehouse. He could not afford to let the bills gain as much as those who sold arrack did. He would, however, give ten pounds in silver if the governor would order his bills to be transferred to his credit. Was this not a flagrant instance of the storekeeper's and perhaps the accountant's dishonesty? If the bills were good, there was no reason to pay for entering them. Did not this plainly show how insolvent persons had become the Company's debtors? Those who were able to pay had dealt with the private storehouses.
Interpretations The William Beale bribery offer revealed the operative mechanism of the storekeeper's corruption. Beale was the pinch-man, a holder of small notes or bills issued by the Company. He had bills which he could not get entered as credit in the storehouse books. The storekeeper was refusing to record the entries. Beale offered ten pounds in silver to the governor to obtain the transfer order. The bills he held were good. They should have been entered without payment or favour. The refusal exposed the storekeeper's practice of demanding inducements for routine bookwork. The arrack reference identified the comparative standard Beale used. Those who sold arrack to the Company received their bills credited promptly and at full value. Beale's bills did not gain in the same way. The differential pointed to selective treatment by the storekeeper, with favoured suppliers receiving prompt credit and others having to pay for the same service. The flow-on consequence identified the wider damage to the Company's debt position. The private storehouses operated on cash or quick credit and did not demand inducements. Solvent customers therefore dealt with the private storehouses rather than with the Company's stores. Only the insolvent, those without ready cash or alternative supply, used the Company. The bench was thereby left with bad debtors and the private competitors retained the good ones. The pinch-man term identified a specific trade or office not previously recorded in the consolidated material. The role was probably a small-scale handler of Company notes and bills, perhaps acting as a discount agent for soldiers and minor planters. The institutional function bears further investigation as more material comes to hand. The new consultation rule established the operative remedy. No transfer of debt or credit could be made in the books except by consultation entry. The governor announced this on his own authority. The directors confirmed it as a standing rule. Each transfer would now appear in the consultation book under the signatures of the councillors present. The audit trail was thereby closed at the point of risk. The minority objection clause added a safeguard within the rule. Any single councillor could oppose a specific transfer. The majority would decide. The arrangement allowed dissent to be recorded even where the transfer was eventually approved. A councillor who suspected corruption could lodge his objection in the consultation book, preserving his own position for any later audit. The public enquiry direction at the end of the entry identified the next stage. The bench was to enquire publicly who had given presents, what presents had been given, and to whom, for obtaining transfers. The enquiry was to be public, not private, which would deter further bribery by exposing past instances to the whole community at the island. Speculations The directors' careful approval of the governor's declaration, followed by its conversion into a standing rule by London authority, pointed to a deliberate procedural strengthening. A rule announced by the governor alone could be reversed by his successor. A rule placed on the directors' authority as standing could be modified only by them. The technique converted a local administrative response into a permanent constitutional feature of the bench's operation. The decision to require public enquiry into past presents was probably calibrated to produce informants rather than confessions. A donor who had paid for a transfer would not voluntarily confess. A rival who had been refused, or a soldier who had observed the practice, might come forward when the enquiry was made public. The arrangement created an incentive for those outside the bribery network to expose those within it, without requiring the directors to identify suspects in advance. | |
137 | Cap[t] Benj[a]y Graves Comd[r] of bad debts with a Promise of Reward to Such as prove their Infor mation and do you Sue the Persons for the Damage We have Sustaind[?] on that account This We also more Particularly recomend to the Governours care to See duly & fully executed be they who they will for it Seems to be between the Accompt[an]t Storekeeper & Secretary if the above report be true We must not pass over another Remark in the Said Consultation of this Bazett he was against M[r] Frenchs discharging two of our Chaplain M[r] Thomlinsons Blacks from working at the Fortifications altho[ugh] too weak for that Labour wheras by importunity M[r] French the overseer was willing to Entertain them who did So at twelve pence a day he was against that too and with the Council Prevailed to allow them each Eighteen pence and he insists on it That the Planters cant afford to Let them out under Eighteen pence a day with a Sort of threat ning that if the Govern[r] who proposed to buy Blacks and Let them at twelve pence a day did So he would find no body else would do the Same Is not this an Instance that those who eat our bread are our Secret Enemys So tell M[r] Lieut[?] Bazett our minds plainly If We dont find him serve us much better he Shall eat no more of it We hope this will be us the design it for a Caution to excite him & others to more fidelity in future and That all our Orders &[c] in particular the 10th 11th & 12 Par[.] and those before mentioned in our last years Letter be duly & on all Occasions obey[e]d You are all to blame for not Sending a full answer to the whole of that Letter by the Queen We Margin Notes: M[r] Bazett & M[r] Frenchs discharge Dr[?] Thomlinson[s] Blacks and Black mens will be lett [?]w 18 p[er] day | Captain Benjamin Graves, commander. The bench was to discover any bad debts, with promise of pardon to those who proved their information good. The bench was to sue the persons responsible for the damage the Company had sustained. The directors recommended this particularly to the governor's care, to see it duly and fully executed, whoever the persons might be. The matter seemed, if the report above was true, to lie between the accountant, storekeeper and secretary.
This was an instance that those who ate the Company's bread were the Company's secret enemies. The directors had told Mr Bazett the directors' mind plainly. If he was not found to serve the Company much better, he would eat no more of its bread. The directors hoped this would have the design intended, to excite him and others to greater fidelity in future. All the directors' orders, and in particular those of 10, 11 and 12 December, and those mentioned in the previous year's letter, were to be duly obeyed on all occasions. The bench was all to blame for not sending a full answer to the whole of that letter by the Queen. Interpretations The bad debts pardon mechanism identified an informer incentive. The bench was to invite disclosures of bad debts, with pardon promised to those who came forward with good information. The pardon ran to the informer's own conduct in the transaction. The arrangement converted potential defendants into witnesses by removing their fear of prosecution. The suit against the responsible parties identified the operative recovery method. Damages were to be sought by civil action. The Company's loss was the measure. The directors specifically directed the governor to ensure execution regardless of the persons involved. This signalled that no councillor or stores officer was beyond the action. The three offices identified as the suspected centre of the corruption were the accountant, storekeeper and secretary. Mr Hancock the accountant, Mr Bazett the storekeeper and Mr Tovey the secretary. The triangle covered the full audit chain. The accountant kept the books. The storekeeper held the goods. The secretary recorded the consultations. Collusion among all three would close every check point. The slave hire dispute at paragraph 39 revealed a local labour rate question. Mr French, the plantation overseer, had agreed to take two of the chaplain Mr Thomlinson's slaves at twelve pence a day. The two were too weak for the heavier fortifications labour. Bazett opposed the discharge from fortifications work. Bazett also opposed the twelve-pence rate. Bazett carried the council to set the rate at eighteen pence a day. The eighteen-pence floor identified a planter-class interest. Bazett's argument was that no planter could afford to hire out his own slaves at less than eighteen pence a day. A twelve-pence rate set by the Company would undercut the private hire market. The Company's labour pricing would thereby pull the planters' hire rates down. Bazett, holding slaves of his own, had a direct private interest in maintaining the higher rate. The directors' framing was unsparing. Those who ate the Company's bread were the Company's secret enemies. Bazett's bread, his salary, table and gratuity, came from the Company. His use of the council's authority to protect his private slave-hire rate was therefore treachery within the establishment. The directors had told him so plainly. The threat was direct. He would eat no more of the Company's bread if he did not serve better. The chaplain Mr Thomlinson appeared here for the first time. As chaplain, he held slaves perhaps for personal service rather than for hire. The two slaves who were too weak for fortifications work had been put forward for lighter labour with French. The arrangement would have generated income for Thomlinson at twelve pence a day each, which Bazett's intervention raised to eighteen pence. Speculations The directors' decision to name the three offices, accountant, storekeeper and secretary, as the suspected centre of the bribery for transfers pointed to specific intelligence that had reached London. The three offices working in concert could process a corrupt transfer through every stage: the storekeeper would accept it, the accountant would enter it, the secretary would record it in consultation. A bench enquiry that targeted these three offices would either confirm the collusion or force the participants to break ranks. Bazett's insistence on the eighteen-pence rate, presented as concern for the planters generally, probably masked his own interest as a slave owner. A councillor who held slaves of his own benefited directly from any floor under the hire rate. The directors' response, treating his vote on the council as a private rather than a public act, identified the conflict of interest at the heart of the dispute. By making him answer personally to the threat of losing his place, the directors converted his collective vote into an individual liability. | |
138 | By Ship Success We find in the Consultation Book Cap[t] Hancell was Ordered to draw out a List of the Debts due to the Comp[any] on the Island & on the 31 Janu[a]ry he brought in the List taken of Ballance due the 25 of March before of what owing to & by the Comp[any] But in Governour Pykes report It is exprest he found Rich[ar]d Gurling owed £ 300 more than charged in Said List and That Thomas Leech owed £ 22 .. 5 .. tho[ugh] the abstract mentions but £ 4 .. 1 .. ½ what can be said to Such mannagem[en]t either by the Accomptant or Storekeeper Our Governours care herein is Evident We desire he will Continue it that at last We may find & as Soon as Possible these debts recovered or as far as they can for tho[ugh] Some are become desperate yet others are got or getting in in part and the rest We Suppose with care may be fully paid We find the Governours Report about M[r] Carne debt is to favour the Widdow on Account of her former Children He was always reputed rich and to have abundance of Rice Cattle and Blacks and in the List of the Inhabitants taken in March it appears She hath Fifteen Blacks Forty Seven head of Cattle little and great and a hundred Acres of Land So that as there is a large Estate dont let us Suffer and then be as kind to the Widow as Conveniently you can but remember We pay Interest to our Creditors here, As the List of Debts Stands M[r] Carne is Debt[or] £ 194 .. 14 .. 11 and £ 321 .. 3 .. ½ the Governours Report mentions only the first Sum but why he Should be trusted So long for either when Margin Notes: Ballance due to y[e] Comp[any] Gurling & Leeches Debts ab[ou]t M[r] Carnes debt and what his Estate lay in[?] Particulars of M[r] Carnes Debt | By ship Success.
(Gurling and Leech debt.) In Governor Pyke's report, however, it was expressed that he found Richard Gurling owed three hundred pounds more than was charged in the list. Thomas Leech owed twenty-two pounds and five shillings, though the abstract mentioned only one pound and four shillings. What could be said of such mismanagement, either by the accountant or the storekeeper? The governor's care in the matter was evident. The directors hoped he would continue, so that at last, and as soon as possible, these debts could be recovered, or as far as they could be. Some had become desperate. Others, however, were got in, or were being got in part. The rest, the directors supposed, with care might be fully paid. (Mr Carne debts, and what his estate lay in.) The directors found the governor's report about Mr Carne's debt was in favour of the widow, on account of her former children. Carne had always been reputed rich. He had been reported to have an abundance of cattle and slaves. In the list of inhabitants taken in March, it appeared the widow had fifteen slaves, forty-seven head of cattle, large and small, and one hundred acres of land. As there was a large estate, the directors did not let the Company suffer. The bench was to be as kind to the widow as conveniently could be done. The bench was to remember, however, that the directors paid interest to creditors at home. As the list of debts stood, Mrs Carne was debtor one hundred and ninety-one pounds, fourteen shillings and eleven pence, and also twenty-one pounds and three shillings. (Particulars of Mr Carne's debt.) The governor's report mentioned only the first sum. The directors questioned, however, why she should be trusted so long for either, when Interpretations The Haswell list and the balance reconciliation identified a standard audit procedure. Captain Haswell had been ordered to extract the outstanding debts from the books as at 25 March. The list represented the formal position. Pyke's separate report, however, identified two specific errors. Richard Gurling's debt was understated by three hundred pounds. Thomas Leech's debt was stated at one pound four shillings rather than the correct twenty-two pounds five shillings. The errors exposed a deeper audit failure. The list was the bench's own product. The errors were not minor adjustments but substantial omissions. Three hundred pounds was a very large sum to omit from a single debtor's account. The reduction of Leech's debt from over twenty pounds to barely one pound represented an order of magnitude change. The errors pointed to either negligence or deliberate concealment by the accountant or the storekeeper. The Carne estate detail revealed the value behind the late George Carne's debt. The list of inhabitants taken in March had recorded fifteen slaves, forty-seven head of cattle and one hundred acres of land in the widow's hands. The estate was substantial. The Company's combined claim of one hundred and ninety-one pounds fourteen shillings and eleven pence, plus the further twenty-one pounds three shillings, was therefore well within the estate's value. The directors' careful framing on the widow's position identified a calibrated approach. Carne had always been reputed rich. The widow held the estate. The Company's claim could be pressed without ruining her. The bench was, however, to act with consideration to her former children, the children of an earlier marriage who had a separate claim on the estate. The phrase as conveniently could be done left the bench discretion on the manner, but not on the substance. The interest-paying clause identified the directors' financial pressure. The Company itself paid interest to its creditors in London. Every month a debt at the island remained outstanding therefore cost the Company interest at home. The widow's accommodation, however generous, could not extend beyond what the Company's own borrowing position allowed. The discrepancy between the two reported sums identified a procedural lapse. The governor's report mentioned only the first sum, one hundred and ninety-one pounds fourteen shillings and eleven pence. The list of debts included a further twenty-one pounds three shillings. The directors questioned why the second sum had been omitted from the report. The widow had been trusted for both sums for an extended period without challenge. The Carne estate had appeared in the consolidated record at the consultation of 23 August 1715. The bench had ordered the valuation of yams in the ground to be referred to Captain Bazett and Mr Gabriel Powill, with two further appraisers nominated by Mrs Carne. The present passage links to that earlier order. The yams valuation was part of the same broader estate accounting now under audit. Speculations The omission of three hundred pounds from Gurling's debt and the reduction of Leech's debt from twenty-two pounds to one pound suggests a pattern rather than isolated errors. Both adjustments favoured the debtor. Both reduced the Company's recoverable claim. The accountant or storekeeper responsible would benefit from each debtor through private inducement of the kind already exposed in the Beale bribery offer at paragraph 37. The pattern reinforces the directors' growing suspicion of systematic corruption at the audit point. The directors' detailed knowledge of the widow Carne's estate, with the exact slave count, cattle count and land acreage, points to a separate intelligence source independent of the bench's official returns. The March inhabitants list provided the underlying data. The directors had drawn from it to test the bench's report. The technique allowed the home office to cross-check the bench's recommendations on individual cases against the recorded wealth of the debtors, exposing any unwarranted leniency. | |
139 | Cap[t] Benj[a] Graves Comand[er] when able to pay is what We cant understand It appears to us an Instan[ce] of Great Carelessness if not infidelity in our Council His Brother John by Petition hath lately represented to Us that the deceased is Indebted to him by Bonds & otherwise upwards of Three Hundred Pounds and that he left his Widdow Two Thousand four Hundred Pounds value in Land Stock Houses & Debts the Petitioner Desires you will receive the Same of her but he hath not Produced to us nor any for him those Bonds or other Accounts however Acquaint her herewith and Send Us her Answer The next Account We take Notice of is That of our Generall Table at the Fort besides that at the Plantation The Consultation Entrys before Us make it to be Seventy odd Pounds a Month when no Ships there and when they are at the Island from a Hundred & Upwards to a hundr[ed] and Twenty This appears to Us a great Sum It must be Considerably lessend In the Storekeepers Accounts of what Supply[e]d the Plantation House &[c] find the Expence generally but tollerable abateing for the Rice to the Blacks which Swells the Account and whether that Can be reasonably lesen[e]d is left to your discretion But by the List received in the Cardigans Pacht of the Persons Constantly at the Fort Tables It appears the N[o] is 40 of which Sixteen are Black Servants and Six at board wages which you joyn as at Table but dont Say what allowed to each nor who they are and of the remaining Eighteen Severall are household Servants but no mention of their names and therefore it is to be Supposed Margin Notes: His Bro[the]r J[oh]n Cam[?] Demd ab[ou]t £ 300 Gen[era]ll Table Expence & Plant[ation] Houses Expences List of pers[ons?] at fort Tables | Captain Benjamin Graves, commander. The directors did not understand why she had been trusted when able to pay. The matter appeared as a great instance of carelessness, if not infidelity, in the council. (His brother John Carne demands above £300.) Carne's brother John had recently petitioned the directors. The petition set out that the deceased was indebted to him by bonds and otherwise upwards of three hundred pounds. The deceased had left his widow two thousand four hundred pounds value in land, stock, houses and debts. The petitioner desired the directors would secure the same of the widow. He had not, however, produced the bonds or other accounts to the directors, nor had anyone else done so for him. The bench was to acquaint the widow with the matter and send the directors her answer.
The directors found in the storekeeper's accounts of what supplied the plantation house that the expense generally was tolerable. There was an allowance for rice to the slaves which swelled the account. Whether that could be reasonably lessened was left to the bench's discretion. (List of persons at general table.) The list of persons constantly at the fort table, received in the Cardigan's packet, showed the number at forty. Of these, sixteen were black servants and six on board wages. The black servants were said to join the table. The list did not, however, say what allowance was made to each, nor who they were. Of the remaining eighteen, several were household servants. No mention was made of their names. The directors were therefore left to suppose Interpretations The John Carne petition introduced a new claimant against the estate. He was the late George Carne's brother. He claimed bonds and other instruments amounting to more than three hundred pounds. The total estate was valued at two thousand four hundred pounds in land, stock, houses and debts. The petition sought the directors' intervention to secure the claim before the widow disposed of the assets. The directors' procedural response identified the limits of a London-based claim against an island estate. The bonds had not been produced. No supporting accounts had been brought forward. Without documentary evidence, the directors could not act on the petition alone. The bench was therefore instructed to put the matter to the widow and report her answer. The procedure preserved the directors' neutrality between the brother's claim and the widow's possession. The carelessness or infidelity framing returned to the running indictment of the bench's administration. The widow's ability to pay her debt to the Company, set against her continued credit on the books, was treated as either inefficiency or active concealment. The directors gave both readings without choosing between them. The bench was left to defend whichever option it could. The general table figures at paragraph 41 identified the running cost of the Company's hospitality at the fort. Seventy pounds a month without shipping. One hundred to one hundred and twenty pounds with ships in port. The differential identified the cost of feeding visiting ship's officers and supercargoes during their stay. The directors regarded the total as excessive and required reduction. The plantation house expense was treated more favourably. The base supply was tolerable in the directors' view. The rice allowance for the slaves was, however, identified as a swelling item. The bench was given discretion to reduce this allowance, but the directors did not impose a fixed cut. The careful framing protected the slaves from arbitrary reduction while preserving the bench's authority to manage the expense locally. The list of forty persons at the fort table revealed the social composition of the establishment. Sixteen were black servants. Six were on board wages, presumably ship's officers ashore on Company business. The remaining eighteen were household servants. The list provided no names and no allowance per head. The directors could not therefore verify either the identities or the cost basis of the entries. The black servants joining the table identified a labour-and-hospitality combination. The slaves served at the meals and ate at the same provisioning. The directors did not object to the practice. They objected to the lack of individual identification and allowance, which made audit impossible. A list of names with allowances would allow the directors to test the cost claim against the establishment. The on board wages reference identified ship's officers receiving subsistence at the Company's table while their ships were in port. Their primary pay was on the ship's books. The Company at the island provided their shore meals. The arrangement was customary but should have been documented with names and dates of attendance for audit purposes. Speculations The lack of names on the table list at the fort points to a deliberate concealment rather than administrative oversight. A list of forty persons compiled without names is harder to compile than one with names, since each entry has to be classified by category instead of simply recorded by identity. The bench had probably preferred the anonymous return to avoid exposing particular individuals whose presence at the table might have been hard to justify. The directors' requirement for names and allowances would expose any such irregularity at the next return. The John Carne petition arriving in London independently of any reference from the bench at the island suggests that the brother either resided in England or had a London correspondent who acted for him. The petition was made directly to the directors, not through the island authorities. This route allowed him to bypass the bench, which might have been sympathetic to the widow. The directors' careful procedural answer, requiring documents and the widow's response, preserved the directors' neutrality while testing the substance of the claim. | |
140 | By Ship Success Supposed they are only to have the Remains of your Table B[ut] that this expence thus anatomized appears Capable of a Con fiderable retrenchment and We expect to find henceforward it is so Especially in that Article where you say at the Fort & Plantation house you Spend a Legar of Arrack a Month By what appears to us the Plantation hath but a very Small Share of it) besides four Bottles of Wine a day when no Ship ing and Six when there is We Shall not grudge a frugall Expence at any time nor Somewhat larger on Particular days and Festivals or in Shipping time nor would We willingly descend into every Item but when We Consider the Sum totall We find it a great Deal Money and the more So because We gett nothing by S[t] Helena but on the Contrary are at a large Constant large Annual charge out of Pocket only for Refresh ing our Ships Companys and of late years much more than ever We take Notice of the Comparison you make between the Numbers in your time and what in Govern[r] Boucher Roberts & Bouchers and could make our remarks thereon which are all to be Comprehended in this put us to no more charge than We must and look after every Item of it to cut off the Superfluitys which We expect to be a Considerable Retrenchment or We will not nor can be easy under & since as you Promise the Expence the Expence will be much less when We shall need to be at no Charge for Meat but have all of our growth Let us remember you Margin Notes: Expence to be re trench[e]d Quantity of Liquor[?] Superfluitys to be retrencht | By ship Success. The directors supposed the household servants were only to have the remains from the bench's table. (Expense to be lessened.) This expense, examined in the way described, appeared capable of considerable reduction. The directors expected to find this done from this point forward. The reduction was especially needed in the article where the bench said that at the fort and plantation house a leager of arrack was used in a month. (Quantity of liquor.) By what appeared to the directors, the plantation had only a very small share of it. Besides this, there were four bottles of wine a day when there was no shipping. There were six when there was shipping. The directors would not grudge a frugal expense at any time, nor something larger on particular days and festivals, or in shipping time. The directors would not willingly descend into every item. When the directors considered the sum total, however, they found it a great deal of money. The position was worse because the directors got nothing by St Helena. On the contrary, the directors stood at a constant large annual charge out of pocket only for refreshing the Company's ships. The expense had of late years been much more than ever. The directors took notice of the comparison the bench had made between the present time and what had been spent in Governor Poirier, Roberts and Boucher's time. The directors could make remarks on this, but all that was to be apprehended was that the comparison put the directors to no more charge than necessary. (Superfluity to be retrenched.) The bench was to look after every item, and to cut off the superfluities. The directors expected this to be a considerable reduction. The directors would not, nor could be, easy until it was done. The bench had promised that the expense would be much less when the Company had no need to be at any charge for meat. The bench had said that all meat would be of the Company's own growth. The directors trusted the bench would remember Interpretations The leager of arrack identified a substantial unit of measure used for the spirit at the island. A leager was a large cask of approximately one hundred and fifty gallons, used principally for arrack and wine on Dutch and English East Indian ships. A leager a month between the fort and the plantation house was a heavy consumption. The directors observed that the plantation house drew only a small share, which meant the fort table consumed the bulk. The four-bottle and six-bottle wine allowance identified the daily wine ration. Four bottles a day without shipping, six bottles with shipping in port. The increase covered the visiting ship's officers and supercargoes who joined the table during port calls. The directors did not object to the differential but to the total. The directors' financial position identified the running deficit of the island establishment. The Company got nothing from St Helena. The island was a refreshment station for the Company's ships, not a revenue source. The constant large annual charge fell on the directors out of pocket. Every expense at the fort was therefore a net cost rather than an offset against revenue, which made the bench's hospitality margins particularly sensitive. The Poirier, Roberts and Boucher comparison identified the bench's own defence. The bench had compared the present cost with the earlier administrations and presumably claimed comparable or better restraint. The directors received the comparison without endorsing it. They were not interested in whether the present cost was lower than under earlier governors. They wanted the present cost reduced regardless of the historical comparison. Governor Poirier had been governor of St Helena. Governor Roberts the same. Governor Boucher had been criticised across the consolidated record for arbitrary government, the riding shed costing £181 16s 0d, the conversion of live provisions worth £156 19s 6d, and the general damage to the plantations. None of the three predecessors had set a standard the directors regarded as adequate. The meat self-sufficiency commitment identified a forward expectation. The bench had promised that the Company's plantations would supply all the meat needed for the table. The directors took this as a binding promise. Full self-sufficiency in meat would eliminate a significant item from the running cost. The bench would be measured against the promise at the next reporting cycle. The household servants' table identified the lower tier of provisioning. They received only the remains from the senior table. The arrangement was customary and avoided a separate provision cost. The bench had presumably preserved this arrangement, since the directors raised no objection to it. Speculations The directors' refusal to engage with the bench's comparison of present costs with Poirier, Roberts and Boucher's administrations pointed to a deliberate rejection of the comparative method. A bench that could claim improvement on its predecessors had a procedural defence against retrenchment. The directors instead applied an absolute test. The expense was high because the Company got nothing back. The historical comparison was therefore irrelevant. The directors' attention to the leager of arrack and the daily wine allowance, items that could have been left to general retrenchment, suggested they had specific intelligence about heavy drinking at the fort table. A leager a month meant approximately five gallons a day of arrack consumed by the fort establishment. Six bottles of wine a day at shipping times put the daily total at near gallon level for wine alone. The bench had probably been advised privately that the table at the fort had become something of a daily entertainment. | |
141 | Cap[t] Benja[min] Graves Comd[r] you here that the first Occasion of allowing So much Arrack as We were then told was when the great Draught happen[e]d w[hi]ch Destroyed most of the Live Stock on the Island & there being a necessity to live so much on Salt Provisions & Fish the Arrack was given for that time which being God be praised at an end the allowan[c]e ought to be So We must here also Remember you of your Promise to Send us a more Exact Account next year We have too much reason to believe that vice of Exessive drinking reigns among Some if not most of you so destructive to your Selves as well as hatefull to Us in its consequences as it makes our Concerns not duly to be minded whereby our Accounts are not brought up nor our affairs so well managed as they ought besides the evill Example it Sets before your Inferiours & the Planters or Else how could it be Possible that Seventy Leagers of Arrack Should as you write be Consumed there in a year when there are not above Seventy Familys on the Island & by the List you Sent by the Mary the Number of all the white Persons there are but 545 of w[hi]ch 209 Children & 31 Boys & Girls of but Twelve or Thirteen years old and considering the Garrison Crew and Corwa[?] Centinels are above a Hundred more whose pay will not allow them to Pur chase Arrack in quantity And to these Severall other of the Meniall Servants Inferiour officers and Poor Planters whose Circumstances are but little better, what Prodigious wastfull people must Margin Notes: Excess of Drink ing N[o] of y[e] Family Arrack | Captain Benjamin Graves, commander. The bench had previously been reminded of the cause for allowing so much arrack. The directors had been told the great drought had destroyed most of the live stock on the island. There had been a need to live largely on salt provisions and fish. The arrack had been given for that period. The drought being now, by God's praise, at an end, the allowance ought to follow suit. The directors also reminded the bench of its promise to send a more exact account next year.
How could it be possible that seventy leagers of arrack should, as the bench had owned, be consumed in a year? There were not above seventy families on the island. (Number of families.) By the list the bench had sent by the Mary, the number of all the white persons was only five hundred and forty-five. Of these, two hundred and nine were children, sixty-one of them boys and girls of but twelve or thirteen years old. Considering that the garrison crew and corporal sentinels were above one hundred, whose pay would not allow them to purchase arrack in quantity, the bench was to consider the rest. Several of the menial servants, inferior officers and poor planters whose circumstances were little better had also small means. What prodigious quantity must Interpretations The drought explanation identified the bench's earlier justification for the heavy arrack consumption. Loss of live stock had forced reliance on salt provisions and fish. Arrack had been issued as the drink fitted to that diet. The directors accepted the original justification but treated it as time-limited. With the drought ended and the live stock recovering, the allowance had to return to normal levels. The promise of a more exact account identified an outstanding commitment. The bench had undertaken to send a fuller return on the matter in the coming year. The directors flagged the promise to ensure compliance. The reminder placed the bench on notice that the return would be examined for honesty when it arrived. The drinking accusation at paragraph 42 was unusually direct. The directors believed a vice of excessive drinking ran among some, if not most, of the councillors. The charge ran from the personal harm to the institutional consequences. Drunk councillors did not bring up the accounts. They did not manage the Company's affairs. They set a bad example to the inferior servants and the planters who took their cue from the bench. The arithmetic of the arrack consumption identified the directors' analytical approach. Seventy leagers a year, divided across seventy families, gave one leager per family per year. A leager at one hundred and fifty gallons gave each family roughly half a pint per day on average. The directors did not stop there. They broke the population down by class. The population figure from the Mary list gave five hundred and forty-five white persons. Two hundred and nine were children. Sixty-one of these were under twelve or thirteen. The adult population was therefore about three hundred and thirty-six. Of these, over one hundred were soldiers, the garrison crew and corporal sentinels. Their pay would not allow large arrack purchases. The bench's discretionary spending power was concentrated in a much smaller group. The councillors themselves, senior officers, established planters and a few merchants. The bulk of the arrack was therefore consumed by this small upper layer. The directors' arithmetic identified this concentration without spelling it out further. The implication was that the seventy leagers were drunk principally by the bench and its immediate circle. The garrison crew identified the regular military strength of the establishment. Corporal sentinels were the lowest commissioned rank standing routine guard duty. The directors' identification of this group as financially unable to consume the arrack pointed to the calculation that the consumption fell on those above private soldier rank. Speculations The directors' decision to set out the population arithmetic in detail, rather than simply ordering a reduction, identified a deliberate technique. The numbers spoke for themselves. A bench reading the despatch in consultation would have to acknowledge the breakdown. Each councillor present would mentally calculate his own share against the seventy leager total. The conclusion would be inescapable. The technique made retrenchment the bench's own arithmetical necessity rather than an arbitrary instruction from London. The shift from a general criticism of expense at the fort table to a personal accusation of drunkenness against the councillors suggested an escalation in the directors' confidence. Specific intelligence had probably reached London identifying particular councillors as habitually drunk. The directors did not name them. They issued the charge collectively. Each councillor reading the despatch would, however, know whether the description applied to him. The collective form preserved the option of singling out particular men later if behaviour did not change. | |
142 | By Ship Success [Co]nsuming a [...]rest the rest be to consume So much Arrack yearly besides the Year tho[u]ght too much Wine which the Island has been Supply[e]d with by us and other no wonder that their Lot is begganry and that three or four on the Island grow rich by the folly & Prodigality of the rest Let it Lett those then from henceforward be your care by Precept Example and Drinks be too much. well timed Admonitions to curb this Mischievous Vice So many ways destructive to the Body Estate & Reputation of those guilty of it We find this was the Occasion of M[r] Toveys wounding M[r] Toveys Wrangham but in regard he appeared in the whole by his Lett[e]r wounding Wrangham So you wrote us and at the time of his Tryal So truly Penitent & hath Suffered So much as well by the Fine to the Fortifications & Fine [...] of Forty Pounds for Examples Sake to Deter others and to Let the Planters See you will not let them be abused by any body, and Twenty five Pounds more to the Said Wrangham besides his Imprisonment and Suspension We are willing on our Parts to Comp[any] willing to forgive him and if by his future diligence and fidelity as to his forgive him own Actions & preventing others Doing us injustice he Shall deserv[e] it We may perhaps in time be inclined to return him back part of the Said £ 40 But by what appears from your Cons[ultation] [...] Etates [?] his prosecution was carry[e]d on with unwarrantable Violence and that M[r] Haswell & M[r] Bazett had a Particular Spleen Remarks against him and We have heard why to have him arraign[e]d for on felony on the Statute of Stabbing when the man So Soon recover[e]d of Margin Notes: Consuming a year tho[u]ght too much Let those Drinks be too much. M[r] Toveys wounding Wrangham & Fine [...] Comp[any] willing to forgive him Remarks on | By ship Success. (Consumed in a year thought too much.) The directors considered how much the rest must consume of so much arrack yearly. There was also the wine which the directors and others had supplied the island with. No wonder some inhabitants were beggarly, while three or four grew rich on the folly and prodigality of the rest. (Curb those who drink too much.) From this point on, the bench was to curb this mischievous vice by precept, example and well-timed admonitions. The vice was destructive to the body, estate and reputation of those guilty of it.
(Company willing to forgive him.) The directors were therefore willing on the directors' part to forgive him. If by his future diligence and fidelity, both in his own conduct and in preventing others from doing the Company an injury, he should deserve it, the directors might perhaps later return him part of the said forty pounds. (Remarks on Tovey's prosecution.) By what appeared from the directors' notes, however, his prosecution had been carried on with unwarrantable violence. Mr Haswell and Mr Bazett had a particular spleen against him. The directors had also heard why they had him arraigned for felony on the statute of stabbing, when the man had so soon recovered Interpretations The directors' analysis returned to the population breakdown of the previous entry. The seventy leagers of arrack could not have been consumed by the soldiers, the menial servants, the inferior officers and the poorer planters. The wine added to the same calculation, since the Company itself had supplied wine for sale at the island. The consumption pattern produced concentration of wealth in a small group at the expense of the majority. Three or four grew rich. The rest grew beggarly. The bench was to use precept, example and admonition to break the pattern. The Tovey case at paragraph 43 returned to the secretary's recent legal trouble. Mr Tovey had wounded a man named Wrangham. He had been tried and convicted. The penalties imposed identified a calibrated system of damages and discipline. Forty pounds had gone to the fortifications fund, set as a deterrent example. Twenty-five pounds had gone to Wrangham as personal compensation. Tovey had also been imprisoned and suspended from office. The fortifications fine identified a recognised use of criminal penalties for public works. Fines for serious offences were directed to the fortifications account, providing funds for the standing programme of stone repairs to King William's fort and similar defensive works. The penalty thus served both deterrent and revenue purposes. The directors' decision to forgive Tovey on the Company's part identified a discretionary mitigation. The Company had no direct interest in Wrangham's personal compensation. The fortifications fine, however, was payable to the Company through the fund. The directors could therefore promise to return part of the forty pounds as recognition of future good service. The compensation to Wrangham could not be touched. The unwarrantable violence framing at the end of the entry identified a procedural concern about how the prosecution had been conducted. Mr Haswell and Mr Bazett were identified as having a particular spleen against Tovey. The directors knew this from sources independent of the official record. The two had pursued Tovey under the statute of stabbing for felony, despite Wrangham's quick recovery. The statute of stabbing was the relevant English criminal law making it felony to stab a person who was not at the time armed with a drawn weapon. The penalty was death. To proceed under this statute, rather than under the lesser laws of assault or affray, was a serious escalation. The directors observed that Wrangham had recovered quickly, which would normally have indicated a lesser offence. The personal spleen of Haswell and Bazett against Tovey identified a private animosity driving the prosecution. Both had appeared in the preceding entries. Haswell had been censured with Bazett over Mundens point at paragraph 9 of the present despatch. Bazett had been censured for opposing interest charges on the long-standing debts at paragraph 37, for protecting the slave hire rate at paragraph 39, and for ingratitude to the Company's earlier kindness as a refugee. The Tovey case therefore appeared as part of a broader pattern. Haswell and Bazett had operated together against Tovey, just as they had failed together at Mundens point. The directors treated them as a pair, with the same critical attention applied to each. Speculations The directors' decision to look behind the formal conviction of Tovey, and to identify Haswell and Bazett's private hostility as the driving force of the prosecution, points to a calibrated rebalancing of the bench's internal politics. By forgiving Tovey on the Company's part and reserving criticism for Haswell and Bazett, the directors signalled that the secretary was to be retained while his persecutors were under review. Tovey had earlier produced an answer to the directors' letter when Hancock and Bazett had failed. His value to the audit chain was therefore worth preserving even after his criminal conviction. The use of the statute of stabbing in a case where the victim quickly recovered suggests that Haswell and Bazett had chosen the most severe available legal route deliberately. A conviction for felony carried death. A successful prosecution would have removed Tovey permanently. The directors' identification of this procedural escalation as unwarrantable violence treats the choice of charge as itself improper conduct by the prosecuting councillors. The lesser charges of assault or affray would have produced damages without risking judicial murder. | |
143 | Cap[t] Benj[a]y Graves Comand[r] his Tryall of his wounds and was Witness against him whereas that Statute was made on Supposition of the Partys Death by Stabbing and Occasion of as the Occasion of the quarrell was by M[r] Bazetts Son in Law y[e] Quarr[e]ll Gunner Frenchs irritating & insulting him & avowing it before you that he threatned to cutt off his Ears You are all to Blame to Suffer an Inferior Officer thus to use one of the Council for which had he his desert he ought to be cashier[e]d We are told his Spleen was for M[r] Toveys discovering his fraud in false reckoning his blacks work In the Instructions Sent with you by the Rochester Par[.] 39 We Plant[ations?] Sup[?] forbid our Councels having any Plantations of their own and yet those in Council. M[r] Hancell & M[r] Bazett have such and We are told That the care of them engrosses great Part of their time whereby our affairs are not minded as they ought We will not bear this usage Longer We have before mention[e]d the Power given to Suspend from Sallary Recitall of and necessary from Diet the Accomptant & Storekeeper if our Acc[oun]ts Power to Suspend &[c] are not brought up and Sent us yearly that is to say for So long time quarterly Acc[oun]ts as they are not We Say the Same of the monthly Accounts of what to be timely delivered Sold & delivered out of the Storehouse be not delivered into Councill within Ten to twenty days after the end of each month for your Examination and if right approval We also Say the Same of the Secretary dont Enter that Account into Consultation in a reasonable To Enter Council in good time after or dont keep the Consultation Book up from time to time for your Signing either at the next meeting or at furthest the next after for We See Some of the Consultations are very long and Margin Notes: his Tryall Occasion of y[e] Quarr[e]ll Plant[ations] Suspect[?] those in Council Recitall of Power to Suspend &[c] quarterly Acc[oun]ts to be timely delivered To Enter Council in good [time] | Captain Benjamin Graves and others. The Company addressed the matter of his trial. Graves had been wounded and gave evidence against the man who attacked him. The charge had been framed on the assumption that the assault would prove fatal through stabbing. The quarrel had its origin in the conduct of Bazett's son-in-law, Gunner French, who provoked and insulted Graves and then boasted of doing so in front of the Council. French had threatened to cut off Graves's ears. The Company laid the blame on every councillor who allowed a junior officer to treat a member of the Council in this way without rebuke. Had French received the correction he deserved, he ought to have been cashiered. The Company had been told that Tovey earned French's particular hatred for exposing his fraud over the false reckoning of his slaves' labour. The instructions sent out by the Rochester on 23 December [...] forbade members of the Council from holding plantations of their own. Despite this, Hanwell and Bazett each held land in private hands. The Company had been informed that the care of these holdings absorbed so much of their time that the Company's business was neglected. The Council was warned that this would no longer be tolerated. The Company turned to the standing power it had granted to suspend from salary and from diet the accountant and the storekeeper whenever the annual accounts were not properly drawn up and forwarded. The same penalty applied if the monthly accounts of goods issued from the storehouse were not laid before the Council within ten to twenty days of each month's end, for examination and proper approval. The same applied if the Secretary failed to enter such accounts into Consultation within a reasonable period, or failed to keep the Consultation Book current for signature at the next meeting or the one immediately following. The Company observed that some Consultations had grown very long [...] Interpretations The threat against Graves cut directly at his standing as a councillor. Cutting off the ears was a recognised early modern punishment for sedition, perjury and seditious libel, carrying permanent disfigurement and the loss of honour. For a gunner to threaten this against a member of the Council was an inversion of rank, and the Company's reaction shows that the offence lay less in the violence itself than in the failure of the other councillors to defend the dignity of their own bench. Allowing a junior officer to speak in such terms without consequence was treated as a collective lapse of governance. The phrase concerning Tovey's exposure of fraud in the reckoning of slave labour points to a recurring problem in the island's accounts. Slaves attached to particular officers were charged out to Company work at notional day-rates, and an officer who falsified the count could draw payment for labour that had either not been performed or had been performed on his own land. Tovey's role as the man who uncovered this places him within the small group of officers willing to act against peers, and explains why French held a personal grudge. The standing prohibition on private plantations held by councillors addressed a structural conflict of interest. A councillor with his own land had every incentive to divert Company slaves, tools and time to his own ground, to favour his own crops in pricing, and to shape policy on land grants and water rights in his own favour. The Company's instruction that Hanwell and Bazett divest themselves was an attempt to restore the separation between public office and private estate that the original Garden charter had assumed. The power to suspend the accountant and storekeeper from salary and from diet operated as a sharp administrative sanction. Diet meant the daily ration of provisions drawn from the Company's stores, and its withdrawal was a more immediate punishment than loss of pay, since it forced the officer to find food on the open market at island prices. The pairing of the two penalties was designed to compel timely accounting in a setting where distance from London made any slower remedy ineffective. Speculations The Company's decision to make the point about consultations being too long suggests that the Council had developed a habit of bundling many matters into single sittings, then delaying entry into the book until the record had grown unmanageable. A shorter, more frequent consultation pattern would have reduced the backlog and made signature at the next meeting practicable. The complaint reads as a push toward that change rather than a general grumble. The grouping of the French quarrel, the private plantations and the accounting failures within a single letter suggests the Company saw them as one problem rather than three. Each was a case of councillors placing private interest, private loyalty or private convenience above the duties of office. Treating them together let the directors set out a single standard of conduct without singling out one man, while making clear that the next ship would carry firmer measures if the pattern continued. | |
144 | By Ship Success and if the next Council be held very Speedily there maynt be time for it but of that you will be able to Judge whether he did what he could but then let not the approveing the Con To prevent sultations be delayed by any of the Councels absence in the Mischeifs Country by thus keeping him to Business he will have the less time to be Idle and thereby the better avoid the Snares of Drunkeness & Quarrelling which as aforesaid have Soll[?] [?]rived Prov[e]d So Mischievous he is likewise charged with gameing away his very Cloths and being a Common make Bate We hope unjustly but fear there is Something in it & therefore give him this warning In the Said Consultation Book must also be alwaye[s] Overseers Acco[un]t Entred the Overseers Monthly Report mentioning the M[on]th of duly Ent[e]r[e]d all live Stock which We find hath of late been Pretty Punc tually done and when Omitted he hath given yo[u] a reasonable Excuse for the delay The Account of Gunners Expence of Stores We find Gun[ner]s Expence Sometimes Entered & Sometimes not but it Seems to Us there is to be better Enquired into not a due Examination of the Severall Items but the whole in future is taken as he gives it at least the Consultation Entry[s] dont Express that you find it right We find Bayonetts broke & other Particulars wasted but no Notice appears you ever enquired who did it or gave any reason why We Should bear the loss for the future let every Item be examined & if any Error Margin Notes: To prevent Mischeifs Soll[?] [?]rived Overseers Acco[un]t duly Ent[e]r[e]d Gun[ner]s Expence to be better Enquired into in future | By the ship Success. If the next Council met soon enough, there might still be time to take a view, but until then the Company would not be able to judge whether the Secretary had done what he could. The approval of the Consultations was not to be held up by the absence of any councillor away in the country. Keeping the Secretary closely tied to his duties would leave him less time to be idle, and would help him avoid the snares of drunkenness and quarrelling, which had already proved so harmful. He was further charged with gambling away his very clothes, and with being a common stirrer of disputes. The Company hoped the report was unfounded, but feared there was substance in it, and accordingly issued him this warning. The Consultation Book was always to carry the Overseers' monthly report, listing every head of livestock by the month. The Company found this had lately been done with reasonable regularity, and when omitted the Secretary had given a satisfactory excuse for the delay. The account of the Gunner's expenditure on stores was sometimes entered and sometimes not. It seemed to the Company that there was no proper examination of the individual items, and that the whole was accepted as the Gunner presented it. The Consultations did not record that the Council had found the account correct. Bayonets had been broken and other items lost, but no note appeared that the Council had ever asked who was responsible or what reason there was for the Company to bear the loss. For the future, every item was to be examined, and if any [...] Interpretations The censure of the Secretary touches the heart of what the Consultation Book represented in colonial administration. The book was not merely a record but the legal instrument by which the Council's orders took effect, and the only document the Company in London could rely on for distant oversight. A Secretary who drank, gambled and quarrelled was not just a poor servant; he was a structural weakness in the chain of accountability, because every order, account and disciplinary action passed through his pen. The Company's response, to keep him so occupied that he had no leisure for vice, treated the office and the man as one problem to be managed together. The complaint that the Gunner's account of stores was taken as he gave it reveals the standing tension between specialist officers and the governing Council. The Gunner held the keys to the magazine and was the only man on the island with detailed knowledge of what was held and what had been issued. Without an independent check, the Council had no means to test his figures, and the Company in London was reduced to inferring problems from missing entries and broken weapons. The instruction to examine every item was an attempt to assert lay control over a technical office, comparable to the discipline already in place for the storekeeper and accountant. Bayonets at this date were socket fittings designed to lock over the muzzle of a flintlock musket, allowing the weapon to serve as both firearm and pike. They were issued from Company stores in batches, counted as individual items, and treated as accountable ordnance because each piece represented a measurable cost and a measurable element of the garrison's strength. Breakage in normal service was expected, but the loss had to be recorded, the cause identified and the replacement charged to the right account. The Company's irritation lay not in the breakage itself but in the absence of any record showing that the Council had asked the obvious questions. The Overseers' monthly livestock report carried a weight beyond simple husbandry. Cattle, sheep, hogs and poultry were the island's principal renewable food resource, and an unreported death or theft pointed either to neglect by the herdsmen or to private appropriation by an officer. The Company's note that the report had lately been entered "pretty punctually" reads as faint praise calibrated to keep pressure on the Council without conceding that the practice was secure. Speculations The pattern of accusations against the Secretary, drink, gambling and stirring up disputes, follows a recognisable early modern template for character attack, and the Company's careful hedging that it hoped the charges were unjust but feared they had substance suggests the directors had received them through more than one channel and could not yet test them. The decision to warn rather than dismiss points to a calculation that a flawed Secretary in post was less damaging than no Secretary at all on an island where literate clerks were scarce and replacements from London were six months away. The instruction that future scrutiny of the Gunner's account should reach every individual item suggests the Company suspected a particular kind of leakage rather than general carelessness. Broken bayonets and similar small items were easy to write off in bulk and difficult to verify from London, and an officer minded to divert stores would do so through the margins of an account rather than its principal entries. The directors' insistence on item-by-item examination was a method designed to defeat that specific technique. | |
145 | Cap[t] Benj[a] Graves Comd[r] Error be found correct it If the Souldiers break their arms and in an Actuall fight they must find new ones, when he Sees you their neglect it will make him the more carefull Let the Account always [...] [t]hat month it is for and be Entered in the Consultation Book when [a]pproved The Report of the Surveys of the Severall Plantations when made must also be Entered in Consultation from time to time & what Blacks are weekly Employed at every one of them also how many & which and for how Long at the Fortifications of our own and what are hired by this means you & We may the better appri[s]ed what charge We are at and what work is done at every Place Take Effectual care there be no false m[an]ners at any of them This leads us to the Consideration of the many Par[.]as relating to Blacks contained in your Severall Letters & the Consultations wherein you give Us an Account how beneficiall they migh[t] be made and that if you had two Hundred more they would Soon earn their Prime Cost which appears Pretty right in the Theory but is not So easy for us to get Such a Supply to reduce it to Practice last year We told you what We had done to get you a new Supply of Sixty Eight Madagascar Slaves & told you in the Certificate Sent you by our Secretary of the Ships and Number each was to bring you Since then the Hamilton Galley had our Licence and was to bring you Fourteen more So that you will have Margin Notes: [Ar]ms of break Down to find new ones Surveys of Plantations Report to be Entred & sign[?] as Such Relating to Supply of Blacks from Madaga[scar?] their Numb[er?] | Captain Benjamin Graves and others. [...] If the soldiers broke their arms outside an actual fight, they had to find new ones, and seeing the replacement charged to them would make them more careful. The account was always to state which month it covered, and was to be entered in the Consultation Book once approved. The Overseers' report on the survey of the several plantations was likewise to be entered in Consultation from time to time. The report was to set out which slaves were employed at each plantation, and how many were stationed at each of the Company's own fortifications, distinguishing those who belonged to the Company from those hired in. By this means both the Council on the island and the directors in London would be better aware of the costs being carried and the work being done at every place. Particular care was to be taken that there were no false musters at any of them. The directors then turned to the many paragraphs concerning slaves in the several letters and Consultations from the island. The Council had reported how profitable the slaves could be, and had argued that two hundred more would soon earn their prime cost. The reasoning looked sound on paper but was less easy in practice, since the supply was hard to obtain. The directors recalled what they had done the previous year to provide additional slaves, and referred to the certificate sent out by their Secretary recording the ships and the numbers each had been ordered to deliver. They had supplied sixty-eight Madagascar slaves. Since then the Hamilton galley had been licensed and was to bring fourteen more, so that the island would have [...] Interpretations The rule that soldiers must replace arms broken outside genuine combat reaches further than discipline over careless handling. Firearms and edged weapons were issued from Company stores at a recorded valuation, and any loss had to be charged against an identifiable account. By making the soldier bear the cost of replacement, the directors transferred the financial risk from the Company to the individual, and at the same time imposed a recurring check on the storekeeper, since each replacement now had to be matched to a man, a date and a reason. The requirement to name the month and enter the account in Consultation completed the audit trail. The instruction on the plantation survey reveals how the directors thought about labour as a unit of accounting. Slaves on the island were Company property, hired out to private plantations under fixed terms, or retained for fortification work and other public tasks. A periodic survey listing where each slave was employed, and distinguishing Company slaves from those hired in by private holders, allowed the directors to set the cost of public works against the income from private hire. The warning against false musters points to a particular abuse: an overseer recording a slave as present at a fortification when in fact he was at a private plantation, so that the Company carried the cost of feeding and clothing him while the private holder received the labour. The reference to slaves earning their prime cost expresses the standard early modern calculation by which the price paid for a human being was set against the value of the labour the buyer expected to extract. Prime cost meant the purchase price plus the costs of passage and any duties paid on arrival, and an investment was held to have earned its prime cost when the cumulative value of the labour extracted equalled that initial outlay. The Council's claim that two hundred additional slaves would soon earn their prime cost was an argument for further capital expenditure, framed as a return on investment rather than as an enlargement of the captive population. The Madagascar trade was the principal route by which slaves reached St Helena in this period. English ships called at the bays on the north-western coast of the island, exchanged cloth, beads, brassware and arms for captives taken in interior wars, and carried them either to St Helena or onward to the West Indies and the American mainland. The Hamilton galley's licence to bring fourteen more refers to the Company's practice of granting individual ships permission to deviate from a direct India voyage to take on a small cargo of slaves at Madagascar for delivery at St Helena, against a fee paid to the Company for the privilege. Speculations The directors' admission that the theory of slaves earning their prime cost was easier on paper than in practice points to a recurring difficulty in the supply chain. Madagascar shipments were small, irregular and dependent on the willingness of country traders to deviate from their main voyages, and mortality on the short passage to St Helena was high enough to make any one cargo a gamble. The Council's confident projection of returns from two hundred additional slaves treated supply as a solvable procurement problem, whereas the directors saw it as a structural constraint they could only ease at the margins through individual licences such as the one granted to the Hamilton galley. The pairing of the plantation survey with the warning against false musters suggests the directors had reason to think the existing returns were unreliable. A survey conducted by the Overseers themselves was open to the same collusion the Company was trying to detect, since the Overseers were often the very men who held plantations and benefited from the diversion of Company slaves. The instruction to enter the survey in Consultation, where every councillor's signature was attached, was a way of forcing the Overseers' figures into a more public document and exposing any later discrepancy to formal challenge. | |
146 | By Shipp Success have Eighty two in the whole from them if none Miscarry and It will be our Govern[ou]r[s] fault if they are not all good because he hath Liberty to choose We Suppose you have had them all by this time and with what you have already as the List Sent us Shews We cant but think with good husbandry & keeping them to their Constant work they may fully Answer all our Occasions for We find all the other Blacks Blacks on y[e] upon the Island are but Three hundred & ten of which one Island hundred & Seventeen are but Children under Twelve years old, however when a fair opportunity presents We may chance to Supply you with Some more to make up the loss of Mortality & uselessness by age Perhaps the Letters you wrote to our Settlements in India may Procure you Some But for the present We Say the Computation in your Consultation of the 24 Janu[a]ry of the Number of Blacks to be appropriated to every Branch of our affairs is very large and much beyond what the Private Planters have in Proportion for their Business or what our former Governours & Council ever Mentioned to us We Should think these beforementioned fully Sufficient to Answer all our Re[?] Proud[?] to hire wants and That you will not now need to Hire any especially any till absolute for weeding Plantations Surely your old Slaves could do Some Necessity & y[e] Entertain all thing at that however when there is an absolute Necessity you must but not till then and when ever you do enter into Margin Notes: Blacks on y[e] Island Re[?] Proud[?] to hire any till absolute Necessity & y[e] Entertain all | By the ship Success. The island would have eighty-two slaves in total from these shipments, if none died on the passage, and the responsibility for selecting them lay with the Governor. If they did not all prove sound it would be his fault, since he had the liberty of choosing. The directors supposed the Council had received them all by this date. Together with the slaves already on the records as set out in the list sent out from London, the directors considered that, with careful husbandry and steady employment, the present stock could meet every Company requirement. They found that the total number of slaves on the island was no more than three hundred and ten, of whom one hundred and seventeen were children under twelve years of age. When a fair opportunity arose, the directors might supply some further captives to make up for losses through death and through age. Perhaps the letters the Council had written to the Company's settlements in India would procure some by that route. For the present, the directors observed that the computation entered in the Consultation of 24 January, which set out the number of slaves to be assigned to every branch of the Company's affairs, was very large. The figure was well beyond anything the private planters held in proportion to their own enterprises, and beyond anything that earlier Governors and Councils had ever told the directors was needed. The directors considered that the slaves already mentioned were fully sufficient to answer all the Company's requirements. There would be no need to hire any further hands, particularly for weeding the plantations, since the existing slaves could readily perform that task. Where an absolute necessity arose, the Council might hire, but not until then. Whenever they did enter [...] Interpretations The Governor's personal liability for the quality of the slaves selected reveals how the Company displaced commercial risk onto its senior officer on the spot. The directors in London could neither inspect the captives at Madagascar nor verify their condition on arrival, and so attached the decision and its consequences to the one man whose career depended on their favour. A Governor who chose poorly bore the reputational cost; the Company recorded the prime cost against the island accounts either way. The same logic underlay the licence granted to the Hamilton galley on 27 November [...], where the directors fixed the number to be delivered but left the selection to the master and the Governor between them. The breakdown of the slave population, three hundred and ten in total with one hundred and seventeen children under twelve, exposes the demographic profile of the captive workforce as the directors saw it. Children under twelve were of limited value for heavy plantation labour or fortification work, although they were used in lighter tasks and represented future capacity. The proportion, more than a third of the population, points either to a recent run of births on the island or to a pattern of acquisition that favoured younger captives at Madagascar, where they could be bought more cheaply. The directors' reference to losses through age confirms that the older end of the population was also reaching the limit of productive labour, leaving the burden on a relatively narrow middle band. The contrast drawn between Company holdings and the holdings of private planters reflects the Company's role as both employer and landlord on St Helena. Private planters held land under Company grants and worked it with their own slaves, hired Company slaves, or both. The directors' point that the Council was proposing a ratio of slaves to tasks well above what private holders carried for their own business was a charge of administrative slackness: if a private man could run his plantation with fewer hands, the Company's establishment should not require more. The argument carried a political edge, since several councillors were themselves private planters whose own ratios were now offered as evidence against the Council's requisition. Weeding was the most labour-intensive task in the island's plantation cycle and the work for which hired labour was most often sought. Yam, potato and tobacco grounds required repeated clearance through the growing season, and an under-resourced plantation would lose its crop to invasive grasses within a few weeks. The directors' insistence that existing slaves could carry the weeding without additional hires was a direct contradiction of the Council's own assessment, and effectively forbade further hiring except where the Council could demonstrate an absolute necessity recorded in Consultation. Speculations The directors' decision to record the population figure of three hundred and ten with such precision, and to set it against the Council's requisition, suggests they were preparing the ground for a future audit rather than simply answering the present letter. By committing themselves to the figure in writing, they fixed a baseline against which any later request for additional slaves would have to be justified, and any unexplained shortfall would have to be accounted for. The same numerical anchoring would later support disciplinary action against an Overseer or storekeeper whose returns failed to match the established total. The suggestion that letters sent by the Council to the Company's Indian settlements might procure further slaves points to a secondary supply route the directors were willing to acknowledge but not to organise themselves. Slaves from the Coromandel coast, Bengal and the Malabar ports reached St Helena occasionally on Company shipping, but the trade was not regular and depended on the willingness of subordinate factors to spare captives from their own works. By passing the initiative back to the island Council, the directors avoided committing the Company's name to a request that might be refused, while allowing the Council to claim credit for any success. | |
147 | Cap[t] Benj[a] Graves Comd[r] into Consultation the number of whom for what time and what Service and at what rates We observe you called home Some of Our Youths the 7 Feb[ru]ry which had been let out to the Planters but that M[r] Thomlinson refused to return back Will tho[ugh] he hath Seven of his own for whose hire We pay him Minister will three Pounds three Shillings a week at Eighteen pence a day to be Return[e]d each This We can by no means like and do require that he be returned you on receipt hereof or another young & as able Black for him if as is alledged he is So usefull We have before mentioned his getting Eighteen pence a day for two Blacks not with the hire of Twelve pence & perceive the Effect of a Strong Solicitation therein but no way to our Satisfaction nor did We ever understand or can We approve that Entry Mention[e]d the 8 No allowance Nov[em]b[er] 1709 to allow the Chaplain a Servant & Souldiers pay for of Sold[i]ers pay to y[e] Minist[er] him We made no Such agreement with him or any of his Predecessor That We can learn It is very Probable the Chaplains might as well as other Planters have a Black boy while Such to have their Use for their Diett and Perhaps might be wink[e]d at if they kept them a little longer Especially if they had no other Servant to attend them but to argue a right from the Conniveance is what We must not allow of at any time much less when our wants force us to Hire others as is now the Case We take Notice you would have let him had a boy but he refused it therefore Apply that Boy to what We can do M[r] Thomlinsons Margin Notes: Minister will to be Return[e]d No allowance of Sold[i]ers pay to y[e] Minist[er] | Captain Benjamin Graves and others. [...] into Consultation the number hired, the term, the service required and the rate paid. The directors observed that the Council had called home some of the Company's young slaves on 7 February [...]. These had previously been hired out to the planters. Thomlinson, however, refused to return [...] Will, even though he had seven of his own slaves. For Will's hire the Company paid Thomlinson three pounds three shillings a week, at eighteen pence a day for each. The directors found this by no means acceptable. They required that Will be returned on receipt of the order, or that another young and equally capable slave be supplied in his place, if Thomlinson maintained Will was so useful. The directors had earlier remarked on the rate of eighteen pence a day being paid for two slaves, against a customary hire of twelve pence, and recognised the effect of strong solicitation behind it. They could find no satisfactory explanation for the difference. They had never understood or could approve the entry in the Consultation of November 1707, which allowed the Chaplain a slave and the soldiers' rate of pay for him. No such agreement had been made with him or with any of his predecessors. So far as the directors could determine, the Chaplain might keep a black boy on the same terms as any other planter, who maintained such a boy for his diet. Perhaps the Chaplain might be reimbursed if he had kept the boy a little longer, particularly if he had no other servant about him. To argue beyond that from past indulgence was a connivance the directors would not allow at any time, except where the Company's needs forced them to hire others, as had recently been the case. The directors noted that the Council would have given Thomlinson a boy, but he had refused. They therefore directed that he should make what use he could of his own slaves, [...] Interpretations The dispute over Will exposes the friction between Company ownership and private hire that ran through the island's economy. Company slaves were leased to planters at fixed weekly rates, with the right of recall reserved to the Council, but the practical authority over a slave on a private plantation lay with the holder who fed, housed and disciplined him. Thomlinson's refusal to return Will, while paying the substantial weekly rate of three pounds three shillings, suggests that Will had become essential to a particular task on his plantation, perhaps as a driver or a skilled hand. The directors' insistence on the principle of recall, with the alternative of a substitute, was an attempt to assert that hire conferred only a temporary right of use, never a permanent claim. The contrast between the customary rate of twelve pence a day and the eighteen pence being paid in certain cases points to a two-tier hire market that the directors regarded with suspicion. Eighteen pence represented a fifty per cent premium, and the directors' reference to strong solicitation indicates that they believed individual councillors had been lobbied into approving the higher rate for particular planters. Since the Company received the hire as income, an inflated rate benefited the Company on paper while imposing the cost on the planters who paid it. The directors' inability to find a satisfactory explanation suggests they suspected the premium was a quiet means of compensating favoured planters through other channels. The Chaplain's position on the island was that of a Company servant rather than a private freeholder, paid an annual stipend and provided with diet from the Company's stores. The Consultation of November 1707 had departed from this by allowing him both a slave and an allowance at the soldier's rate, effectively giving him a private establishment funded by the Company. The directors' objection was constitutional as much as financial: they had not authorised the arrangement, no predecessor had enjoyed it, and the precedent risked extending to every Company officer who could plead an analogous claim. The grudging concession that the Chaplain might keep a black boy if he had no other servant left the principle intact while addressing the practical case. The phrase connivance used by the directors carried a specific administrative meaning. A connivance was a deliberate decision by an officer in authority to overlook a breach of rule, without formal sanction, on the calculation that the breach served some other purpose. The directors' refusal to allow connivance at any time, except under demonstrable necessity, was a direct rebuke to the Council for treating exceptions as routine, and a warning that future indulgences of this kind would be reversed by direct order. Speculations The fact that the directors chose to set out the dispute over Will in such detail, with the weekly figure of three pounds three shillings stated in full, suggests they expected the matter to come back to them in the Council's reply. Naming the planter, the slave and the rate created a record against which any subsequent compromise could be tested, and made it difficult for the Council to settle the matter informally on the island. The directors were not necessarily certain that Will would be returned, but they were ensuring that the cost of leaving him with Thomlinson would be visible in the Company's books. The November 1707 Consultation regarding the Chaplain probably reflects a local arrangement made when the post was difficult to fill. Chaplains for St Helena were drawn from a small pool of clergy willing to accept a remote posting, and the Council may have used the extra slave and allowance to make the position more attractive to a candidate who would otherwise have declined. The directors' refusal to validate the arrangement four years later points to their preference for resolving such recruitment problems through the stipend itself rather than through additional benefits that, once granted, became precedents for the next incumbent. | |
148 | By Shipp Success Thomlinsons Circumstances dont want Such a Supply his Circumstance dont require Such he hath had great Sums paid here by Bills drawn on Us Allowance and We dont like too much encroaching We have a Letter But to from him by the Queen not dated and in answer Say Allow 5£ a Year. allow him the Five pounds a year from the time he left the Chaplains Lodgings which We understand are too Streight for him and no wonder for there is not room for his Store Goods and to mannage the great Trade every Body tells Us he drives which We cant think Suits well with his Gown Pray give Us an Account whether any others of those who receive our Sallary have any Blacks of ours & why Take care [Blac]ks to be all the Blacks be kept to their busines[s] daily as you would [k]ept Cl[ose] to [w]ork or Should do if they were your own this will be a means to make the less Number Necessary, dont let a Parcell of them be applyed as We formerly have heard to carry Persons only up and down the Hills for Visits and Diversion We cant afford to pay Eighteen pence a day at least not often for that as in Effect We do in hiring others our Charge is so Excessive We must curtail it in even the least Articles Pre[v]ent Blacks healt[h] take care of the Blacks healths allow them Proper Nourish to be taken Care of. ment when Sick You [...] half the Guin[ea?] [...] are dead We are told it was for [w]ant of [...] and not [...]y of Victuals Occasioned the [...] [...] [P]lanters who have any regard for their [...] [...] or they would Margin Notes: his Circumstance dont require Such Allowance But to Allow 5£ a Year [Blac]ks to be [k]ept Cl[ose] to [w]ork Blacks healt[h] to be taken Care of | By the ship Success. Thomlinson's circumstances did not warrant such a supply. He had already received great sums paid out to him through bills drawn on the Company, and the directors did not want too much encroachment of that kind. They had received a letter from him by the Queen, undated, and replied that they would allow him five pounds a year from the time he had left the Chaplain's lodgings. These the directors understood were too cramped for him, and no wonder, since there was no room for his own goods, nor for the great trade everyone reported he was carrying on, which the directors did not think suited his calling. The directors asked the Council to send an account of whether any of the other officers who drew a salary held slaves of their own, and to take care that every slave was kept to constant daily employment, as the Council would or should do if the slaves were their own property. This would help reduce the number of slaves needed overall. The directors warned the Council not to let a body of slaves be employed, as they had heard had formerly been the practice, in carrying persons up and down the hills for visits and for recreation. The Company could not afford to pay eighteen pence a day, at least not regularly, for that was in effect what was being paid in hiring others. The charge was so heavy that the directors had to cut it back in even the smallest matters. The Council was directed to take proper care of the slaves' health, and to provide adequate nourishment to those who fell sick. [...] The directors had been told that deaths among the slaves [...] arose from a shortage of victuals [...] planters who had any regard for them [...] [...] Interpretations The reference to bills drawn on the Company illustrates how a planter on St Helena could accumulate substantial sums through Company credit rather than through coin. A bill drawn on the Company was a written order, signed on the island, requiring the directors in London to pay a named sum to a named party, usually a London merchant who had supplied goods. The planter received the goods on the island, the merchant received the cash in London, and the Company carried the debt against the planter's account until settled. Thomlinson's accumulation of bills points to a man trading on credit at a scale the directors regarded as beyond his proper standing, and explains why a further indulgence in the form of a hired slave appeared to them as one encroachment too many. The figure of five pounds a year allowed to Thomlinson from his departure from the Chaplain's lodgings represents a housing allowance rather than a salary, and follows a standard Company practice of compensating officers displaced from official quarters. The directors' acknowledgement that the Chaplain's lodgings were too cramped reflects the building stock of the island, where official accommodation had been laid out for a single man with modest possessions and was inadequate for an occupant carrying private goods on the scale of a merchant. The fact that the allowance was tied to the date of departure rather than to the date of the letter shows the directors maintaining strict accountability over the start of any new charge on the Company's books. The complaint about slaves being employed to carry persons up and down the hills for visits and recreation describes the use of the palanquin or chair, a fixture of European life in tropical Asia and the Atlantic islands. A planter or officer would be carried in a covered seat slung from poles, with two or more slaves bearing the weight on their shoulders, over the steep paths between Jamestown and the inland settlements. The practice was socially significant as a marker of status and physically demanding for the bearers. The directors' objection was financial rather than humanitarian: at eighteen pence a day for hired bearers, an afternoon visit to a country plantation could consume more than a week's wages for a soldier. The instruction to provide adequate nourishment to sick slaves engages directly with the Company's view of slaves as capital assets whose preservation served the Company's interest. A slave who died from undernourishment represented the loss of his prime cost plus the future value of his labour, and the directors had repeatedly observed that the supply from Madagascar was too uncertain to make such losses recoverable through fresh purchase. The reference to private planters who had regard for their slaves carries an implicit comparison: those planters who treated their slaves well retained their labour, while the Company's plantations were losing slaves through neglect that could have been prevented at modest cost. Speculations The directors' request for an account of which salaried officers held slaves of their own probably reflects a suspicion that several were operating on the same pattern as Thomlinson, drawing a Company salary while running private establishments with hired or owned slaves. By calling for a formal return on the matter, the directors were preparing either to restrict the holdings of salaried officers or to adjust their pay downward where it could be shown that private income was already substantial. The instruction would also expose the Council itself to the same examination, since several councillors drew salaries and held slaves. The directors' framing of the slaves' daily employment, that the Council should treat them as it would its own property, points to a calculated rhetorical move rather than a casual analogy. By appealing to the proprietary instincts of councillors who were themselves planters, the directors invited them to apply the same standards of vigilance to Company slaves that they would naturally apply to their own. The argument was designed to bridge the gap between Company interest and councillor interest, on the understanding that any councillor who allowed Company slaves to be idle while his own were closely supervised would stand exposed by his own practice. | |
149 | Cap[t] Benj[a] Graves Comd[r] would Soon loose them Our Comittee of Shipping have had the Par[.]as in yo[u]r Letter relating to an Apothecary or a Surgeon and to Carpenters ab[ou]t handicrafts Bricklayers Stonecutters with other usefull handicrafts and Planters in Order to Supply you if any Proper persons Pre Sented Your reasoning upon it to beat down the Excessive Prices of Five & Six Shillings a day for a Carpenter Bricklayer To get from or Stonecutter is right Endeavour to get good Carpenters or Masons out of Ships from the Ships when they can Spare you a hand or more in the Interim Since you have So much want why cant the Blacks Training Blacks be trained up to those Trades Some of them are doubtless ingeni[ous] up to Trades en[ough] to learn In your List of Blacks by the S[t] George is mentiond Will the Carpenter hath been a good Slave but Recomended past Labour cant he teach others of them and that Jack Greyer is a good Slave & a Carpenter cant he do the Same or if they are not Sufficient Artists the Europeans Surely are Our Governour cant be insensible of the Dutch Manag[m]ent at Batavia how their Slaves are trained up and how usefull they are to them Let this Memorandum Prompt him and you to endeavour gradually the like at S[t] Helena The Severall Par[.]as relating to the Eagles men in answer to Relating to y[e] ours appear to us but Excuses and reasons for what happen[e]d Eagles men afterwards Whatever Villanys are Practiced on the Island you have the Power to Punish So as it be in measure But what relates Margin Notes: ab[ou]t handicrafts To get from out of Ships Training Blacks up to Trades Recomended Relating to y[e] Eagles men | Captain Benjamin Graves and others. [...] would soon lose them. The Committee of Shipping had reviewed the paragraphs in the Council's letter concerning an Apothecary, a Surgeon, Carpenters, Bricklayers, Stonecutters and other useful tradesmen, together with planters, all to be supplied if proper persons offered themselves. The reasoning behind the request was sound in principle, but the present prices of five and six shillings a day for a Carpenter, Bricklayer or Stonecutter were excessive. The directors considered the right course was to obtain good Carpenters or masons from the Company's ships, when the masters could spare a hand or more. In the meantime, since the Council had so many slaves on hand, the directors asked why the slaves could not be trained up to these trades. Some were doubtless skilled enough to learn them. In the list of slaves sent out by the St George, Will the Carpenter was named as a good slave. Past labour having taught one slave a trade, the directors saw no reason why he could not teach others. Jack Grever was likewise described as a good slave and a Carpenter, and the directors asked why he could not do the same. Even if such men were not sufficient artists, the European tradesmen on the island certainly were. The Governor could not be unaware of how the Dutch managed matters at Batavia, where their slaves were trained up and made useful to them. The directors urged the Governor to take the present memorandum as a prompt to attempt the same gradually at St Helena. The directors then turned to the several paragraphs concerning [...] eaters mentioned in the Council's letters. The Company's responses appeared to the directors to amount to excuses and explanations for what had happened after the events. Whatever crimes had been practised on the island, the Council held the power to punish them, so far as it lay in their hands. As to what related [...] Interpretations The daily rates of five and six shillings cited for European craftsmen reflect a settlement in which skilled labour was scarce and could command wages far above the island's normal level. A soldier of the garrison drew about eightpence a day with diet, and an unskilled hired slave was costed at twelve pence. A craftsman at five shillings was therefore earning between five and seven times the labour cost of a slave performing routine tasks. The directors' resistance to these rates was not a refusal to acknowledge the difference in skill, but a judgement that the island's small construction programme could not sustain a permanent establishment of free European tradesmen at metropolitan wage levels. The proposal to draw craftsmen from passing ships reflects standard Company practice in remote settlements. Every Indiaman carried a complement of carpenters, caulkers and coopers attached to the ship for the duration of the voyage, and the master could be requested by Company authority to release one or more for short-term work ashore. The arrangement preserved the man's articles with his original ship and avoided the long-term wage commitment that came with a settled tradesman. The limitation was that ships called at St Helena only briefly, usually for water and refreshment, and any work begun ashore had to be completed before the ship sailed or handed off to local hands. The instruction to train slaves to skilled trades draws on a model the Company had observed elsewhere in its commercial world. At Batavia, the Dutch East India Company maintained a large slave population in which apprenticeship to European craftsmen was a settled practice, producing slave carpenters, masons, blacksmiths and ropemakers who carried out the bulk of construction and maintenance work. The proposal to do the same at St Helena required two conditions: a stock of slaves capable of learning the trades, and European craftsmen willing to teach them. The directors' reference to Will the Carpenter and to Jack Grever points to specific individuals already at an intermediate stage of training, and the named identification implies that the Council had previously reported on their abilities. The phrase the directors used, that past labour had taught one slave a trade, sets out the underlying logic of slave apprenticeship in commercial terms. A slave who had learned a craft represented an enhanced capital asset, since the labour he could perform commanded the higher rates that had so concerned the directors. By having such a slave teach others, the Company could multiply that enhancement across its holdings at no further outlay, beyond the cost of supporting the apprentices and the time of the instructor. The model treated skill as a transferable asset that could be propagated through the slave population once a single skilled holder had been established. Speculations The directors' specific naming of Will the Carpenter and Jack Grever, with reference back to a list sent out by the St George, suggests that the Council had already raised the question of their abilities in an earlier letter and had perhaps argued that they were not capable of teaching others. The directors' pointed return to the names indicates that they were not satisfied with that account, and were treating the question as one of the Council's willingness rather than the slaves' capacity. The challenge to the Council was implicit but firm: identify the obstacle and remove it, or be answerable for the continued payment of European craftsmen at island rates. The reference to Batavia as a model probably reflects information reaching the directors through Company servants who had served in the East Indies before transferring to the Atlantic establishment. The Dutch system was the most developed example of slave apprenticeship in the European commercial world of the period, and any senior Company officer with Indian experience would have seen its results. By invoking it explicitly, the directors signalled that they expected the Governor to draw on that knowledge and to apply it locally, rather than treating St Helena as a self-contained problem to be solved by importing more skilled Europeans. | |
150 | By Ship Success relates to the Ships leave that to the Captains dont you Punishm[en]t left to y[e] Cap[t] to[?] unnecessarily intermeddle therein If ever it Shall appear Mutinous Pers[ons] Proper to put Mutinous fellows out of any Ship on Shore how to be dealt with to prevent their wicked designs take them on Shore &[c] and either confine them or not as you judge best and Clear the Island of them the next Ship that comes If while on Shore they Commit Mildemean[o]rs they are then under your Power as aforesaid but why Should You take the odium of[f] of the Captains for Crimes Supposed or real on board as in the Case of the Eagle whose Comande[r] Daniel Brockman hath Shewed himself a very ill man not only to his Ships Company Some of whom We fear were bad eno[ugh] but likewise to his owners We hear he is and for a long time hath been in Prison worth nothing The precautions you used to pre vent the Eagles Mens ill designs were prudent You can never be too watchfull but may be too Arbitrary, as at first Sight it would appear to every unprejudiced Person you were in the what Relates to Case of Fleurus and the other three men who run away with y[e] 4 Men y[t] run away in y[e] long the Long Boat because nothing but death was likely to be the Boat reward of that Attempt They all got to Nevis & Antigua from to their places whence Fleurus & Stonby came to England and were here Last July to Justify themselves as they call[e]d it and to Complain of the Severitys they alledged they met with which forced them upon that desparate adventure By the Journal they gave Margin Notes: Punishm[en]t left to y[e] Cap[t] of[?] Mutinous Pers[ons] how to be dealt with what Relates to y[e] 4 Men y[t] run away in y[e] Long Boat to their places | By the ship Success. [...] related to the discipline of the ship's company, that lay with the Captains, and the Council was not to interfere unnecessarily. If at any time it appeared proper to put mutinous fellows out of any ship to prevent their wicked designs, the Council might take them ashore and either confine them or not, as judged best, and clear the island of them by the next ship that came. If, while they were ashore, such men committed misdemeanours, they would then be under the Council's power on that ground. The directors asked why the Council should take the odium of crimes, real or supposed, off the Captains for offences committed on board, as had occurred in the case of the Eagle. The commander of the Eagle, Daniel Brookman, had shown himself a very ill man, not only to his ship's company, some of whom the directors feared had been bad enough, but likewise to his owners. The directors had heard he had been a long time in prison and was good for nothing. The precautions taken to prevent the Eagle men's ill designs were prudent. The Council could never be too watchful, but might be too arbitrary, as at first sight appeared to every unprejudiced person to have been the case of Flowers and the other three men who ran away with the Long Boat. Nothing but death was likely to be the reward of that attempt. They all reached Nevis and Antigua, from where Flowers and Stooks came to England and were here in July [...] to justify themselves, as they called it, and to complain of the severities they alleged they had met with, which had forced them on the desperate adventure. By the journal they gave [...] Interpretations The division of authority between ship's captain and island Council reflects the legal architecture of the Company's commercial world. A captain held jurisdiction over his crew under the articles signed at the start of the voyage, and his authority to discipline, confine and punish derived from that contract for the duration of the ship's commission. The island Council had no standing to intervene in shipboard offences. Once a man was set ashore, however, he passed into the territorial jurisdiction of the Governor and Council, and any offence committed on the island fell to local justice. The directors' insistence on this boundary was not procedural pedantry but a guard against the Council assuming the political cost of decisions properly belonging to the masters. The phrase the directors used, take the odium off the Captains, identifies a specific risk in Company governance. A captain who flogged, confined or executed a man at sea bore the personal responsibility for that act, and could be sued by the man's family or by his owners on the ship's return to London. By transferring the offender to shore and letting the Council deal with him, the captain shifted the legal exposure onto a body that could not easily be sued. The directors recognised the temptation and warned the Council against accepting the transfer except where the men had committed a fresh offence on land that justified independent action. The reference to Brookman of the Eagle as a long time in prison and good for nothing illustrates how reputations followed Company servants between voyages. A captain dismissed for misconduct or imprisoned for debt did not always lose his future employment, and an owner short of qualified masters might re-engage a man whose record was poor. The directors' aside is a signal to the Council that they understood the Eagle's troubles were partly the fault of her commander, and that any disciplinary action taken on the island should weigh that context rather than treat the crew as the sole source of disorder. The flight of Flowers, Stooks and the other two in the Long Boat describes one of the more remarkable feats of small-boat seamanship of the period. An open boat passage from St Helena to the West Indies covered something approaching four thousand miles, demanded knowledge of wind and current, and offered no margin for failure. That the men reached Nevis and Antigua alive points either to exceptional skill among them or to extraordinary luck. The directors' reference to the desperate adventure and to nothing but death being its likely reward acknowledges the magnitude of the undertaking, and accepts the men's argument, at least in part, that they would not have attempted it without serious provocation. The arrival of Flowers and Stooks in London with a written journal of their flight, presented as evidence of severities suffered on the island, illustrates how shipboard and island grievances could be carried back to the Company's headquarters by men determined enough to pursue them. The journal converted private testimony into a document capable of being weighed against the Council's own correspondence, and forced the directors into the position of cross-examining one against the other. The phrase as they called it carries a measured scepticism, suggesting the directors were not persuaded by the deserters' account but were unwilling to dismiss it without testing it against the Council's reply. Speculations The directors' careful distinction between watchfulness and arbitrariness in their assessment of the Council's handling of the Long Boat affair points to a specific concern about the political character of the Council's decisions. The events of [...] suggest the Council had taken pre-emptive measures against the Eagle's men that could be defended as prudent on the directors' first reading, but which Flowers and Stooks had been able to characterise convincingly as oppressive once removed from the island setting. The directors' phrase at first sight implies that their initial sympathy lay with the Council, but that the men's London testimony had given them reason to reconsider, and that the next dispatch from the island would have to address the point directly. The decision of Flowers and Stooks to come to London rather than remain in the West Indies after their flight probably reflects a calculation that their best chance of escaping further prosecution lay in seizing the initiative against the Company. By presenting themselves at India House with a written journal, they converted their position from runaways liable to arrest into complainants seeking redress, and gained access to the same body of directors who would otherwise have authorised their pursuit. The strategy depended on the Company's willingness to entertain the complaint, which the directors' tone in the present letter suggests they were prepared to do, at least to the extent of seeking the Council's account before deciding. | |
151 | Cap[t] Benj[a] Graves Comd[r] gave in which contained a Voyage of Fourteen hundred ninety Eight Leagues run it appears Fleurus who kept it is an able Mariner and in Consequence more dangerous to Encourage & Execute any ill designs If ever any Such Should get upon S[t] Helena you must watch them very narrowly however this attempt will We hope make you more vigilant in all time coming to Secure always at least the Sails of your Boats We have paid them what appeared here to be right & taken their generall Releases So that Fleurus's Credit is to be discharged as So much paid by Us What both Say for themselves is That they were denyed by Governour Boucher and you to go off the Island tho[ugh] they often Petitioned modestly for Leave & had Stayed long after their Covenanted time was Expired Fleurus is very Positive he had a Hundred and Twenty Seven days due for work at five Shillings a day and ten dr[?] Pence a day kept which was promised him by Governour Boucher for Diet with the Thirty Pounds a year and Shooes that he was to have by agreement Six Pounds for making up the Council books and putting them in Order and Forty Shillings more for other work but had neither We mention these facts that if they Should make a demand for either by Attorney or otherwise it may not be paid being discharged as aforesaid But as to their Complaint of Detention dont give that handle in future If you can perswade them well If they are Positive dont refuse without the greatest To Encourage Necessity and then endeavour by a Small gratuity to make men to Stay upon y[e] Island them willing But you need not let every body know this We Margin Notes: To Encourage men to Stay upon y[e] Island | Captain Benjamin Graves and others. [...] gave in, the men set out a voyage of one thousand four hundred and ninety-eight leagues. From this it appeared that Flowers, who kept the journal, was an able mariner, and in consequence the more dangerous if he chose to encourage and carry out any ill designs. If ever any such men should reach St Helena, the Council was to watch them very narrowly. The directors hoped this episode would make the Council more vigilant in time to come, and prompt them at the very least to secure the sails of the Company's boats. The directors had paid the men what appeared to them to be right, and had taken their general releases, so that Flowers's account was to be regarded as fully discharged by what had been paid. As to what both Flowers and Stooks said for themselves, their case was that they had been refused leave to depart by Governor Boucher, although they had often and modestly petitioned to go off the island, and had stayed long after their covenanted time was expired. Flowers was positive he was due one hundred and twenty-seven days' work at five shillings a day, and ten pence a day kept back, which had been promised him by Governor Boucher for diet. With this went the thirty pounds a year and shoes that he was to have by agreement, six pounds for making up the Council books and putting them in order, and forty shillings more for other work, although he held no formal title to any of these payments. The directors recorded the figures so that, if Flowers should later make a demand for any of them by attorney or otherwise, it might not be paid, the account being discharged as already noted. As to the men's complaint of detention on the island, the directors instructed the Council not to take a hand in that practice in future, if the Council could persuade the men to remain by other means. If they were positive in their wish to depart, they were not to be refused without the greatest necessity, and then the Council should attempt by a small gratuity to make them willing to stay. The Council was not to let this method be generally known. Interpretations The journal's record of a voyage of one thousand four hundred and ninety-eight leagues represents a remarkable navigational achievement for an open-boat passage from St Helena to the Leeward Islands. A league at sea was reckoned at three nautical miles, giving a total of nearly four and a half thousand miles. The figure suggests Flowers had access to charts, an estimate of distance run by dead reckoning, and the ability to fix his latitude by observation of the sun. The directors' assessment of him as an able mariner, and therefore the more dangerous, treats competence at sea as a hazard rather than a credit when the man holding it had shown himself willing to act against authority. The phrase taken their general releases describes a legal instrument by which an employee, on receiving final payment, signed a document acknowledging that all claims against the employer were extinguished. The release was a familiar device in Company practice, used to close accounts with servants leaving employment and to protect the Company against later actions for unpaid wages or allowances. By securing the release before paying out, the directors converted the settlement into a legal bar against future demands, regardless of whether the man might later argue that further sums were due. The directors' careful recording of the components of Flowers's claim was preparation against the possibility that he would test the release through an attorney. The composition of Flowers's claim, comprising daily wages of five shillings, a separate diet allowance of ten pence a day, an annual salary of thirty pounds, an allowance of shoes, a piecework payment of six pounds for putting the Council books in order, and forty shillings for other work, illustrates how a Company servant on St Helena was paid through several overlapping streams. The salary covered the basic engagement, the diet allowance covered subsistence, the piecework payments covered tasks falling outside the ordinary duties, and the shoes covered a specific item of clothing the climate and terrain consumed rapidly. The arrangement reflected a settlement where the cost of imported goods was high and where particular tasks required individual contracts negotiated with the Governor. The instruction to detain a man by gratuity rather than by refusal of leave addresses a recurring tension in Company employment on small islands. The Company needed to retain skilled clerks, surveyors and craftsmen whose terms had expired, but lacked any legal means of compelling them to stay once their covenant had run out. Governor Boucher's practice of refusing leave was a direct breach of contract, and the directors recognised that it had probably contributed to the men's decision to escape in the Long Boat. The substitution of a financial inducement preserved the Company's interest in retaining the men while removing the legal exposure created by detention. Speculations The directors' careful instruction that the use of gratuities to retain unwilling servants should not be generally known points to a deliberate management of expectation among the wider establishment. If every covenanted servant came to learn that an attempt to leave at the end of his term would be met with a payment to stay, the Council would face a steady demand for such payments from any servant willing to threaten departure. The instruction confined the practice to particular cases of necessity, decided by the Council and concealed from the rest, on the calculation that a quiet inducement to a few key men cost less than a published scheme available to all. Governor Boucher's role in the detention emerges from the present letter as one of personal initiative rather than Company policy. The directors' explicit instruction against the practice, and the fact that they paid out Flowers's claim and took his release while still rejecting parts of it, suggest that Boucher had acted without sanction and that the Company was now correcting his approach without naming him in censure. The recurrence of Boucher's name in the men's complaint about diet allowances and piecework payments points to a Governor whose personal arrangements with individual servants had created a body of informal claims that the present directors were having to settle one by one. | |
152 | By Ship Success We received by the Bouverie an Account of the Rent and Rents & Rev[enue]s Revenues due to us for one year ending the 25 March 1716 Cont[aining] the Particulars of the money arising for Land rented out from the yearly duty of Twelve Pence an Acre on all Land & from the head money of the Blacks making in all £ 124 .. 15 .. 4 but it doth not appear That the same is paid Customs at the in nor is there any Account of the Customs at the Water Water Side[?] Side In the Consultation of the 15 June We find your Guard Goods Run Stopt 130 P[ieces] of Blue Cloth and a Parcell of Chints which Seizable[?] You afterwards let go on Cap[t] Fitzhughs Claiming the Blue Cloth but it doth not appear whose the Chints were and giving the Guard Six P[ieces] of the Cloth and a Peice of Chints and paying Six Pence a peice Custom the En couragement to the Guard We like but nothing Else You Should be all Should have Seizd and forfeitd the Goods because run a forfeited Shore without Entry & Custom first paid and in all Cases hereafter Seize all in future of the like nature We require you to Seize whatever Goods are brought a Shore before Custom paid This is one of the ways whereby the Private Storehouses are Supply'd and Since you had So fair an Opportunity to Shew your reall Dislike to that Clandestine Sort of Trade you are much to blame for not em bracing it, for the future We require the Custom on all Goods P[er] Cent on all Except Arrack landed at S[t] Helena be five p[er] Cent on the full Goods Except Arrack vallue which the Parliament hath given Us & would be paid Margin Notes: Rents & Rev[enue]s Customs at the Water Side Goods Run Seizable[?] Should be all forfeited Seize all in future P[er] Cent on all Goods Except Arrack | By the ship Success. The directors had received by the Bowerie an account of the rents and revenues due to the Company for the year ending 25 March 1716. The account contained the particulars of the money owing for land rented out, drawn from the yearly duty of twelve pence an acre on all land, and from the head money on the slaves, the total coming to one hundred and twenty-four pounds fifteen shillings and four pence. The directors observed that it did not appear the sum had been paid in, nor was there any account of the customs taken at the waterside. In the Consultation of 15 June [...], the directors found that the guard had stopped one hundred and thirty pieces of blue cloth and a parcel of chintz, which the Council had afterwards let go on Captain Fitzhugh's claim to the blue cloth. It did not appear whose the chintz was. The guard was given six pieces of the cloth and a piece of the chintz, and the men landing the goods paid sixpence apiece as customs, by way of encouragement to the guard. The directors approved of nothing in this arrangement. The Council should have seized and forfeited the goods, because they had been run ashore without entry and without customs first paid. In all cases of the like nature, the directors required the Council to seize whatever goods were brought ashore before customs were paid. This was one of the means by which the private storehouses on the island were supplied, and since the Council had so fair an opportunity to show their real dislike of that clandestine sort of trade, they were much to blame for not embracing it. For the future, the directors required that customs on all goods, except arrack landed at St Helena, be five per cent on the full value, which Parliament had granted to the Company, and which would be paid [...] Interpretations The duty of twelve pence an acre on all land formed the principal recurring revenue from the Company's grants to private holders. Land on the island had been issued under leases reserving an annual quitrent, payable to the Company as proprietor in the same form that an English landlord received rent from copyhold tenants. The figure of one hundred and twenty-four pounds for the year ending 25 March 1716 represents the combined yield from this rent and from the head money on slaves, the latter being an additional charge levied at a fixed sum for each slave a planter held. The directors' note that the sum did not appear to have been collected points to a recurring weakness in island administration, where amounts due were entered in the accounts but the actual receipt fell behind year by year. The episode of the blue cloth and chintz exposes the workings of the customs system the Council was supposed to enforce at the waterside. Goods landed at St Helena, whether for sale on the island or for transhipment, were required to be entered at the customs house and the duty paid before they passed beyond the landing place. The guard at the wharf had the duty of stopping anything brought ashore without proper entry, and goods so stopped were liable to forfeiture. The arrangement by which the guard had received six pieces of cloth and a piece of chintz, together with sixpence per piece from the men landing the goods, converted the customs penalty into an informal toll paid to the guard rather than a formal seizure paid to the Company. The directors recognised this immediately as a corruption of the system rather than its operation. Blue cloth and chintz were two of the principal commodities of the Indian Ocean trade reaching St Helena from the Company's settlements on the Coromandel coast and in Gujarat. Blue cloth was a coarse cotton dyed with indigo, used for slave clothing across the European Atlantic world and saleable at high margin in the West Indies and on the American mainland. Chintz was a finer cotton, painted or block-printed with multi-coloured patterns fast to washing, valued in the European luxury market and resold from St Helena to passing ships of every nation. A captain who landed either commodity without entry was either supplying the island's private trade or holding the goods for re-export on the next outward voyage. Captain Fitzhugh's claim to the blue cloth, and the Council's decision to release it on that claim, illustrates the practical limits of customs enforcement against ship's officers. A captain who declared himself the owner of cargo seized ashore could in principle face an action for the duty plus penalty, but the Council needed a strong case to proceed against a man whose ship would shortly depart and whose word would carry weight with the directors at home. The absence of any record of the owner of the chintz, and the Council's release of the goods without prosecution, suggests that the assertion of ownership had been enough to defeat the seizure, and that the guard had then been quietly compensated to drop the matter. The phrase clandestine sort of trade carries a specific meaning in Company administration. Clandestine trade meant private trade conducted by ship's officers, crew or island residents in goods that were either reserved to the Company or subject to Company duty. The Company tolerated a limited private trade by its servants under regulated allowances, but trade outside those allowances, particularly in textiles brought ashore without customs entry, undermined both the revenue and the Company's monopoly. The directors' rebuke to the Council for not embracing the opportunity to act against the practice was an instruction that the next such case was to be prosecuted to seizure and forfeiture without compromise. The five per cent ad valorem duty granted by Parliament to the Company represented the principal statutory authority for customs collection at St Helena. Under the Company's charter and subsequent acts, the Company could levy customs at its overseas settlements at rates approved by Parliament, with the proceeds applied to the costs of fortification and administration. The exemption for arrack reflects the practical importance of that commodity in the island's economy: arrack, a spirit distilled from palm sap or molasses, was the principal drink of soldiers and sailors at the settlement, and a duty on it would have raised garrison costs and provoked unrest among the men whose loyalty the Council relied on. Speculations The directors' decision to set out the customs rate in writing, with the specific exemption for arrack noted, suggests they were closing a gap in the regulations the Council had been able to exploit. If the Council had previously argued that the customs rate was unclear or that particular commodities fell outside the duty, the formal statement of five per cent ad valorem on everything except arrack left no further room for such argument. The directors were committing the rule to the Consultation Book, where it could be cited against any future officer who applied a different rate or allowed an exemption not on the list. The reference to private storehouses being supplied through clandestine landings points to a wider infrastructure of unofficial trade the directors had been trying to suppress for some time. A storehouse held by an island resident outside the Company's establishment, stocked with cloth, chintz and other Indian goods brought ashore without customs entry, could supply both the local population and passing ships at prices undercutting the Company's official sales. The directors' linkage of the Fitzhugh episode to this wider pattern suggests they regarded the Council's release of the blue cloth not as an isolated lapse but as evidence that one or more councillors were themselves connected to the private storehouse network. | |
153 | Cap[t] Benj[a] Graves Comd[r] paid if brought here but for Arrack it Shall be twelve Pence a Gallon as you have establisht it the reasons which you gave Acc[oun]t of Custom[s] us are Substantiall Let us annually have by double Conveyance to be Sent yearly the Account of what So received for Customs by whom paid and for what Goods mentioning the Particular Species quantity ty[s] & Valluations and if any Seizures mention what and the amount and to what Ships & Persons belonging, by this means you may Prevent trouble to your Selves as in the Consultation of the 17 Janu[a]ry it appears you had on Cap[t] Minters Complaint made against M[r] Powell and M[r] Gurling the 14 on a dispute whether Bills had been sent to England for Goods he Supply[e]d the Private Storehouse withall Send us in like manner an account of all Fines and the Acc[oun]t of Fines Persons for Misdemeanours tho[ugh] the Same be Applyed to the Forti to be Sent It is true left kept fications or to us Particularly takeing care to mention in the Consultation when paid and to keep a List of them where you allow time that they maynt Slip your memory and be forgot to be call'd in But remember also that all Fines be Moderate and only According to the offence dont let the Excess Shew they were the Effect of Passion You did well to Fine Maynard the Carpenter for Splitting and Jno[?] Maynards Burning three of our Planks Such Little Leaks as these must as Fine apprived on. often as discovered be carefully Stopt or We Shall Suffer in sensibly and Perhaps to a Considerable vallue for if it be Margin Notes: Acc[oun]t of Custom[s] to be Sent yearly Acc[oun]t of Fines to be Sent It is true left kept Jno[?] Maynards Fine apprived on | Captain Benjamin Graves and others. The duty of five per cent was to be paid if the goods were brought to the island, but for arrack the rate was to be twelve pence a gallon, as the Council had already established it. The reasons the Council had given for that rate were substantial. The directors required that the Council should annually send home, by double conveyance, the account of what had been received for customs, by whom paid, and for what goods, mentioning the particular species, quantity and valuation. Where seizures had been made, the account was to state the goods, the amount, and the ships and persons to which they belonged. By this means the Council would prevent trouble to themselves, as had arisen in the Consultation of 17 January [...]. There it appeared that Captain Minters had made a complaint against Powell and Gurling on 14 January [...], on a dispute over whether bills had been sent to England for goods Minters had supplied to the private storehouse. The directors required a like account of all fines, and of the persons fined for misdemeanours, even where the sum had been applied to the fortifications or paid to the Company. The Council was to mention each fine in the Consultation when paid, and to keep a separate list of them so that they were not slipped from memory and forgotten. The directors added that all fines were to be moderate and proportioned to the offence. Excessive fines were not to be imposed in the heat of passion. The Council had done well to fine Maynard the carpenter for splitting and burning three of the Company's planks. Small leaks of that kind had to be carefully stopped as they were discovered, or the Company would suffer imperceptibly and perhaps to a considerable value, since [...] Interpretations The instruction to send the customs account home by double conveyance reflects a standard Company precaution against the loss of correspondence at sea. The same papers were copied and dispatched on two different ships, so that the loss of one through wreck, capture or other accident did not deprive the directors of the year's record. The practice was applied to all accounts of revenue, expenditure and seizure, and to letters carrying significant decisions. The directors' insistence on its application to the customs account points to the importance they attached to having the figures in London by the date the year's accounts were closed. The required detail of the customs return, with particular species, quantity and valuation of each parcel, converted the customs receipts into a usable commercial intelligence document for the directors at home. The Company's London committees could compare the goods landed at St Helena with the goods declared on the corresponding ships at the East India Docks, and identify discrepancies pointing to private trade conducted between the two stopping points. The same return allowed the directors to track which commodities were moving through the island and at what valuations, supporting their wider judgement about prices and supply across the Atlantic route. The dispute between Captain Minters and the island officers Powell and Gurling over bills sent to England for goods supplied to the private storehouse illustrates the financial mechanics of the unofficial trade the directors were trying to suppress. A captain who landed goods at the private storehouse received payment partly in cash and partly in bills drawn on London merchants, payable on the ship's return. The dispute had probably arisen over whether the bills had been properly drawn, properly delivered, or properly honoured. The directors' reference to the affair was a warning that the absence of a proper customs record had given the parties no documentary basis on which to settle the dispute, and that the Council had been drawn into an arbitration it could have avoided through proper procedure. The directors' instruction that all fines were to be moderate and only according to the offence engages with a standing concern about disciplinary justice in Company settlements. A council with the power to fine its servants and the island's free residents had the power to impose punishments out of proportion to the conduct, particularly where personal animosity coloured the decision. Excessive fines could be challenged through the directors in London, who could order the surplus repaid, and could provoke wider resentment that weakened the Council's authority on routine matters. The phrase the effect of passion identifies the specific defect the directors had in mind: a fine imposed under provocation rather than after deliberation. Maynard's offence of splitting and burning three of the Company's planks describes a particular form of small-scale theft from the carpenter's stores. Planks were imported timber, brought from the Cape, from India or from England, and held in the Company's yard for use in building repairs, ship maintenance and boat construction. A carpenter who split a plank for firewood or for a private project converted a Company asset of measurable value into an untraceable benefit to himself. The directors' phrase that the Company would suffer imperceptibly and perhaps to a considerable value identifies the cumulative danger of such losses: each plank a small matter, the aggregate over a year potentially substantial. Speculations The directors' specific reference to keeping a separate list of fines, so that they would not slip the Council's memory and be forgotten, suggests they had seen evidence of fines imposed but never collected, or collected but never accounted for. A fine entered in the Consultation when imposed but never followed up could disappear from the record either through oversight or through a quiet remission by a councillor sympathetic to the offender. A separate list of fines, maintained alongside the Consultation Book and reviewed at each session, would force any unrecovered fine to be noticed and either pursued or formally written off, leaving a record of the decision either way. The pairing in the present letter of the customs account, the fines list and the Maynard fine probably reflects a connected concern about the integrity of the Company's small revenues at the island. Customs, fines and the proceeds of seized goods were each modest in any one case but substantial in aggregate, and each was vulnerable to the same pattern of informal arrangement, quiet remission and incomplete accounting. By calling for systematic returns on all three at the same time, the directors were attempting to close the gaps through which small sums had been leaking, and to establish a documentary trail that would expose any future leakage at the next year's audit. | |
154 | By Ship Success be found that little Embezlements are not minded it may Prove a temptation for greater We observe one George Saundersons fined for cutting [Saun]ders Fined & So Should yt those down Trees in Perkins's Land in Pursuance of an Order of [S]erjeants Council made in May 1709 for the better preserving the Trees. You ought to have fined the two Sarjeants Worral and Slaughter for demanding five Shillings a day for work done by them which was agreed for at three Shillings the bare deducting the Surplus ought not to have been Accepted Money for work as an Atonement The Order thereupon for the Govern[ou]rs to be Entered by note Signing a Note to the Accomptant for all money to be Entered for work done for the Company is right but why was it not always so Is the Accomptant to enter any bodys Demand without a Voucher Surely Such Mannagem[en]t is very Unwar rantable Let it never be repeated This Seems to be one of the Inlets to the abuses afore mentiond in letting people run So monstrously in our Debt We wrote you last year our mind about Sarjeant Relating to Serj[ean]t Southen We have Since been forced by his wives Strong Southen His Wife &[c] Importunity to Advance her three Pounds more Take care to receive it back She gives Such Proofs of her Marriage under the hand of D[r] (now Dean) Claton of S[t] Michaels near Dublin and We have Positive proof that there is Such a Minnister there and by Persons who have appear[e]d for Margin Notes: [Saun]ders Fined & So Should yt those [S]erjeants Money for work to be Entered by note Relating to Serj[ean]t Southen His Wife &[c] | By Ship Success be found that little Embezlements are not minded it may Prove a temptation for greater We observe one George Saundersons fined for cutting [Saun]ders Fined & So Should yt those down Trees in Perkins's Land in Pursuance of an Order of [S]erjeants Council made in May 1709 for the better preserving the Trees. You ought to have fined the two Sarjeants Worral and Slaughter for demanding five Shillings a day for work done by them which was agreed for at three Shillings the bare deducting the Surplus ought not to have been Accepted Money for work as an Atonement The Order thereupon for the Govern[ou]rs to be Entered by note Signing a Note to the Accomptant for all money to be Entered for work done for the Company is right but why was it not always so Is the Accomptant to enter any bodys Demand without a Voucher Surely Such Mannagem[en]t is very Unwar rantable Let it never be repeated This Seems to be one of the Inlets to the abuses afore mentiond in letting people run So monstrously in our Debt We wrote you last year our mind about Sarjeant Relating to Serj[ean]t Southen We have Since been forced by his wives Strong Southen His Wife &[c] Importunity to Advance her three Pounds more Take care to receive it back She gives Such Proofs of her Marriage under the hand of D[r] (now Dean) Claton of S[t] Michaels near Dublin and We have Positive proof that there is Such a Minnister there and by Persons who have appear[e]d for Margin Notes: [Saun]ders Fined & So Should yt those [S]erjeants Money for work to be Entered by note Relating to Serj[ean]t Southen His Wife &[c] By the ship Success. [...] If small acts of embezzlement were found to pass without notice, this might prove a temptation for greater ones. The directors observed that George Saunders had been fined for cutting down trees in Perkins's land, in pursuance of an order of Council made in May 1709 for the better preservation of the trees. The Council ought also to have fined the two sergeants, Worrall and Slaughter, for demanding five shillings a day for work done by them, which had been agreed at three shillings. The mere deduction of the surplus ought not to have been accepted as an atonement. The order made on that occasion, that the Governor was to sign a note to the accountant for all money to be entered for work done for the Company, was right, but the directors asked why the practice had not always been followed. The accountant should not enter any demand without such a voucher, and management without that check was unwarrantable. The directors required the order never to be relaxed again. This appeared to be one of the inlets to the abuses the directors had previously mentioned, by which people had been allowed to run the Company into so monstrous a debt. The directors had written the previous year about Sergeant Southern's wife, and had since been pressed by her with the wrong importunity to advance three pounds more, which the Council was to be careful to recover. She had given such proofs of her marriage, under the hand of Dean Claxton of St Michan's near Dublin, and the directors had positive proof there was such a minister there, and persons who had appeared [...] Interpretations The dispute over the sergeants' wages illustrates how unilateral departures from agreed rates could pass into the accounts without challenge. Worrall and Slaughter had contracted at three shillings a day for the work and then submitted accounts at five shillings, an increase of two thirds. The Council had responded by recovering only the surplus, treating the matter as a clerical adjustment rather than a fraud. The directors' position was that the act of demanding the higher rate was itself the offence, and that the recovery of the surplus did nothing to deter future attempts by the same or other men. A fine on top of the recovery would have made the attempt costly enough to discourage repetition. The instruction that the accountant should not enter any demand without a voucher signed by the Governor describes a fundamental accounting control common to all Company establishments. The voucher served as documentary authority that the work had been ordered, that the rate agreed and that payment was authorised. Without it, the accountant entered claims on the bare word of the claimant, and the Company had no record of who had committed it to the expenditure or on what terms. The directors' identification of this gap as an inlet to abuse points to a pattern in which men had been able to extract payment for work either not done or done at unauthorised rates, the absence of vouchers leaving no trail to challenge them. The case of Sergeant Southern's wife touches on a recurring difficulty in Company employment at distant settlements. A soldier or junior officer's wife in London or Ireland could find herself without support if her husband died, deserted or simply ceased remitting, and could petition the Company for an advance against future wages. The Company's practice was to require proof of the marriage before any advance was made, since a false claim could not easily be detected once the money had been paid and the alleged wife had disappeared. The proofs the directors specified, a certificate under the hand of the parish minister and corroboration by other witnesses, set the standard required before such an advance would be authorised. St Michan's parish lay on the north bank of the Liffey in Dublin, and Dean Claxton was the senior clergyman there during the period under consideration. The directors' reference to having positive proof of his existence reflects the standard verification procedure: a London committee could write to a named clergyman or his diocese to confirm that the man held the office claimed, and that the certificate produced was in his hand. Without this two-stage check, certificates from distant parishes could be forged or fabricated, and the Company would have no way of testing them against any independent record. Speculations The directors' specific reference to George Saunders and to the two sergeants Worrall and Slaughter, all named in the present letter, suggests the cases had reached London either through formal complaint or through observation by another councillor sympathetic to the directors' concerns. The level of detail, with the original agreed rate of three shillings and the demanded rate of five shillings recorded, points to documentary evidence in the Council's own minutes that the directors had been able to examine. The naming of individuals by surname in a letter to be read at the council board converted the rebuke into a public record, and made it harder for the men concerned to escape the consequences through quiet settlement. The directors' suspicion of Sergeant Southern's wife, despite her production of a marriage certificate under the hand of an identifiable Dublin clergyman, suggests they had encountered fraudulent claims of this kind before and were applying particular caution to a case where the husband was beyond easy reach. A soldier serving at St Helena could not be consulted to confirm or deny the marriage, and a determined claimant could maintain a fictional husband on the Company's books for years, collecting advances against wages he never received. The directors' insistence on positive proof, beyond the parish certificate, points to a procedure designed to defeat that particular scheme. | |
155 | Cap[t] Benj[a] Graves Comand[r] M[r] Alexander hath wrote us a Letter of the 17 August Alexanders wherein he takes notice of the contents of our 56 & 57 Par[.]as p[er] Letter Catherine and pretends to give a Plausable Answer touching the Charge of his being of a litigious temper but not a word of the other matters contained in the 56 nor doth he Say any thing to the 57 but that he had nothing to do with our live Stock therein mentiond his businesss being in the Office whereas that is but one Small part of the Contents of that Par[.] He passes over the rest in Silence and in the Same manner We Shall dismiss the rest of his Letter Herewith We Send you the Petition of William Slaughter Petition of W[i]ll[ia]m desiring a lease of Some Wast Land of ours You are on the Place do Slaughter Return[e]d here in as you See fit for our Bennefit without Partiality for or Likewise W[i]ll[ia]m Beales against him And the Petition of William Beale praying to be Enter tain[e]d by us one of the Surgeons being as he Says bred up that way We know not his merit or qualifications If he is Capable & you have no just Objections and do want Such an one Entertain him otherwise not Enclosed We Send you a Letter which by the Contents Seems to Come Maynard the from Maynard the Carpenter as he States his Case he is hardly Dealt Carp[en]t[er]s Letter with We would have no body wronged on our account on enquiry We find his Servant was agreed with to have his Diet at our Charge at Bencoolen and M[r] Lewes gave him a Certificate of it If he had it not you have wronged him and ought to do him right Issue ther[e] Margin Notes: Alexanders Letter Petition of W[i]ll[ia]m Slaughter Return[e]d Likewise W[i]ll[ia]m Beales Maynard the Carp[en]t[er]s Letter | Captain Benjamin Graves and others. Alexander had written the directors a letter of 17 August [...], in which he took notice of the contents of the directors' paragraphs 56 and 57, conveyed by the Catherine. He gave a plausible answer concerning the charge of being a litigious temper, but did not acknowledge the other matters set out in paragraph 56. On paragraph 57 he said only that he had nothing to do with the livestock there mentioned, his business being in the office. Since that was but one small part of the contents of the paragraph, he passed over the rest in silence. In the same manner, the directors would dismiss the rest of his letter. The directors enclosed the petition of William Slaughter, asking for the lease of some waste land belonging to the Company. The Council, as the persons on the spot, could deal with it as they thought fit, for the Company's benefit and without partiality, either for him or against him. The directors also sent the petition of William Beale, who asked to be retained by the Company as one of the surgeons, on the strength of his having been trained up that way. The directors did not know his merits or qualifications. If he was capable, and the Council had no just objection and required such a man, he was to be entertained; otherwise not. The directors enclosed a letter which from its contents appeared to come from Maynard the carpenter, in which he stated his case. He felt himself harshly treated. The directors would have nobody wronged on their account. On enquiry, they found that his servant was agreed with to receive his diet at the Company's expense at Bencoolen, and that Lewes had given Maynard a certificate to that effect. If he had not received it, then the Council had wronged him, and ought to do him right. There was [...] Interpretations The handling of Alexander's letter illustrates a deliberate technique of administrative correspondence used by the directors when faced with a partial reply. Rather than engaging point by point with the matters Alexander had passed over in silence, the directors recorded the omission and declared the rest of his letter dismissed. The move had a documentary effect as well as a rhetorical one. By recording that Alexander had not answered the substantive charges, the directors preserved those charges as outstanding, and made it harder for him later to argue that the matter had been settled by his explanation. The reference to a litigious temper engages a recognised charge in early modern administrative discourse. A man of litigious temper was one who pursued disputes through formal proceedings beyond the point at which a reasonable man would have let them drop, raising actions, presenting petitions and pressing complaints in a way that consumed the time of the body addressed and forced it onto the defensive. The charge was particularly damaging in a Company servant, whose value depended partly on his ability to compose differences rather than multiply them, and whose litigious conduct could be cited as a ground for dismissal. The instruction concerning Slaughter's petition for a lease of waste land illustrates the standing arrangement by which the Council on the island held delegated authority to grant land within the Company's estate. Waste land was uncultivated ground not yet allocated under any prior lease, and the Council could grant it on terms that fixed the rent, the period of the lease and the obligations of clearing and improvement. The directors' instruction that the Council deal with the petition for the Company's benefit and without partiality directed them to weigh the proposal on its own merits, without reference to any personal connection between Slaughter and the councillors, and to record the decision in the Consultation Book in either direction. The case of William Beale describes a common path into Company medical service. A man who had been trained up that way had served his apprenticeship to a surgeon, either in London or in one of the provincial centres, and had emerged with the practical skills required to dress wounds, set bones, perform routine amputations and administer the limited pharmacy of the period. The Company employed several surgeons at St Helena, attached to the garrison and to the planters, and a fresh applicant for such a post was assessed by the Council on the basis of his certificates and any opportunity to see him at work. The directors' delegation of the decision to the Council reflects their position that medical competence could not be judged from London. The Maynard case introduces the figure of Bencoolen, the Company's principal settlement on the west coast of Sumatra, where pepper and other commodities were collected for shipment to Europe. A carpenter or other tradesman engaged at St Helena could find his service extended to Bencoolen by Company order, and the terms of his diet, that is, the provision of food at the Company's expense, formed part of the engagement. The certificate from Lewes was the documentary evidence that such an arrangement had been made for Maynard's servant, and the Council's failure to honour it formed the substance of Maynard's complaint. Speculations The directors' decision to send Alexander's letter back to the Council unanswered, with their own remark that the rest of it would be dismissed, suggests they expected the Council to confront him with it. The technique of passing the awkward conversation back to the men on the spot served a Company that could not easily examine a servant face to face from four thousand miles away. By forwarding both the original charges and Alexander's evasive reply, the directors invited the Council either to press him for the answers he had withheld, or to face the consequence of letting him escape with a partial answer. The directors' position on Maynard's complaint, that they would have nobody wronged on their account, reads as a statement of principle rather than a determination of the present case. The phrase implied that the Company's authority should not be invoked to support an injustice committed by its servants, and that any servant aggrieved by such treatment had a route of appeal to London. The practical effect was to put the Council on notice that Maynard's case would be reviewed again if his complaint persisted, and that the men who had refused to honour Lewes's certificate would need a defensible account of their reasons. | |
156 | By Shipp Success then Send his Cloths after him which he Complains are Stopt for an Overcharge on the trimming which he was not able to pay Fourthly touching our Fortifications Buildings & Garrison Stores We expect to hear by youre next that a great deal of Work Platform at is finisht as you promise in Par[.] 81 § Queen as to the Platform Ruperts at Ruperts mentiond in the Letter of the 10 of May 1716 You have Sufficient Orders in our last Letter to do what Necessary to Prevent an enemys Landing and to take care all be Substantially done but with the utmost frugality Touching the Expence of the Garrison Stores & Buildings every months account of it We have notice already We note you order'd the Ground floor of the Plantation house Plant[ation] House to be paved with Stone because the Same Stands So damp as to rot both floor boards & Joices which Seems a piece of Good Husbandry We have often recommended to you the fencing in of the great Great Wood to be Wood to preserve Same Timber and Wood to the Island It must be Fenc[e]d in done as you can and now you have as We Suppose the Blacks be fore mentiond Set about it Do it Part as you can Spare them from time to time We find by your Computation of the 24 Janu[a]ry that a good part of that and the renewing & repairing all other the Comp[any]as fencing may be done for £ 408 .. which at Margin Notes: Platform at Ruperts Plant[ation] House Great Wood to be Fenc[e]d in | By the ship Success. [...] The directors were to send his clothes after him, which he complained were held back over an overcharge on the trimming that he had been unable to pay. The fourth section of the letter concerned the fortifications, buildings and garrison stores. The directors expected to hear by the Council's next dispatch that a great deal of the work was finished, as the Council had promised in paragraphs 81 and 82, particularly the platform at Rupert's, which had been mentioned in the letter of 10 May 1716. The Council held sufficient orders, set out in the Company's last letter, to do whatever was necessary to prevent an enemy landing, and to take care that it should be substantially done, but with the utmost frugality. On the expense of the garrison stores and the buildings, the directors already had the monthly account. The directors noted that the Council had ordered the ground floor of the Plantation House to be paved with stone, since the place stood so damp as to rot both the floor boards and the joists. This struck them as a piece of good husbandry. The directors had often recommended the fencing in of the great wood, to preserve the timber that remained, both for the standing supply on the island and for what could be drawn out. The work must be done as the Council was able. Now that they had the slaves previously mentioned, the directors supposed the slaves could be set to it as the Council could spare them from time to time. The directors found, from the Council's computation of 24 January [...], that a good part of the new fencing, and the renewing and repairing of all the rest of the Company's fencing, could be done for four hundred and sixty-eight pounds, which [...] Interpretations The platform at Rupert's refers to a gun emplacement at Rupert's Bay, the principal alternative landing place on the leeward coast of the island after Jamestown itself. The bay lay just north of the main valley and offered a sheltered beach where a hostile force could put men ashore beyond the reach of the Jamestown batteries. A platform there carried one or more cannon trained on the bay, capable of breaking up a landing party before it could reach the shore. The directors' concern with the work's completion reflects the standing fear of a French descent on the island, a fear sharpened by the war of the previous decade and not dispelled by the present peace. The phrase substantially done but with the utmost frugality captures the recurring tension in Company fortification policy. A defensive work had to be solid enough to resist a determined attack, since a poorly built platform would either be carried by the enemy or collapse under the recoil of its own guns. At the same time the directors balanced every defensive outlay against the revenues of the island, which never covered the full cost of the establishment, and refused to authorise spending beyond what the present threat justified. The Council on the island was expected to find the line between the two requirements without further consultation with London. The Plantation House paving illustrates a familiar problem of building maintenance in the island's climate. The Plantation House, the country residence of the Governor, stood at an elevation where damp from the ground and from the prevailing south-easterly cloud penetrated the timber of an unprotected floor. Floor boards and joists laid directly on the soil rotted within a few seasons, requiring replacement at material cost. A stone-paved ground floor stopped the damp at the level of the paving, preserving the timber of the upper structure, and represented a single capital outlay that saved repeated replacements. The directors' approval of the decision as good husbandry confirms the long-term economic logic. The great wood was the surviving body of native trees on the high ground in the interior of the island, the principal source of timber for building, fencing, fuel and ship repair. By the early eighteenth century the wood had been depleted by uncontrolled cutting, by browsing goats turned out by the planters, and by the demands of the garrison and the passing ships. Fencing the wood in served two purposes. The first was to exclude livestock, allowing seedlings to establish themselves and the wood to renew. The second was to control human access, so that cutting could be regulated and the timber harvested at a rate consistent with regeneration. The directors had pressed the measure repeatedly without success, and the present reference shows them still trying to bring it about. The figure of four hundred and sixty-eight pounds for the new fencing, together with the renewing and repairing of the existing fencing, formed part of the Council's computation entered in the Consultation of 24 January [...]. The same Consultation had set out the allocation of slaves across the Company's establishment, and the directors had earlier criticised the requested numbers as excessive. The present return to the same Consultation suggests the directors were working through it section by section, accepting some items, querying others and using the figures as a basis for the year's expenditure plan. Speculations The directors' suggestion that the slaves recently sent out from Madagascar should be set to the fencing work as the Council could spare them from time to time reflects their preferred model of slave employment, in which the same body of men moved between tasks according to the season and the priority of the day. The model treated slaves as a flexible labour resource rather than a permanent garrison of any one task, and contrasted with the Council's apparent preference for assigning slaves to fixed branches of the Company's affairs in the numbers it had requested. The directors' phrase as you can spare them carries an implicit instruction that no task was so urgent that it justified hiring additional hands at the rates the directors had already condemned. The recurrence of the figure of four hundred and sixty-eight pounds in the present letter, eight months or so after the Council's original computation, suggests that the directors had decided to treat it as the authorised budget for the year's fencing rather than as an estimate open to revision. By citing the sum back to the Council, the directors fixed it as the ceiling against which actual expenditure would be measured, and any overrun would have to be justified in the next year's accounts. The technique converted the Council's own figures into the standard by which their performance would be judged, leaving them no opening to argue later that the original estimate had been only provisional. | |
157 | Cap[t] Benj[a] Graves Comd[r] at 18 pence a day is but Fifty four Blacks Labour for a hundred days which is of much more Necessity than betterring the Path up the Hill Fifthly touching the Civill Government of the Island or the Productions thereof in Generall and what concerns any of the Inha bitants We find it necessary by what before us is said this generall head also to continue it when Occasion requires Do you take care to do the like in your Letters to us We are glad to read the agreeable News That S[t] Helena hath recover[e]d S[t] Helena in it Self into a flourishing Condition That 25 Shillings is the comon Price flourishing Condition of Beef That all other things are as cheap as ever That you have the Prospect of a fruitfull Season notwithstanding the Contrary appearance in Par[.] the 16 of your Letter of the 20 Janu[a]ry where you Say Some of the Gutts are narrow water are worn out but by a right Supply of Water you Seem to inferr would render'd usefull again But if We understand your 18 Par[.] § Queen right tho[ugh] our Stock of Cattle Buying Cattle which is increased considerably you have not yet done buying of Cattle which is to us a kind of Contradiction or an Argum[en]t of very and ill Management Unless it be only thereby to recover in our Debts You tell us in the next Par[.] you hope you have done buying Yams Yams Except Suckers, which all the planters Do this doth not Seem so plain to us formerly cant they be raised out of our own Plantations We Margin Notes: S[t] Helena in flourishing Condition Buying Cattle and Yams | Captain Benjamin Graves and others. [...] at eighteen pence a day was no more than fifty-four slaves' labour for one hundred days, and was of greater necessity than bettering the path up the hill. The fifth section of the letter concerned the civil government of the island, its productions in general, and what concerned any of the inhabitants. The directors found it necessary, by what lay before them and at this general head, to continue the practice where the occasion required. The Council was to take the like care in their letters to the Company. The directors were glad to read the agreeable news that St Helena had recovered into a flourishing condition, that twenty-five shillings was the common price of beef, and that all other things were as cheap as ever. The Council had the prospect of a fruitful season, despite the contrary appearance in paragraph 4 of the letter of 10 January [...], where the Council had said that some of the gullies were narrow valleys worn out, but that by a right supply of water they could be rendered useful again. From what the directors understood of paragraph 4 of the letter sent by the Queen, the stock of cattle had increased considerably, and the Council had not yet stopped buying cattle. This struck the directors as a kind of contradiction, or an argument of poor management, unless it were done only to recover a debt. The Council reported in the next paragraph that they hoped they had finished buying yams, except such as all the planters did, and this did not appear so plain to the directors, since formerly yams could not be raised on the Company's own plantations [...] Interpretations The calculation that one hundred and forty days' work at eighteen pence a day equalled fifty-four slaves' labour for one hundred days shows the directors converting expenditure into a unit they considered more meaningful. By translating the cost of hired labour into the equivalent number of slave days, they could measure proposed outlays against the labour of the Company's own slave establishment and assess whether the work was best done by hire or by direct labour. The technique reflected the directors' wider preference for using the existing slave population rather than incurring further cash payments to free hires, and gave them a metric for testing each new spending proposal sent up from the island. The path up the hill referred to the steep ascent connecting Jamestown at sea level with the inland plateau where the Plantation House and most of the country plantations were situated. The road climbed several hundred feet through a series of switchbacks cut into the rock and earth, and required regular repair to keep it passable for men, horses and loaded mules. The directors' judgement that the fortification work was of greater necessity than the path indicates how they weighed competing claims on the labour budget, defensive structures taking priority over communications even where the path's poor condition added to the daily cost of moving goods between the town and the interior. The price of twenty-five shillings for beef refers to the going rate per head of cattle, not per pound of meat, and represents the wholesale price at which a planter sold a beast on the hoof to the Company storekeeper or to a passing ship. A figure of twenty-five shillings indicates a healthy market and an adequate supply, since prices rose sharply during droughts or after epizootic disease. The directors' satisfaction with the figure points to its place in their overall reading of the island's condition, beef being one of the principal exports in the form of refreshment for outward and homeward East Indiamen. The contradiction the directors identified, between an increasing stock of cattle and continued purchases by the Company, points to a structural concern about how the Council managed the public herd. If the herd was growing, the Company's own breeding stock should have been generating the increase, and any further purchases would have been required only to replace specific losses or to acquire animals of particular age or quality. Continued routine buying, despite a rising herd, suggested either that the Council was operating without a clear sense of the herd's true size, or that purchases were being made for reasons unrelated to the Company's need for cattle. The directors' allowance for recovery of a debt acknowledged the one legitimate exception: a planter who owed the Company money might settle that debt in cattle, and the Company would receive the animals at an agreed valuation in lieu of cash. The yam was the principal starchy staple of the island's diet, cultivated both by the Company on its own grounds and by private planters on their leased land. It served as the bulk food for the slave population, for the soldiers' messes and for the ships that took on refreshment at the island. A Company that had to buy yams from the planters, rather than raise them on its own plantations, was paying twice for the same calories: once in the costs of holding the plantation and its slaves, and again in the price paid to the planter. The directors' surprise that yams could not be raised on the Company's own grounds points to a specific failure of agricultural management that they had probably raised before. Speculations The directors' phrase an argument of poor management, applied to the continued buying of cattle, suggests they had been reflecting on the Council's accounts as a body of evidence about competence rather than as a routine return. By identifying the contradiction between rising stock and continuing purchases, the directors were treating the figures themselves as testimony against the Council's judgement, and inviting the Council to explain the discrepancy in the next letter. The technique converted the Council's own reports into the material of their assessment, and required them to anticipate such enquiries when preparing future returns. The reference to gullies worn out as narrow valleys and the suggestion that water supply could render them useful again reflects an ongoing concern with the island's small-scale hydrology. Several of the valleys on the windward side had once supported cultivation but had degraded under sustained use, the soil eroding to bare rock in the upper sections and the streams running thin in the dry season. Restoring such ground required either water management through small dams and channels, or a period of abandonment to allow regrowth. The Council's optimism that a right supply of water would revive them probably reflected a particular scheme one of the councillors had in mind, but the directors' tone suggests they would want details before authorising any expenditure on it. | |
158 | By Shipp Success We are told that the neglect of our Plantations is Occasioned by Occasioned by takeing the Blacks from them to make Pathways the Hills neglect of[?] Plantation. the better to carry the Ladys in their Sedans which if true is much to be blamed The Season for weeding will Stay for no body but the Paths might Since they have Served So many years by which means you were forced Twenty Blacks for weeding Severall tells Us of this want of care & frequent calling off our Slaves for one or another tiffling or less neces[sa]ry business To remedy this We Say never take off any of our Plan Blacks to be well tation Blacks without the utmost Necessity except it be in their Employ[e]d times of Leisure and having first Consulted him that Looks after it whether he can well Spare them for We could never have them be quite Idle Take care the Severall Plantations of ours be as often as necessary Surveyed to See in what Order they are kept and what further to be done about them as We find was done on M[r] Bazets Report enter[e]d in Consultation of the 7 Feb[ru]ry The issuing out the Publick Advertisem[en]t for all Persons to Advertis[men]ts ought to be and bring in their Acc[oun]ts and Sending them to Lady day and to that Continued End to bring in the Account of their Familys Lands & the Cattle upon the Comon The other usuall Orders for Setting the Church Wardens, Overseers and other officers of the Civill Government of the Island is as it ought to be Let it be Continued We find in your Consultation of the 20 Decemb[er] agreed Recitall of an Order about Goats Order to prevent the Islanders killing the Company's Goals on Margin Notes: Occasioned by neglect of[?] Plantation Blacks to be well Employ[e]d Advertis[men]ts ought to be and Continued Recitall of an Order about Goats | By the ship Success. The directors attributed the neglect of the Company's plantations to the practice of taking the slaves away from them to mend the paths up the hills. The reason given for that diversion was to make the carriage of the ladies in their sedans more comfortable. If the report was true, it deserved sharp criticism. The growing season for the weeding would not wait for anybody, but the paths might, since they had served for many years already. The directors had been forced to send out twenty slaves for the weeding, which the Council's neglect of routine care had made necessary. The frequent removal of slaves from one task to another, much of it of less importance, lay at the root of the failure. To remedy this, the directors instructed that no plantation slaves were to be taken off their normal employment without the utmost necessity, except in their leisure hours, and only after the Council had first consulted the man who looked after them and had judged whether he could well spare them. The directors did not want them left idle. The Council was to take care that the Company's several plantations were surveyed as often as necessary, to see in what condition they stood and what further was to be done with them, as the directors found had been done on Bazett's report, entered in the Consultation of [...] February [...]. The Council had also issued the public advertisement requiring all persons to bring in their accounts and to settle them by Lady Day, and to that end to bring in the account of their family lands and the cattle they held on the common. The other usual orders for the choosing of the church wardens, the overseers and the other officers of the civil government of the island stood as they ought, and were to be continued. The directors found in the Council's Consultation of 20 December [...] an order agreed to prevent the islanders from killing the Company's goats [...] Interpretations The sedan in use at St Helena was the same article as the closed chair carried by paid bearers in London and other European cities of the period, adapted for the steep tracks of the island. The chair was suspended on poles, carried by two or more slaves on their shoulders, and used principally by the wives of the senior officers and planters when moving between Jamestown and the country plantations. The practice marked a clear social distinction, since only households with access to Company or hired slaves could maintain the carriage, and the comfort of the passenger depended on the surface of the path. The directors' phrase the ladies in their sedans identifies the specific use to which the diverted labour was being put, and treats it as a matter of personal convenience rather than Company necessity. The growing season for weeding was the period during which the rains had brought up grass and other invasive plants across the cultivated ground, and the failure to clear them within a few weeks would lose the crop. Yam, potato and tobacco grounds all required intensive labour during this period, and the slaves who normally performed the work could not be diverted to other tasks without immediate damage to the harvest. The directors' point was structural rather than disciplinary: the seasonal nature of plantation labour made it impossible to recover from a diversion of hands at the wrong moment, and a Council that allowed such diversions had compromised the year's output before it could be measured. The instruction that slaves were not to be taken off their normal employment without first consulting the man who looked after them describes the role of the overseer as the proper authority on the deployment of his labour. The overseer knew which slaves were fit for which work, which were sick or recovering, and which could be spared without compromising the immediate task in hand. A Council that ordered slaves off without consulting him was substituting administrative convenience for operational knowledge, and the directors' instruction restored the overseer's place in the chain of decision. The proviso that the slaves were not to be left idle prevented the overseer from using the same authority to resist any reassignment whatever. The reference to Lady Day, the feast of the Annunciation on 25 March, identifies the standard quarter day on which accounts were settled across the English-speaking commercial world. Rents fell due, contracts expired and accounts were closed on that date, and the Council's advertisement for all persons to bring in their accounts by that day fitted the island into the same rhythm as the metropolitan economy. The order to bring in the account of family lands and cattle held on the common formed part of the same exercise: a periodic census of holdings against which rents and head money could be assessed and any unauthorised extension of holdings could be identified. The choosing of the church wardens, the overseers and the other officers of the civil government refers to the annual round of vestry-style elections that the Council conducted under the model of an English parish. The church wardens managed the affairs of the church at Jamestown, including the burial ground and the fabric of the building, and the overseers managed the common lands and the welfare of the poorer planters. The directors' approval of the continuation of the existing arrangement reflects the political importance of these offices as the principal local positions available to the free population of the island, and the absence of dispute over them as a measure of stable governance. Speculations The directors' decision to identify the diversion of slaves to the path repairs by reference to the comfort of the ladies in their sedans, rather than by reference to any defensible administrative purpose, suggests they had received specific information about the practice from a source on the island. A councillor unhappy with the diversion, or a planter whose own weeding had suffered, could have written privately to one of the directors and supplied the detail. The naming of the actual use to which the labour had been put, rather than a generic reference to path work, gave the rebuke a particular sting and made it harder for the Council to argue that the diversion had served any broader purpose. The connection drawn in the present letter between the neglect of the plantations and the inadequate stock of slaves the Council had requested reads as a deliberate closing of a circle. The Council had argued in its Consultation of 24 January [...] that the existing slaves were insufficient, and had asked for two hundred more. The directors' position throughout has been that the existing slaves were sufficient if properly employed, and the present letter completes the argument by identifying the specific mismanagement, diversion of plantation hands to non-essential path work, that had produced the apparent shortage. By the directors' reasoning, the Council had created the shortage and then asked the Company to fund its resolution. | |
159 | Cap[t] Benj[.] Graves Comd[r] being killed[?] on pretence of their being found or wild Goats Occasioned by the dispute between Vesey Swallow & others quarrelling for their Share of three Goats which as is apprehended belong[e]d to us Remember to have it always duly observed as likewise that other Order of the who Should 31 Janu[a]ry which Directs that no Boys ought to have any Goats or any keep Goats others but a Master of a Family or Housekeeper and which was Publickly Advertized If you really think it absolutely Necessary for the better preserving ours from being Stolen otherwise We would not do it because it Looks Like something of a Hardship or at Least an Innovation on the generall usage on the Island & We could not without very good reason break in upon any Antient Customs We find you Sett out an Advertisem[en]t with a reward of Five Pounds 5£ Reward to any that Should Discover who killed any of our Goats offered Herewith We send you the Petition of Jaines Rider Complaining of your Seizing a Hundred & Forty Pounds of his Supply'd by his James Riders Credit in the Stores to pay Rob[t] Bells Debt to Us because he took Petition Sent back Ten p[er] Cent Interest The allegations are not much different from y[ou]r own Stating the Facts in the Consultations of the 31 Janu[a]ry & 7 Feb[ru]ry Let any unprejudiced person read both they will see a rigourous Pro ceeding not to be justifyed It Seems Eight p[er] Cent is allowed to be a reasonable Interest but ten is Contrary to the Statute & not either alike forfeitable if the Act of Parliament which in such Externs no further than England Wales and Berwick was in force at S[t] Helena We Shall never blame you for keeping Persons from Extortion Margin Notes: being killed[?] who Should keep Goats 5£ Reward offered James Riders Petition Sent back | Captain Benjamin Graves and others. [...] on the pretence of their being pound goats or wild goats, occasioned by the dispute between Vesey, Swallow and others quarrelling over their share of three goats which, as was apprehended, belonged to the Company. The directors required the Council to see this order always duly observed. Likewise the other order of 31 January [...], which directed that no boys ought to keep any goats or other livestock, but only a master of a family or a householder, and which had been publicly advertised. If the Council really thought it absolutely necessary, for the better preserving of the Company's goats from being stolen, it might stand. Otherwise the directors would not endorse it, because it looked like a measure of hardship, or at least an innovation on the general usage on the island. The directors did not, without very good reason, wish to break in upon any ancient custom. The Council had also issued an advertisement with a reward of five pounds to any person who should discover who had killed any of the Company's goats. The directors enclosed the petition of James Reden, complaining of the Council's seizure of one hundred and forty pounds of his money, kept by his credit in the stores, in order to pay Robert Bell's debt to the Company, because Reden had taken ten per cent interest on it. The allegations were not much different from the Council's own statement of the facts in the Consultations of 31 January and 7 February [...]. Anyone reading both without prejudice would see the proceeding could not be justified. Eight per cent was allowed as a reasonable interest, but ten per cent was contrary to the statute and not alike forfeitable. If the Act of Parliament against extortion, which in such cases extended no further than England, Wales and Berwick, were in force at St Helena, the directors would never blame the Council for keeping persons from extortion. [...] Interpretations The distinction between pound goats and wild goats reflects the legal regime under which livestock was held on the island. A pound goat was an animal impounded by the parish or by the Company because it had strayed onto another person's ground or onto the common without authority, and was held in a public enclosure until the owner came forward to claim it on payment of a fee. A wild goat was an animal living loose on the broken ground of the interior, descended from earlier escapees, and treated as ownerless under the customary law of the island. The dispute between Vesey, Swallow and others over three goats turned on whether the animals fell into one category or the other, and therefore on whether the men had taken them lawfully or had stolen them from the Company. The order of 31 January confining the keeping of goats to masters of families or householders addressed a particular pattern of small-scale theft. A boy or junior servant left in charge of a few animals could quietly add to his charge by taking Company goats off the common and absorbing them into the master's herd, the misappropriation being difficult to detect against a fluctuating count. By restricting the keeping of goats to the head of the household, the Council placed legal responsibility on a person whose standing on the island was a matter of record, and who could be called to account through the regular channels. The directors' hesitation about the measure reflects their reluctance to disturb established practice without clear evidence that the change would deliver the intended benefit. The reward of five pounds for information identifying the killer of any of the Company's goats represents a substantial sum on the island, equivalent to about three months' wages for a soldier with diet, or to the annual housing allowance the directors had granted to Thomlinson in the same letter. The size of the reward indicates how seriously the directors took the depredation of the Company's herd, since the goats supplied meat, milk and skins, and represented one of the principal items of livestock the island carried at no continuing cost to the Company beyond the occasional loss to theft or to the wild. A reward at this level was calculated to break the silence of small communities where everyone knew who had killed the animal but no one would speak. The Reden case exposes the legal complexity of usury law as it applied to the Company's overseas settlements. Reden had lent money to Bell at ten per cent interest, an act that would have been an offence under the English statutes against usury, which capped the lawful rate at six per cent for most of the early modern period and at five per cent from 1714. The Council had treated the loan as forfeitable and had seized one hundred and forty pounds of Reden's money held in the Company stores to satisfy Bell's debt to the Company. The directors' point was that the English statute against extortion did not extend to St Helena, since the Act in question was confined by its own terms to England, Wales and Berwick-on-Tweed, and the Council had therefore applied a legal penalty without the legal authority to do so. The distinction the directors drew between eight per cent as a reasonable interest and ten per cent as contrary to the statute reflects the gap between practical commerce and statutory limit. Lenders on the island regularly charged interest at rates above the metropolitan ceiling, since money was scarce and the risks of recovery were high, and the directors accepted that rates higher than the English maximum could be justified by local conditions. Ten per cent, however, exceeded what the directors regarded as defensible, even in a colonial setting. The figure carried a stigma even where it could not carry a legal penalty, and the directors' position was that the Council might decline to enforce such a loan through the Company's courts, but could not strip the lender of his other money to compensate the debtor. Speculations The directors' careful citation of the Act of Parliament against extortion, with its specific territorial limitation to England, Wales and Berwick, suggests they had taken legal advice on Reden's petition before drafting the present letter. The technical observation that an Act extending no further than the specified territories could not be applied at St Helena reflects a level of legal precision unlikely to have been carried in the directors' general knowledge, and points to a specific written opinion from one of the Company's London counsel. By embedding the legal point in the letter, the directors transferred the authority of that opinion to the Council, and made clear that the Council's seizure of Reden's money would be reversed if Reden chose to pursue his petition further. The arrangement by which Reden held one hundred and forty pounds in the Company stores by his credit illustrates a banking function the Company performed for its servants and for the better-off planters at St Helena. A man with cash he did not wish to keep at home could deposit it with the storekeeper against an entry in the Company's books, drawing on it as needed for purchases or for the settlement of debts. The arrangement protected the depositor against theft and made his money available for productive use by the Company, which carried the balance until withdrawal. The Council's seizure of Reden's balance to satisfy Bell's debt was effectively a use of the Company's banking relationship to enforce its judgement against a third party, and the directors' rejection of the seizure preserved the integrity of that relationship for future depositors. | |
160 | By Shipp Success Extortion We apprehend Ryder may be a Tool of M[r] Powels and you intimate & the money may be his too and 'tis plain Powels Private Storehouse hath Prejudice ours (tho[ugh] that in a great Degree is our own Peoples faults) but doth it from all this follow you Relateing to must Seize this money We think not at all Wherefore If you yet Ryder & Bells have it and it is not Apply'd to pay off Bells debt return it to M[r] Ryder, never do an Act of Arbitrary Power to hurt any body Let Your Determinations be alway[s] just not rigorous but inclining to the mercifull Side, always try the Cause near the Body don't a Passion overcloud your reason This will make the People respect you whereas one Violent Sentence or Action will Sully the repu tation of Ten good ones We are Sorry to See this plain Instance of what many People too often charge our Govern[ou]r with of follow ing his own Positive temper & yet it is very Probable their true Cause of Clamour may be his zealous endeavouring to recover our Just debts or Preventing the Said Storehouses or Particular Persons being further Prejudiciall to ours or putting our Orders in due Execution We understand one John Poulter who was bound an Appren J[oh]n Poulter to tice to M[r] Tewtrel Surgeon of the Derby and being abused be Sent home to his Bills & Re left him as S[t] Helena and Sued himself a Sold[ie]r there at his lation for debt Friends desire We hereby Direct that you let him return to England by the first of our Ships after receipt hereof If he is any way Indebted for Support & Necessarys do you clear him Margin Notes: Relateing to Ryder & Bells J[oh]n Poulter to be Sent home to his Bills & Re lation for debt | By the ship Success. [...] extortion. The directors apprehended Ryder might be a tool of Powell, with whom he was intimate, and that the money might in truth be Powell's own. It was plain that Powell's private storehouse had damaged the Company's interest, though to a great degree that damage arose from the conduct of the Company's own people. Even so, from all this it did not follow that the Council was right to seize Ryder's money. The directors saw no proper reason for it. If the Council still held the money and had not yet applied it to discharge Bell's debt, it was to be returned to Ryder. The Council was never to use an act of arbitrary power to hurt anybody. Its determinations were always to be just, not rigorous, and inclining to the merciful side. The Council was always to weigh the cause, never the person, and not to let passion overcloud reason. This course would secure the people's respect, whereas one violent sentence or action would tarnish the reputation built up by ten good ones. The directors regretted to see in this affair a plain instance of what many people too often charged the Council with, namely the following of the Governor's own positive temper. It was also probable, however, that the true cause of the complaint was the Governor's earnest effort to recover the Company's just debts, to prevent further damage from the private storehouse, and to put the Company's orders into proper execution. The directors had been informed that John Poulter, who had been bound apprentice to Teusdale, surgeon of the Derby, and being abused by him had left him at St Helena and hired himself as a soldier through his friend's request. The directors directed the Council to allow Poulter to return to England by the first of the Company's ships after receipt of the present letter. If he was indebted to anyone for support and necessaries, the Council was to clear [...] Interpretations The directors' suggestion that Ryder might be a tool of Powell points to a recurring pattern in the island's commerce, by which a man of standing operated his private trade through a nominal lender or partner whose name appeared in the records while the substance of the transactions belonged to the principal. The arrangement protected the principal from direct exposure when a transaction came under scrutiny, and gave him a layer of deniability if questioned. The directors' identification of the pattern, with the explicit suggestion that the money in dispute might actually be Powell's, treats Ryder's petition as worth supporting on its own terms while leaving open the possibility that the underlying interest belonged to a more substantial figure. The directors' instruction that the Council's determinations should be inclining to the merciful side reflects a particular conception of colonial justice in which the executive function of the Council carried weight beyond the legal merits of the case. A Council that decided each case strictly by the law, without weighing the human consequences, would acquire a reputation for rigour that worked against its standing in the community. The phrase that ten good actions could be tarnished by one violent sentence captures the asymmetry: harsh decisions were remembered and resented, while just decisions were quickly absorbed into the expected pattern of governance. The instruction to incline to mercy was practical advice on how to maintain the consent of the governed in a small society where every decision was known to all. The reference to the Governor's positive temper engages with a recognised charge in early modern administrative writing. A man of positive temper was one who, having reached a conclusion, would not consider revising it in the face of new information or contrary argument, and pursued his original position regardless of where the evidence led. The directors' acknowledgement that the Council was perceived as following the Governor's positive temper rather than weighing matters independently reflects a structural concern about the cohesion of councils dominated by a forceful chairman. The Council's value to the Company lay partly in its capacity to moderate the Governor's decisions, and a Council that simply ratified them lost the function for which it was constituted. The directors' even-handed conclusion, that the true cause of the complaint might be the Governor's zealous effort to recover the Company's debts and to suppress the private storehouse, acknowledges that strong executive action against entrenched interests would always produce complaints from those affected. A Governor who pressed for the collection of arrears, who broke up unauthorised trade and who insisted on the proper execution of orders would attract a steady stream of petitions from the men he disturbed, and the volume of complaint could not be taken as evidence that the action was wrong. The directors' position was that the present case had to be settled in Ryder's favour on its merits, without that settlement counting as a wider judgement on the Governor's conduct. The case of John Poulter illustrates the legal arrangement of apprenticeship as it operated within the Company's service. A young man bound apprentice to a ship's surgeon entered a multi-year contract under which he served the surgeon in return for instruction in the trade, lodging, food and clothing. The contract was enforceable, and an apprentice who left his master before the expiry of the term could be pursued for breach. The defence of abuse by the master, however, was recognised as a ground for release, and Poulter's flight to the protection of the island, followed by his enlistment as a soldier through a friend's request, fitted the standard pattern by which an apprentice escaped a violent master while securing alternative subsistence. The directors' instruction to return him to England by the first available ship treated the surgeon's conduct as having voided the apprenticeship, and committed the Company to bearing the cost of any debts he had incurred while ashore. Speculations The directors' specific willingness to consider that Ryder might be acting as a front for Powell, while still ordering Ryder's money to be returned, points to a deliberate separation of evidential standards from the immediate remedy. The directors lacked the proof needed to act against Powell directly, since their suspicion rested on the intimacy between the two men rather than on documentary evidence linking the money to Powell. By restoring the money to Ryder and recording the suspicion in the letter, they preserved the position against Powell for later examination, when further evidence might come to hand, while removing the immediate injustice that the seizure had caused. The directors' careful balancing of the Ryder case, criticising the seizure while acknowledging the Governor's broader effort to clean up the private storehouse, reads as a signal to the Council that the directors would support firm administration of the Company's interests but would not back action that exceeded the legal limits. The technique kept the Governor in place and his programme of reform intact, while warning him that particular methods would attract censure from London if they crossed into arbitrary seizure. The Council was being instructed both to continue the reform and to conduct it within recognisable legal forms, and the present case stood as the practical illustration of what that meant. | |
161 | Cap[t] Benj[a] Graves Comd[r] him taking his bills for the valluv on Will[ia]m Dauvonne Esq[r] one of our Directors who will Accept and Discharge the Same & will also be Accountable for the Charge of his Passage Home We herewith Send you the Petition of Walter Morris Planter Walt[er] Morris Complaining the Governour hath taken away his Black tho[ugh] he Petition ab[ou]t his Black has paid all he owes the Company and will not return him nor pay him for his working Advise us the whole of the Case and do him right for as he States it he is wronged which We would have no body be on our or any others Account but all Justly dealt with We have a grievous Complaint from M[r] Free in his Letters of the 12 June & 6 Aug[us]t Last that our Govern[r] gave him very Severi Frees ous & abusive Language in Consultation because he had wrote Complaint us of the Govern[r]s denying to take his Yams calling him rogue Villain &[c] We were Sorry to hear it & Desire We may have no more of it Such a behaviour renders any mans Authority Contemptible and Himself but Little what becomes you all in Such a Case is to hear every one with Patience If they charge you falsely either down Disputes to in Consultation the Proofs wherein and try to make them Sensible be Entered of their Mistakes if they behave themselves insolently & continue in it Let them know you Expect good manners and that you will Pre serve your Authority He adds that you forced him to give Bonds for Securing his Debt and to pay Interest & included in the Bond Forty £ Vallue of Goods just before Delivered out of the Stores and Ten Pounds Margin Notes: Walt[er] Morris Petition ab[ou]t his Black Frees Complaint Disputes to be Entered | Captain Benjamin Graves and others. [...] him by taking his bills for the value on William Dauvonne, one of the Company's directors, who would accept and discharge the same, and would also be accountable for the charge of his passage home. The directors enclosed the petition of Walter Morris, planter, complaining that the Governor had taken away his slave, although he had paid all he owed the Company, and that the Governor would neither return him nor pay him for the work the slave had done. The directors instructed the Council to advise itself of the whole of the case and to do Morris right. As Morris stated it, he had been wronged, and the directors would have nobody dealt with on the Company's account, or on the account of any individual servant, except justly. The directors had a grievous complaint from Free in his letters of 13 June and 6 August [...], that the Governor had given him very severe and abusive language in Consultation, because he had written to the directors of the Governor's refusal to take his yams, calling him rogue, villain and the like. The directors were sorry to hear it, and wished that the present letter might prevent further behaviour of that kind. Such conduct rendered any man's authority contemptible, and the Governor himself little better. What was required in such a case was to hear every man with patience, and if anyone charged the Council falsely, to disprove the charge in Consultation and to make him sensible of his mistake. If a man behaved himself insolently and continued in it, the Council was to let him know that the directors expected good manners and that the Council would preserve its authority. Free added that the Governor had forced him to give bond for securing his debt to the Company, with payment of interest, and had included in the bond forty pounds for the value of goods just before delivered out of the Company's stores, together with [...] pounds [...] Interpretations The arrangement by which Poulter's passage home was secured through bills drawn on William Dauvonne, named as one of the Company's directors, illustrates a familiar method by which the Company's executive officers in London stood personally behind transactions undertaken on the Company's authority abroad. A bill drawn at St Helena and accepted by Dauvonne in London was an instrument backed by his personal credit as well as the Company's standing, and could be negotiated for cash by any party holding it. The directors used this device to ensure that the cost of returning Poulter to England fell within an identifiable account, with a named director personally accountable for its discharge. The case of Walter Morris and the slave taken by the Governor exposes a different kind of dispute over the boundary between Company authority and private property. A planter who had cleared his debt to the Company should have recovered any slave previously hired in by the Company as security or under hire, and the Governor's refusal either to return the slave or to compensate Morris for the slave's labour amounted to a continuing seizure of private property. The directors' instruction that the Council should advise itself of the whole case, rather than acting on Morris's petition alone, reflects standard administrative caution: a petitioner naturally presented his case in its strongest form, and the Council on the spot had to weigh his account against the Governor's reasons before deciding. The exchange between the Governor and Free in Consultation demonstrates the disciplinary limits of council government in a small settlement. The Consultation Book recorded the proceedings of the Council as a formal court of record, and the use of language such as rogue and villain by the Governor against a planter who had written to London violated the dignity of the body and converted a difference of view into a personal attack. The directors' point was that such conduct made any future enforcement action by the Council questionable, since a Governor who lost his temper in Consultation could not credibly claim that subsequent decisions against the same man were taken on their merits. The directors' instruction on the proper conduct of disputed business in Consultation, that every man should be heard with patience, false charges disproved in the Consultation itself and the mistaken party brought to recognise his error, sets out a standard of procedural conduct that they expected the Council to apply. The model treated the Consultation as a forum where disputes could be aired and resolved through documented exchange, rather than suppressed through executive force. By committing the standard to writing, the directors gave any future petitioner a recognised procedural ground for complaint, and made the Governor's adherence to the standard part of the criteria against which his conduct would be judged. Free's complaint about the Governor's refusal to take his yams identifies a specific economic grievance that probably underlay the broader confrontation. The Company purchased yams from the planters at fixed rates and stored them for the supply of the garrison, the slaves and passing ships. A planter who could not sell his yams to the Company was left holding a perishable crop with no alternative market on the island, and any refusal to purchase carried immediate financial consequences. Free's letter to the directors over the Governor's head reflected the standard practice by which a planter denied at the local level appealed to the higher authority, and the Governor's reaction in Consultation was the predictable response of a man who saw his decisions challenged through the official channel. The bond forced on Free for the security of his debt to the Company, with payment of interest and the inclusion of additional sums for goods recently delivered out of the stores, describes a common instrument of debt management in the Company's service. A bond was a written obligation under seal by which the debtor acknowledged the sum due and bound himself to repay it on stated terms, with interest accruing in the meanwhile. The directors had repeatedly accepted bonds as the proper mechanism for recovering arrears, and the Governor's insistence on a bond from Free was in itself unobjectionable. The grievance lay in the inclusion within the bond of further sums for which Free disputed his liability, and the directors' detailed reporting of the components suggests they intended to test each item separately. Speculations The directors' decision to enclose the petitions of Morris and Free in the present letter, while making clear that they were sending the matters back to the Council for resolution rather than determining them in London, reflects a deliberate balance between supporting local authority and preserving the right of appeal. Both petitioners had bypassed the Council and written directly to the directors, and a Company that always overruled its Council on the strength of such petitions would have undermined the authority of the men it had appointed. By referring the cases back with instructions on how they were to be examined, the directors preserved the Council's standing while ensuring that the petitioners' complaints received a fair hearing. The specific naming of the Governor in connection with both the seizure of Morris's slave and the abuse of Free in Consultation suggests that the directors were beginning to form a settled view of the Governor's conduct as a recurring problem. The earlier portions of the letter have praised the Governor's energy in recovering debts and suppressing the private storehouse, while criticising his methods. The present cases add weight to the criticism, and the cumulative pattern points toward a future letter in which the directors might either narrow the Governor's discretion through specific instructions or call him home to answer for his conduct. The present letter stops short of either step but lays the documentary basis for them. | |
162 | By Shipp Success Pounds for his Rent & Revenues whereas he Says no others are oblig[e]d to pay Interest If this be true of which give Us an Account or how far it is So, We Say the Last £ 50 .. Seems to us a hard Ship to charge Interest upon it till you had given an avoidance him first he adds that you refused to let his Blacks work on pretence they were old but employed others older What is be fore Directed in the Case of Rider is proper to be Said here for Generall good usage to all for We would have none ill dealt with on any Account We took notice of what you write about him in Par[.] 56 § Queen which doth not Seem to clear but leaves Suspicion That he hath been hardly used for if the People did So Complain of his Yams you Should have responded him w[i]th theirs and thereby Silenced his Clamour a little tend[?] when now & then men of this kind will be no weakening but rather Strenghening Your Authority by Convinceing the By Standers of yo[u]r Justice that the Complaints are groundless We have a long complaint from Severall of the Plant[ers] Coun[ci]ls Apruse That you raise Cordage to twelve pence a Pound & Lim[e] Planters Grievances five Shilling a Bushell which at the Fort used to be but half that price That Tanning of Leather is absolutely forbid the [...] [...] [...] that Pingapoo growing on his fathers [Lan]d making the Best of their Pro [...] That you will not take our debts [...] [Plan]ters have but in large Twenty four ans Margin Notes: Coun[ci]ls Apruse Planters Grievances | By the ship Success. [...] counts for his rent and revenues, whereas he said that no others were called on to pay interest. If that were true, of which the Council was to send an account, and how far it was so, then the last fifty pounds appeared to the directors a hardship to be charged with interest until they had given him an answer first. Free added that the Council had refused to let his slaves work, on the pretence that they were old, but had employed others older. The directors said that what they had directed in the case of Ryder applied here also: the general good usage required of all. They would have nobody ill treated on any account. The directors took notice of what the Council had written about Free in paragraph 56 of the letter sent by the Queen, which did not seem so clear, but left a suspicion that he had been hardly used. If the Council's people had something to complain of in his yams, the Council should have answered him at that time, and so silenced his complaint a little sooner. To take notice of complaints of this kind would not weaken the Council's authority, but rather strengthen it, by convincing the bystanders that the Council was just and that the complaints were groundless. The directors had a long complaint from several of the planters that the Council had raised cordage to twelve pence a pound and linseed oil to five shillings a bushel, where at the Fort it used to be sold at half that price. The planters complained that the tanning of leather was absolutely forbidden, that the [...] which proposed growing on his father's [...] [...] making the best of their produce. They added that the Council would not take the Company's debts where the planters had laid them out [...] in large turkeys [...] Interpretations The directors' point about charging interest only on Free's account, and not on those of other planters, addresses a particular form of administrative inequality that the Council had apparently permitted. If a debt was held by the Company against a planter, the standard treatment was either to charge interest on all such debts or on none, since selective application converted the interest charge from a routine commercial arrangement into a personal penalty. The directors' instruction to send an account of how widely the practice extended was a request for the evidence needed to test whether Free's complaint was justified, and committed the Council to producing the comparable figures for other planters' accounts. The reference to slaves being refused work on the pretence that they were old, while others older were employed, exposes a recurring pattern of selective enforcement of hiring rules. The Company's policy in principle was to hire the slaves most fit for the work, with age as one criterion among several including health, skill and previous performance. In practice the choice of which slaves to hire on any given day rested with the storekeeper or overseer responsible for the task, and decisions could be shaped by personal favour as much as by objective merit. Free's complaint was that the same standard had been applied to him that had been waived for others, and the directors' response treated the inconsistency as the essence of the grievance. The principle the directors invoked, that taking notice of complaints would strengthen rather than weaken the Council's authority by convincing the bystanders of its justice, sets out a particular theory of colonial governance. Authority in a small settlement depended on the general perception of the governing body as impartial, and an institution that brushed aside complaints to preserve its dignity ended by losing the underlying respect on which dignity depended. By demonstrating a willingness to investigate and where necessary to correct, the Council reinforced the position it occupied. The directors' phrase the bystanders identifies the wider audience for any particular dispute, namely those planters and soldiers not directly involved in the present matter but observing how the Council handled it. The complaint about the price of cordage and linseed oil engages with the Company's role as the principal merchant on the island. The Fort, that is the Company's storehouse at Jamestown, sold imported goods to the planters at prices set by the Council, and an increase from sixpence to twelve pence a pound for cordage and from half-price to five shillings a bushel for linseed oil represented a doubling of cost for items the planters needed to maintain their operations. Cordage was required for every kind of haulage and for the rigging of small boats, while linseed oil was used in painting buildings, treating timber and lighting. A planter denied access to these goods at the previous rate had no alternative source of supply, and the price rise functioned as a tax on his enterprise. The absolute prohibition on the tanning of leather identifies a Company monopoly the planters had been pressing against. Leather was needed on the island for harness, footwear, bookbinding and a range of other practical items, and a planter who could process his own hides into leather both met his own needs and supplied the local market. By forbidding the practice, the Council reserved the leather trade either to the Company itself or to a particular contractor, and the planters' inclusion of the prohibition in their complaint suggests they regarded it as one of several restrictions imposed without clear public benefit. The directors' attention to the complaint at paragraph level reflects a preparedness to consider whether the prohibition could be defended. Speculations The clustering of the planters' complaints in the present paragraph, covering the prices of cordage and linseed oil, the prohibition on tanning, and the refusal to accept the planters' goods in settlement of Company debts, suggests that the planters had organised a collective petition rather than each writing separately. A coordinated complaint of this kind carried more weight than individual grievances and was harder for the Council to deflect on the strength of personal animus against any one planter. The directors' willingness to engage with the complaint paragraph by paragraph, rather than dismiss it as the work of disaffected men, reflects their recognition that a settled body of complaint from the planters deserved investigation, even where some of the particular points might prove unfounded. The directors' reference back to Ryder's case as the controlling precedent for Free's treatment indicates that they were beginning to view the various complaints reaching them from the island as a connected pattern rather than as separate disputes. Ryder, Free, Morris and the other petitioners had each been the object of administrative action by the Council or the Governor that the directors regarded as exceeding the proper limits, and the consistency of the directors' response across the cases, that no one was to be ill treated on any account and that complaints were to be heard with patience, suggests the formulation of a settled doctrine. The doctrine would form part of the directors' position whenever future cases of the kind reached London, and would be cited back to the Council in subsequent correspondence. | |
163 | Cap[t] Benj[.] Graves Comd[r] and Foules tho[ugh] they have none Such, Some other matters they mention which We find no fault us Such as the duty on Arrack and not Letting Beef be Delivered the French Ships in time of Scarcity We tell you these things That you may not give just handles for Clamour nor even bear too hard on the Inhabitants for what they want and You can Supply them withall, the Directions aforesaid about Ryder are Applicable to this case too Enclosed comes a Letter wrote Us by M[r] Bazett dated the M[r] Bazetts 14 March 17 15/16 and attested to be true by M[r] Hancell Complaining Letter Attested by That nothing is done to lesen our great Charge but new Projects to Hancell Encrease it the Planters Blacks hired to mend the Paths for the Sake of carrying Sedans up them which are Compared to Cost already as much as the Castle Govern[r] Roberts built & will more That the Plantations are thereby Neglected and you are forced to buy Yams because the Blacks are called off to needless Uses and his Proposals thereupon that they Should not That the Table Expences are Extravagantly encreased beyond what formerly or what necessary and Particularly in Arrack by the Governours Stewards mismannagement and that the Governour will not Suffer any to concern themselves about his Servants but bear[s] Intriming moves[?] them a grudge ever after That Six or Seven Hundred Pounds Compl[t] vallue is Enterd in the Books since the Govern[r] came that none of the Councell knows any thing of, of which he would Send the Margin Notes: M[r] Bazetts Letter Attested by Hancell Intriming moves[?] Compl[t] | Captain Benjamin Graves and others. [...] and fowls, even where they had none such on hand. Some other matters the planters mentioned, with which the directors found no fault, were the duty on arrack, and the refusal to allow beef to be delivered to the French ships in time of scarcity. The directors set these things out so that the Council might not give just grounds for clamour, nor bear too hard on the inhabitants in respect of what they wanted and what the Council could supply them with. The directions given above in Ryder's case applied to this case also. The directors enclosed a letter written by Bazett, dated 14 March [...], and attested as true by Hanwell, complaining that nothing was being done to reduce the Company's great charge, and that new projects were on foot to increase it. Bazett alleged that the planters' slaves were hired to mend the paths for the sake of carrying sedans up them, which now cost the Company nearly as much as Governor Robert had built it all out of. The plantations were thereby neglected, and the Council was forced to buy yams because the slaves were called off to needless uses. Bazett's proposal on this point was that they should not be. He further alleged that the table expenses were extravagantly increased beyond what they had been formerly, or what was necessary, particularly in arrack, through the Governor's stewards' mismanagement, and that the Governor would not suffer any to concern themselves about his servants, but bore them a grudge ever after. Six or seven hundred pounds in value had been entered in the books since the Governor came that none of the Council knew anything of, and which he would not produce [...] Interpretations The duty on arrack and the refusal to supply beef to French ships in time of scarcity represent two areas where the directors approved of the Council's stance. Arrack was the principal spirit consumed at the island, and a duty on it raised revenue without interfering with the Company's monopoly of imported goods. The supply of beef to French shipping engaged a different consideration, since the limited stock of cattle on the island had to be reserved for the Company's own vessels and for those of allied or neutral nations whose voyages served the Company's interests. A French ship taking refreshment at St Helena gained the same operational advantage as an English East Indiaman, and to supply her in a year of scarcity was to favour a commercial competitor at the expense of the Company's own people. The proviso that the directors had set out the points so that the Council might not give just grounds for clamour reflects a deliberate distinction between the planters' justified grievances and their unjustified ones. The directors did not propose to bend Company policy to every complaint reaching them from the island, but neither would they allow the Council to defend practices that gave the planters legitimate cause for resentment. By identifying the points on which the planters had a case and those on which they did not, the directors marked out the territory within which the Council was free to act and the territory in which it was expected to make accommodation. The phrase ensured that any future complaint touching the established points would be measured against the present letter. The Bazett and Hanwell letter introduces a different kind of evidence into the directors' assessment of the island's government. Both men were senior councillors who had earlier been criticised for holding plantations of their own in breach of the Company's order, but their position within the Council gave them direct access to the matters they reported. A letter signed by Bazett and attested by Hanwell carried the weight of internal testimony rather than external petition, and the directors' decision to enclose it in the present dispatch indicates that they treated it as credible. The pattern in which one or two councillors wrote privately to London against the conduct of the Governor and his immediate circle was a recognised feature of Company administration in distant settlements, and the directors relied on such correspondence as a check against the official record. The reference to the planters' slaves being hired to mend the paths for the sake of carrying sedans, costing the Company nearly as much as Governor Robert had built it all out of, deploys a striking financial comparison. Governor Robert was an earlier holder of the office, and the buildings and improvements of his time had been undertaken at known cost recorded in the Company's books. By setting the present expenditure on path repair against the historical figure for Governor Robert's whole programme, Bazett converted the path work from a current item into a measure of the present administration's profligacy. The technique of historical comparison was an effective rhetorical device in correspondence with London, where the directors had access to the older records and could verify the figure. The complaint about table expenses identifies a specific feature of the Governor's establishment. The table was the official dining arrangement maintained at the Governor's house, where the senior officers and visiting dignitaries were entertained at the Company's expense. The cost included provisions, wine, arrack and the labour of cooks and servants, and the budget was set on an annual basis. An increase in table expenses beyond the historical figure suggested either inflation in the price of supplies, expansion of the guest list, or diversion of supplies to the Governor's private use. Bazett's specific reference to arrack and to the Governor's stewards' mismanagement points to the third explanation: arrack drawn from the Company's stores for the table was being consumed beyond what the entertainment required, and the difference passed to the stewards or to the Governor's household. The allegation that six or seven hundred pounds had been entered in the books since the Governor's arrival that no member of the Council knew anything of identifies a fundamental breakdown in collective accountability. The Council's role in the Company's establishment was to act as a collective body of authority, with each member having access to the accounts and the right to question entries before they were finalised. A Governor who entered expenditure without bringing it before the Council had effectively suspended the Council's function, and any such expenditure was open to challenge on procedural grounds alone, regardless of its substantive merits. The figure of six or seven hundred pounds was substantial in relation to the island's annual budget, and Bazett's report identified the missing detail as the immediate object of enquiry. Speculations The directors' decision to forward the Bazett and Hanwell letter to the Council, rather than to act on it directly in London, fits the pattern they had established throughout the present dispatch. By placing the allegations on record in the Consultation Book through the Council's reading of the letter, the directors forced the Governor either to answer the specific points or to face the inference that he could not. The technique transferred the burden of explanation to the Governor while preserving the directors' position of formal neutrality, and committed the documentary record to a form in which any future enquiry could trace each allegation back to its source. The combined effect of the present series of complaints, from Free over yams and abuse in Consultation, from Morris over the seized slave, from Ryder over the seized money, and now from Bazett and Hanwell over financial irregularity, points toward a settled view forming in London that the present Governor's administration could not continue indefinitely. The directors had so far refrained from naming a successor or recalling the Governor, but the present letter laid the basis on which either step could be taken in the next dispatch. The Governor's response to the present letter, particularly his treatment of the matters specifically raised, would shape whether the directors moved to that conclusion or allowed his administration further time to demonstrate its capacity for reform. | |
164 | By Shipp Success the particulars These are the Substance of the Articles there contained What We expect from you the Governour & Councell is That the Same be Particularly enquired into and with Deliberation and as the Governour is charged Let him fairly debate with two Accusers how far this charge is true & how far false Let them in the Same manner Exhibit their Proofs to Support their allegations Put the whole into as few words as Possible for our ultti mate Determination and this openly that both Sides may agree to the facts and neither may by any Letters to us calumniate the they are to other and mention things which were not brought into the Debate make out their Charge in Council We cant like the two Accusers Mannagement So well as We Should If We had found their Complaints Entered in Consul tation and yet not redrest We further Add That We Expect Accusers do make out that part of their charge That the Blacks time was in great omeasue Spent in the Unnecessary Employm[en]t aforesaid There are Letters in Town as We are assured from M[r] S[t] Helena Haswell importing that our S[t] Helena Acco[un]ts are brought up Accounts but the Governour would not let them come home which if so M[r] Haswell was greatly to blame for not advising Us of it and the Governour far more for hindering them and others have Said that the Govern[r] will have Five p[er] Cent for the Bills drawn on Us from S[t] Helena or he will deliver none Some Margin Notes: they are to make out their Charge S[t] Helena Accounts | By the ship Success. [...] the particulars. These were the substance of the articles contained in the letter. What the directors expected from the Governor and Council was that the same should be particularly enquired into and deliberately weighed. As the Governor stood charged, he was to debate fairly with his two accusers how far the charge was true and how far it was false. The accusers in the same manner were to exhibit their proofs in support of their allegations, and the whole was to be put into as few words as possible for the directors' ultimate determination. This was to be done openly, so that both sides might agree on the facts, and neither might by any letter to the directors slander the other or mention things that had not been brought into the debate in Council. The directors could not approve the manner in which the two accusers had handled the matter, as they would have done if the complaints had been entered in Consultation and not yet redressed. The directors added that they expected the accusers to make out that part of their charge stating that the slaves' time had been greatly spent in the needless employments mentioned earlier. There were letters in town, the directors had been informed, from Hanwell, indicating that the Company's St Helena accounts were brought up to date but that the Governor would not allow them to come home. If that was so, Hanwell was greatly to blame for not advising the directors of it, and the Governor much more so for hindering them. Others had said that the Governor would have five per cent for bills drawn on the Company from St Helena, or he would draw none [...] Interpretations The procedure the directors prescribed for examining the Bazett and Hanwell charges describes a form of internal tribunal within the Council itself, with the Governor as the principal accused and his two senior critics as the accusers. The model required the Council as a body to hear both sides, to weigh the evidence, and to forward to London a single document setting out the matters in dispute with the supporting proofs. The technique committed the parties to a contested process under recognised rules, where each side knew the case it had to meet and the directors could weigh the resulting record against any further correspondence reaching them later. The phrase the directors' ultimate determination preserved the final decision for London while requiring the groundwork to be done on the island. The directors' insistence that neither party should slander the other in subsequent private correspondence to London identifies a recurring abuse of the appeal process. A man who lost the formal contest could continue the dispute through letters smuggled out on passing ships, raising matters that had not been heard in Consultation and presenting them in his own favour without the other side's reply. By forbidding the practice in advance, the directors closed off the avenue of post-tribunal complaint, and committed the parties to accepting the outcome of the open process or carrying their further objections back into the same forum. The instruction would not in itself prevent private letters, but it gave the directors a basis on which to discount any that arrived. The directors' criticism of Bazett and Hanwell for the manner in which they had handled the matter, while still requiring the Council to examine their charges, reflects a balanced position on the legitimacy of internal dissent. The two councillors had been right to raise the matter, since the conduct they described, if true, required correction. They had been wrong to raise it through a private letter rather than by entering their complaints in Consultation and seeking redress through the established channel. The directors' position was that internal whistleblowing was acceptable as a backup, but should never substitute for the formal procedure, which alone could produce a documented record on which the directors could act with confidence. The reference to letters in town from Hanwell, indicating that the Company's St Helena accounts had been brought up to date but were being held back by the Governor, identifies a particular form of administrative obstruction. The annual accounts were the central instrument by which the directors monitored the financial condition of the island, and their timely arrival in London was essential to the Company's wider planning. A Governor who held back completed accounts had no proper reason to do so, since their completion meant that the work was done and the figures were ready for inspection. The withholding suggested either that the accounts contained material the Governor did not wish the directors to see, or that he was using their dispatch as leverage in some other dispute. Hanwell's failure to inform the directors of the situation through the proper channel was a separate fault, since he had had the opportunity to enter the matter in Consultation and had not. The allegation that the Governor would have five per cent for bills drawn on the Company from St Helena, or would draw none, identifies a specific form of corruption that the directors took particularly seriously. A bill of exchange drawn at St Helena and accepted in London was the principal instrument by which men on the island settled their accounts with merchants in England, and the Governor's signature was required on any bill drawn through Company channels. A demand for five per cent on each bill represented a private commission charged by the Governor for the exercise of his official function, and was unjustifiable in any commercial system. The bill drawer had no alternative, since refusing the demand meant losing the only available means of remitting funds home, and the practice therefore amounted to a tax imposed by the Governor on every man's communication with London. Speculations The directors' move to require an internal tribunal of the Council to examine the Bazett and Hanwell charges represents a sharper procedural step than any so far adopted in the present letter. Earlier paragraphs had handled individual complaints case by case, but the present treatment of the Bazett-Hanwell allegations as a connected body of charges subject to formal debate points toward a recognition that the matter had grown beyond what could be resolved through ordinary correspondence. The directors stopped short of recalling the Governor or naming a commission of enquiry, but the present procedure committed the Council to a structured examination from which a documented record would emerge, suitable for use in any later disciplinary process. The cluster of three discrete allegations against the Governor in the present paragraph, that he had concealed expenditure of six or seven hundred pounds, that he had held back the completed accounts, and that he had demanded a private commission of five per cent on bills, points to a coherent pattern of personal enrichment at the Company's expense. Each allegation taken alone might be explained as misunderstanding, oversight, or local difficulty. Taken together, they describe a Governor systematically converting the discretion of his office into private income. The directors' decision to set out the three together, with the call for the second tribunal to consider them as part of the same body of charges, suggests they were beginning to view the matter in those terms, even while preserving the formal neutrality of their language. | |
165 | Cap[t] Benj[a] Graves Comand[er] Some write us That the Governour drives a great Private Trade Govern[r] Charged That when ever the Garrison comes to Reckon at the Stores they of[?] Tradeing usually owe him Something and forty to fifty Shillings a man That he was the Principal Person concerned in Trade with the Antiqua Sloop and hath a Stock ready for her against She Charges of comes again That the Charge of the new Path hath and will Cost y[e] Path up the[?] Hill[?] Us a thousand Pounds That a Banquetting House is to be made And half way up and a place for Nine Pins That he hath employed two Stone Cutters at five Shillings Employing Each a day, two others at Each half a Crown a day and Severall Stone Cutter & Tomb Blacks at Eighteen Pence a day for Eight months Past to build a Tomb of Ten foot high and Seven foot broad of Cut Stone first designed for his Son but now for his wife and Charges the whole as Spent on the Fortifications We tell you these things as represented to us and Expect a plain and full answer to them all without artfull colour Answer to ings or Evasions That We may know the naked truth it Expected and whom to blame and whom to clear and how far, but as to the Tomb We Say We will not be at any charge therein and So far as it hath been at our Cost We Expect to be made us good and That the Same be fairly Computed and its amount advised us in all these Enquirys We give every one of the Council full Liberty and Expect none of them shall be hindered If they are Let them Advise us but first put their objections Margin Notes: Govern[r] Charged of[?] Tradeing Charges of y[e] Path up the[?] Hill[?] And Employing Stone Cutter & Tomb Answer to it Expected | Captain Benjamin Graves and others. The directors had been told that the Governor drove a great private trade, and that whenever the garrison came to reckon at the stores they usually owed him something, and forty to fifty shillings a man. They had also been told that the Governor was the principal person concerned in the trade of the Antigua sloop, and held a stock ready for her against the time she returned to the island. The directors were further informed that the charge of the new path had cost and would cost the Company a thousand pounds, that a banqueting house was to be built half-way up, and a place for ninepins. The directors had been told that the Governor had employed two stonecutters at five shillings a day, two others at half a crown a day, and several slaves at eighteen pence a day for eight months past, in building a tomb ten feet high and seven feet broad of cut stone. The tomb had at first been designed for his son, but now stood for his wife, with the whole charge being met as if spent on the fortifications. The directors set these matters out as they had been represented, and expected a plain and full answer to them all, without artful colourings or evasions, so that they might know the naked truth, whom to blame, whom to clear, and how far in each case. As to the tomb, the directors would not bear any of the charge, and so far as it had been carried on at the Company's cost, the directors expected to be reimbursed. The amount was to be fairly computed and reported. In all these enquiries, the directors gave every one of the Council full liberty to advise them, and expected that none of them would be hindered. They were free to advise the directors, but only after first putting their objections [...] Interpretations The allegation that the Governor drove a great private trade engages with the standing tension between official position and private commerce in Company service. Every senior officer at St Helena was permitted to engage in a limited private trade under regulated allowances, but a Governor whose private dealings ran on the scale described, with the garrison soldiers each owing him forty to fifty shillings at the stores, had converted the office into a personal commercial enterprise. The figure was substantial in relation to a soldier's pay, and the running debt at the stores tied each man to the Governor through a credit relationship that the directors had not authorised. The arrangement gave the Governor a degree of leverage over the garrison beyond the chain of command, and the directors' attention to the matter reflects their recognition of that political dimension. The reference to the Antigua sloop and the stock held ready for her return identifies a specific vessel through which the Governor's private trade was channelled. A sloop carrying the name of the Leeward Island port suggests a vessel in the Atlantic carrying trade, calling at St Helena for refreshment and small commerce, and the Governor's stock held in readiness against her arrival points to a planned cycle of supply and exchange. The directors' identification of the Governor as the principal person concerned in the trade fixed the responsibility on him personally, and would support any later proceeding against him for unauthorised commerce in goods reserved to the Company or carried without payment of customs. The charge of a thousand pounds for the new path, together with the proposed banqueting house half-way up and a place for ninepins, identifies a particular form of misappropriation: a public work converted into a leisure facility. The path itself had been justified as a necessary improvement of the island's communications, but a thousand pounds was a substantial sum in relation to the island's annual budget, and the inclusion of a banqueting house and a ninepin alley pointed to the path's real purpose. A ninepin alley was a recreational installation, equivalent to the bowling greens of English country houses, and a banqueting house half-way up the climb was a stopping place for parties enjoying the view rather than a facility serving any administrative purpose. The directors' linkage of the path's cost with these features made plain their reading of the project. The tomb described in paragraph 77 represents perhaps the most direct allegation in the present letter. The Governor had used Company labour, both free craftsmen at premium rates and slaves at the standard hire, to build a stone monument on the island, charging the cost to the fortifications account. A tomb ten feet high and seven feet broad of cut stone was a substantial structure, equivalent to the larger memorials in English parish churches, and the change of intended occupant from the Governor's son to his wife suggested that the family had suffered a bereavement during the period of construction. The misuse of public funds for a private monument was a recognised offence, and the directors' demand for reimbursement of every penny so spent confirmed that they treated it as such. The directors' phrase, that they wanted a plain and full answer without artful colourings or evasions, sets out a standard of disclosure that anticipated the methods by which the Governor might respond. Artful colourings meant explanations that recharacterised the facts to make them appear in a more favourable light, while evasions meant answers that addressed peripheral matters while avoiding the central charges. The directors' insistence on the naked truth, with the assessment of whom to blame and whom to clear, established the basis on which the Council's response would be read. Any answer that fell short of the standard would itself become evidence in the directors' assessment of the Governor's position. The instruction that every member of the Council had full liberty to advise the directors, and that none was to be hindered, addressed the practical difficulty that a Governor who controlled the dispatch of correspondence could prevent dissenting councillors from communicating with London. By committing in advance to receive such correspondence and by requiring that none be obstructed, the directors created the procedural conditions for the internal tribunal they had set up in the previous paragraph. The proviso that councillors must first put their objections in Consultation preserved the integrity of the formal record, ensuring that the directors received written advice from men who had also tested their position in the open forum. Speculations The directors' decision to itemise the Governor's offences in such concrete terms, naming the Antigua sloop, the soldiers' running debts at the stores, the banqueting house, the ninepin alley and the dimensions of the tomb, suggests that the information had come to them from a source with intimate knowledge of the Governor's affairs. The level of specific detail goes beyond what could be inferred from accounts alone, and points to a witness with direct observation of the construction, the soldiers' transactions and the cargo arrangements. The source was probably one of the dissenting councillors, perhaps Bazett or Hanwell themselves, but possibly a junior officer or clerk whose access to the Governor's establishment had given him the material from which a detailed report could be compiled. The cumulative effect of the present series of allegations, taken with the earlier complaints about the seizure of Ryder's money, the abuse of Free in Consultation, the taking of Morris's slave, and the concealment of six or seven hundred pounds of expenditure, points toward a point of decision the directors had not yet reached but were preparing to face. The present letter assembled the documentary basis on which the Governor could be recalled and replaced, with the supporting evidence committed to the Consultation Book through the Council's reading of the dispatch. Whether the next letter from London would carry the decision to recall depended on the Governor's response, but the directors had now placed on record the full body of charges against which that response would be measured. | |
166 | By Ship Success Cap[t] Benj[.] Graves C[omd] objections into the Consultation Book We are Examind by Your Loving Friends Laur[en]ce Lane Gregory Page Henry Lyell Peter Godfrey W[i]ll[ia]m Dawsonne John Elwick Will[.] Stewart John Gould Nath[.] Herne W[i]ll[ia]m Gosseling Henry Kelsey Jon[.] Wallis Jn[o] Browne Rob[t] Child Jn[o] Styleman John Cooke Matthew Decker Robert Bristow | By the ship Success, Captain Benjamin Graves, commander. [...] objections into the Consultation Book. The directors closed as the Council's loving friends. The letter was signed by Gregory Page, Henry Lyell, Peter Godfrey, William Dauvonne, John Ulrick, William Stewart, John Gould, Nathaniel Herne, William Gosseling, Henry Kelsey, John Walls, John Browne, Robert Child, John Styleman, John Cooke, Matthew Decker and Robert Bristow. The letter had been examined by Laurence Lane. Interpretations The closing of the letter with the formula loving friends followed the standard convention of seventeenth and early eighteenth century commercial and administrative correspondence. The phrase carried no warmth of personal feeling between the directors in London and the Council at St Helena, most of whom had never met. It denoted instead the formal relationship between principals and their officers under a charter of trust, by which the directors held themselves bound to deal honestly with their servants and expected the same in return. The same closing appeared in letters of severe rebuke and in letters of routine instruction without distinction, the form being a matter of office practice rather than sentiment. The list of signatures sets out the composition of the Court of Directors at the date the letter was approved for dispatch. The Court was the governing body of the East India Company, elected annually by the General Court of proprietors from among those holding the requisite stock qualification, and held the executive authority under the Company's charters. A letter to a distant Council carrying the signatures of the full Court, rather than of a subordinate committee, signified that the contents had been considered at the highest level and represented the settled view of the Company's leadership. The number of signatures, seventeen on the present letter, reflects the substantial weight the Court attached to the matters it addressed. Gregory Page, whose name appears first, held the office of Chairman of the Court of Directors at this period and would naturally subscribe at the head of any general dispatch. The Chairman was the senior officer of the Company and bore the principal responsibility for the conduct of correspondence with overseas establishments. The order of the remaining signatures broadly followed seniority within the Court, with Henry Lyell as Deputy Chairman appearing second. The other named directors included men prominent in the City of London commercial community, several of whom served the Company for many years and whose names appear repeatedly on the correspondence of the period. The examination of the letter by Laurence Lane refers to the office of one of the Company's secretaries or clerks at India House, whose duty was to compare the engrossed copy of the dispatch with the draft approved by the Court, ensure that the text had been faithfully transcribed, and certify the final document as ready for sealing and dispatch. The examination was a formal stage in the production of an official letter, comparable to the work of an enrolling clerk in a court of law, and the named signature of the examiner attested to the document's authenticity as a true copy of what the Court had directed. Without the examination, the engrossed letter would not have been considered a proper instrument of the Company's authority. The cumulative weight of the seventeen signatures, taken with the formal examination by Lane, gives the present letter the character of a Company state paper rather than a routine instruction. The matters covered, ranging from the discipline of the Secretary and the affairs of the Chaplain through the disputes over Ryder, Morris and Free to the charges against the Governor in the closing paragraphs, were not the ordinary stuff of monthly correspondence. They formed a comprehensive review of the conduct of government at St Helena, drawing on multiple sources of information and committing the Company to a particular reading of the situation. The presence of every senior director's name on the document indicated that responsibility for that reading was shared across the entire governing body, and that any subsequent action would carry the full institutional weight of the Company. Speculations The full attendance of the Court at the signing, evidenced by the seventeen names, suggests that the letter was considered at a formal sitting called for the purpose rather than circulated for signature among directors present at India House on routine business. A dispatch carrying substantive charges against a Governor and requiring the Council to convene an internal tribunal would naturally be brought before a full meeting, both to ensure that the decision rested on collective deliberation and to commit each director personally to the position taken. The same procedure would also protect the directors from any later suggestion that the letter represented the views of a faction within the Court rather than the considered judgement of the whole. The careful preservation of the signatures and the examiner's name at the foot of the letter, in the form retained when the document was copied into the Council's records at St Helena, served a documentary purpose beyond mere ceremony. A Council facing a Governor charged with serious offences needed to be able to point to the full authority behind its instructions, both to give weight to the proceedings it convened and to defend itself against any later complaint that it had exceeded its commission. The list of names converted the letter from a body of instructions into an instrument of authority, and the Council would in due course cite that authority in the consultations that followed. | |
167 | Blank page | ||
168 | Blank page | ||
169 | Blank page | ||
170 | Book cover | ||
171 | EAP 1364 St Helena Document Name and Date: St Helena - Letters from England 1713-1716 Dimensions (height x width x depth) (cm): (h) 38 Cm x (W) 25 Cm x (d) 5 Cm No. written pages: 169 No. blank pages: 2 Spine and cover: good condition Inside pages: good condition foxing present Additional comments: Time taken to photograph (hours): 4 hours |