The Company’s Island: Norway and the Struggle for Power in the New North 9780755624959, 9781845116125

Citation preview

Figures

1.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

Places mentioned in the text Map of St Helena Cannon from Witte Leuw, St Helena National Trust Museum Porcelain from Witte Leuw, St Helena National Trust Museum View of St Helena, Sir Thomas Herbert, 1629 Rock carved by sailors on Dolphin, 1645, Jamestown Plaque marking 300th anniversary of John Dutton’s landing, Jamestown 2.7 View of Chapel Valley, John Nieuhoff, 1658 2.8 ‘Sketch of a gate and crane at which the ships water at St Helena’, Oziah Humphrey, 1787 2.9 ‘Watering place, St Helena’, Oziah Humphrey, 1787 2.10 View of St Helena, John Van Linschoten, 1598 2.11 Plantation House, St Helena 2.12 Rock Rose, a late-seventeenth century St Helena house 2.13 Alarm House, the central part built by Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin in 1707 3.1 St Helena population, 1659-1722 5.1 Ducking stool, Bermuda 6.1 The trees where it is believed slaves were sold, Jamestown 6.2 Population pyramid, St Helena slaves, 1723 8.1 St Helena, Jacques Bellin, c. 1700 8.2 ‘Plan de la forteresse et bourg de l’Isle de Ste Helene’, Jacques Bellin, c.1700 8.3 Fortifications and lookout points, St Helena 8.4 Chart of voyage to St Helena by HMS Director, Captain William Bligh, 1799-1800 8.5 James Fort, St Helena, Hermann Moll, pre-1708 8.6 Northwest St Helena 8.7 Banks Battery, the older part is at sea level 8.8 ‘View of the Governor’s House with Munden’s Fort in the Island of St Helena 1787’, Oziah Humphrey 8.9 Fortifications on Munden’s Point 8.10 The retaking of St Helena, 1673

2 12 14 14 15 16 18 19 20 20 22 30 33 42 51 77 87 88 131 132 138 139 142 143 144 147 147 152

Tables (Appendix 3)

1.1 Source of imports by value, London 1622 and 1700 2.1 First mention of produce together with products recommended (or Sent) by the EIC for St Helena to 1698 2.2 Goods supplied to St Helena aboard Johannah, Captain Bendall, 1678 3.1 Henry Gargen’s population narrative, St Helena, 1661 to 1665 3.2 Passengers ordered on board the two ships for St Helena, 1673 3.3 Population counts, St Helena 1659 to 1722 3.4 Population census, St Helena 1722 4.1 Criminal offences and punishments, St Helena, 1681 4.2 Service on eight St Helena juries, 1685 to 1698 4.3 East India Company chaplains at St Helena, 1670 to 1706 6.1 Taxes imposed by Deputy Governor Robert Holden, early 1680s 6.2 Occupations of company slaves, 1723 6.3 ‘Quality’ descriptors of company slaves, 1723 6.4 Punishment of slaves convicted of conspiracy to revolt in 1693 7.1 Deputy Governors (Second in Council), St Helena 1659 to 1708 7.2 Persons condemned after the 1684 rebellion on St Helena 8.1 East India Company ships trading to the east in 1710 8.2 The East India Company’s garrison on St Helena, 1678 8.3 ‘An Account Taken of All the Accessible Places or Entrances into the Island of St Helena Where There is Any Landing by Sea. The Breadth and Bearing of Every Such Place. In Order to the Walling Them Up and Making the Island Impregnable. By R.H. and R.K., Sept 27, 28, 29, 1698’ 8.4 Gratuities from the East India Company for commanders involved in retaking St Helena in 1673

169 170 171 174 175 176 177 178 179 181 182 182 183 184 185 186 187 187

188 189

Acknowledgements

I wish to acknowledge Queen’s University Belfast for granting me the sabbatical leave needed to revisit St Helena and also carry out research in the British Library and the other archives. The J. B. Harley Research Trust awarded me the J. B. Harley Research Fellowship in the History of Cartography to research maps of St Helena in the repositories of the London area. Robin Castell, St Helena collector and historian, kindly sent me his book on Francis Drake. Basil and Barbara George have been kind to me on my visits to their island. Thanks to my family for putting up with my frequent absences. Maura Pringle, Senior Cartographic Technician at the School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen’s University Belfast drew Figures 2.1, 3.1, 6.2, 8.3, 8.4 and Appendix 2. Figures 2.8, 2.9 and 8.8 are reproduced with permission from the British Library. Figures 2.7, 2.10, 8.1 and 8.2 were supplied in high resolution by Barry Weaver of the University of Oklahoma. Anders Källgård, Swedish physician and author on islands, supplied Figures 2.12, 2.13, 6.1 and 8.7. The other photographs were taken by the author. The Royal Geographical Society gave permission for the reproduction of Figure 8.5. The Pepys Library, Magdalene College Cambridge gave permission to reproduce Figure 8.10.

1 TRADING COMPANIES AND THE COLONIAL ENDEAVOUR

‘Rulers had much to hope for’: companies, colonies and trade In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries Europe exerted considerable demand for trade goods such as spices, textiles and beverages. Much of this demand was met from the East and before seaborne trading voyages became common spices had had to be brought largely overland into Europe at huge cost and much risk.1 At the end of the fifteenth century, the Portuguese explorer, Vasco da Gama, voyaged round the Cape of Good Hope and became the first European to sail directly from Europe to India. This opened up possibilities for seaborne trade with Asia, but this did not become commonplace immediately, much European maritime activity in the sixteenth century was dominated by Portugal and Spain with their American territories, and was limited to the Atlantic and Caribbean, although in Asia Portugal possessed Goa, taken by conquest in 1510, and Macau, leased from China through negotiation in 1553 (see Figure 1.1, which locates places mentioned in the text). Trade began to spread east on a larger scale as the Portuguese devised ‘in West Africa and later in the Far East, methods of trading in regions they were not able to conquer or occupy.’2 The circumnavigation of English adventurer Francis Drake in 1577 to 1580 was another catalyst for more expansive trade: people ‘could rejoice at the startling blow he had struck the Spanish Empire, but they could marvel and the fabulous riches that accompanied the hero homeward.’3 Amongst those marvelling were sovereigns and royal or state backing became important to further expeditions: ‘rulers had much to hope for: the prosperity of their own country, the weakening of Spain and Portugal, a rise in returns from customs.’4 Official backing included the establishment by charter of merchant companies, such as The Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies (known as the East India Company (EIC), or, familiarly, as ‘John Company’) in 1600 and, in 1602, its Dutch counterpart, Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie (VOC), as commerce became caught up in the mercantilist school of economic thought in which nations sought a positive balance of trade. Chartered trading companies were also established in France, Portugal, Denmark and Brandenburg.5 It was necessary to keep trade under strict control; hence the instigation of chartered companies rather than allowing unfettered competition.

Figure 1.1. Places mentioned in the text

2

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

TRADING COMPANIES AND THE COLONIAL ENDEAVOUR

3

The companies were ‘a new form of co-operation between governments and merchant entrepreneurs.’6 Miles Ogborn has recently characterised such cooperation as ‘a tense compact’, whilst highlighting the significance of customs revenue generated by companies to royal incomes.7 These were mostly joint stock companies whose shareholders brought together larger funds than individuals or small groups could muster. Shareholders tended to be gentry or merchants, the latter comprising more than 60 percent of the total of over 6300 people who invested in English overseas trade ventures launched between 1575 and 1630.8 Douglas Irwin has summarised the situation: ‘Long distance international commerce during the mercantilist period was undertaken chiefly by state-chartered monopoly trading companies and was therefore conducted under conditions of imperfect competition.’9 Imperfect competition, but perfect rivalry as monopoly companies battled, often literally, with each other for goods, control of territory and trading rights. It was national as much as commercial rivalry given that the companies in some ways were extensions of their states. The VOC was entitled to annex land in foreign countries, to build forts and settlements, maintain an army and navy, declare war and make treaties with foreign rulers. In the East it could act on behalf of the Dutch administration, the States-General, to whom company employees had to swear allegiance. At times of war the company had to make its forces available to the fatherland.10 Hostility between the VOC and the EIC started in 1618 and the EIC came off worst, as a settlement of 1619 gave the company only one third share in trade from the Spice Islands (Java, Sumatra and Borneo and their offshore islands, Celebes and the Molucca Islands) and one half in the pepper trade of Java, subject to the English subsidising costs. The two companies shared facilities for a few years but in 1623 the English had to withdraw from the Spice Islands, although Irwin felt this just pushed them to India which became more profitable, thanks to the textile trade.11 One commentator found it unremarkable that there was competition between these companies considering that there were several wars between their nations at this period.12 The first was from 1652 to 1664. The English Commonwealth government’s Navigation Act of 1651 had banned foreign ships from transporting goods to England from outside Europe, as well as prohibiting a third nation from carrying goods from Europe to England, ensuring that invisible earnings from carriage were in English hands, also maximising the size of the English fleet and the cadre of trained seamen, both useful in times of war. The act led to war with Holland as it adversely affected that country’s trade. Three years later came Cromwell’s Western Design; a military campaign against the Spanish West Indies designed to serve English commercial interests. In short, the English were ‘willing to take high risks, adept in shaping situations to their own advantage and eager to exploit the economic opportunities they were creating.’13 The new economic opportunities included colonialism, although this was not always necessary, much of the exploitation of Asia by European nations though their trading companies did not involve the establishment of colonies. Local rulers might allow a European trading post, usually called a factory, to be created to serve as the collecting point for goods to be shipped back to Europe. However, matters could be more easily managed if there was long-term stability

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

4

and one way this could be secured was if territory, a colony, could be acquired by conquest or negotiation. ‘There was a strategy to colonial development. Later generations called it mercantilism, but by naming it, they implied a more formal, consistent body of theory and law than it fact existed.’14 At the start of the seventeenth century Spain and Portugal had New World colonies, the Portuguese remained dominant in Asian trade and it seemed that the Dutch ‘with their powerful mercantile marine, wealthy merchant elites and growing influence in the Far East’ would become the chief rival to the Iberians. So wrote James Horn, but he added that ‘England’s backwardness in colonial enterprises was deceptive, however. During the second half of the sixteenth century, merchants began to look beyond traditional European markets and sought new avenues of trade in Russia, the Levant, West Africa and the Far East.’15 Trade was the driver of English expansion into these and other international arenas, and was sometimes accompanied by the acquisition of territory. From the licensed piracy of the late sixteenth century the mercantilist conception of empire emerged which ‘argued that colonization and colonial trade would benefit the entire nation and ensure lasting prosperity at home and overseas.’16 Surplus population—England’s numbers were increasing at this period—could be decanted to newly acquired territories; colonies could form a market for manufactured goods as well as being a source of raw materials; profit could be made from the re-export of trade and also colonial products: calicoes, pepper and spices from Asia and American tobacco. The results of this change of emphasis in the seventeenth century can be identified from Table 1.1 (Appendix 3), which demonstrates the growing proportion of imports through London that came from America, principally the colonies, and from Asia. By the midseventeenth century, England, in addition to having a global trading network, had developed an Atlantic empire under a variety of forms of government, for the monarchs and their advisors were not always willing to risk direct involvement. As Herbert Osgood stated: They have been ready … to grant charters and incorporate, to convey large tracts of land, rights of trade and powers of government, also to appoint officials and issue instructions; but from directly undertaking the work of planting colonies, with the financial risks it involved, they have usually held aloof. This they have preferred to see individuals and corporations undertake.17 As a result: From Newfoundland down to Trinidad, a few elite men, three English charter companies and in one case the king himself asserted direct authority over great expanses. Formal proprietary grants covered Newfoundland, Maine, Maryland, and specific islands in the Lesser Antilles, while Trinidad, Piscataqua (new Hampshire), southern New England, and Long Island were claimed by those who had purchased rights to grants made to others. Companies controlled Bermuda … and Providence Island as well as Massachusetts Bay. The crown directly ruled Virginia.18

TRADING COMPANIES AND THE COLONIAL ENDEAVOUR

5

These early English colonies had different reasons for their foundation—refuges for dissatisfied expatriates as with the puritan colonies of New England or agricultural settlements, such as the Chesapeake colonies (and French settlements in Canada)—but usually trade was important, as with the production of tobacco in parts of North America. Companies were vital to the entire commercial and colonial endeavour: as carriers, as traders themselves and, in some cases, as rulers of territory. In the seventeenth century on Providence Island and Bermuda, in Massachusetts Bay and, originally, in Virginia English companies were established to govern the colonies under charter from the sovereign. Additionally, the EIC, long before its involvement with the administration of India, established factories in Africa and Asia and also a colony under its rule at the island of St Helena in the Atlantic Ocean. In later years a few other colonies fell under the direct rule of a commercial company, such as Vancouver Island in the mid-nineteenth century under the Hudson’s Bay Company; Ascension Island in the interwar period of the twentieth century under the Eastern Telegraph Company; the northeast of New Guinea (Kaiser Wilhelmsland) and the Bismarck Archipelago from 1885 to 1899 and, from 1886 to 1899, the northern Solomon Islands all under the German Neu Guinea Compagnie; and the Marshall Islands, which Germany acquired in 1885, setting up the Jaluit Gesellschaft (society) from 1887, which administered them from Jaluit atoll until 1914 when the islands were seized by Japan during the Great War. Such territories were the ‘company colonies’, a subset of the colonial endeavour and they, especially St Helena in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, are to be the subject of this book. ‘Set the colonists to work with military discipline’: early company colonies Virginia was at first a colony under the control of the Virginia Company (chartered in 1606), but ownership had to be transferred to the crown in 1625 because of problems with its sharply differentiated society, high mortality rates and a massacre by indigenous people in 1622. This transference indicates that the companies, trading and colonial, were not free from outside control; they had charters with conditions, which, if not met, could lead to them being revoked by their national authorities. Another challenge to company settlements was the constant risk from foreign or indigenous opposition. Take the example of the Providence Island Company, chartered in 1630, which possessed also Association Island (Tortuga). Karen Kupperman has characterized this company’s directors as being puritan in principles, acquisitive and militantly anti-Spanish, forming a link between Elizabethan privateering and Cromwell’s Western Design. Their settlers, the first hundred or so of whom went to Providence Island in February 1631, had to help build fortifications for the common good, joining company servants specifically tasked to this work.19 It the end it was in vain for both islands remained vulnerable to attack and the fortifications were not sufficient to put off the Spanish. Association Island colonists were massacred in 1635; those at Providence Island expelled in 1641.

6

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Settlers usually had to act as at least a reserve military force in what were often basically armed camps. The companies’ laws tended to reinforce this. Those for the Virginia Company, drafted by deputy governors, Sir Thomas Gates and Sir Thomas Dale, were entitled ‘Laws Divine, Morall and Martiall’ and Edmund Morgan noted ‘they were mostly martial, and they set the colonists to work with military discipline and no pretence of gentle government.’20 The significance of effective government, gentle or not, can be appreciated by the experience of the Virginia Company of Plymouth (1606, usually known as the Plymouth Company), which failed in attempts to found settlements in New England partly through indiscipline amongst the colonists and it sold out in 1626 at a considerable loss to the shareholders.21 Company colonies had to attract settlers in a competitive marketplace. The Virginia Company at first peopled its colony itself, but its survival over the first few years, in contrast to Sir Walter Raleigh’s ‘lost colony’ of Roanoke in the 1580s, led to propaganda and a recruitment campaign in which private enterprise was enlisted to help. In Bermuda, held by the Somers Island Company (1609), as early as 1615 the majority of settlers had come on their own account as the island was divided into lots or ‘tribes’, which were privately settled. Only the Massachusetts Bay Company (1628) was successful in attracting people itself, mostly in family units, especially John Winthrop’s 900 puritan migrants in 1630. It benefited from better land than the others on which, to the English, a more familiar agricultural system could be developed given the seasonal climate. Companies from other European nations also struggled to attract people, as with the Dutch West-Indische Compagnie (1621) and the peopling of New Netherland (parts of New York, Connecticut, Delaware, and New Jersey), lost to the English in 1664. In France, La Compagnie de la Nouvelle France (1627) did not get enough people to go to Canada to be able to defend itself; and La Compagnie Française des Indes Orientales (1664) was able to organise emigration for only a few months. Companies involved in trading without the distraction of settlement could fare better, providing trade was good. The English Royal African Company (1672) was the strongest of a number of European companies founded to exploit that lucrative African product, slaves. The company delivered about 45,000 slaves to the Americas from 1680 to 1688 alone. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the company lost its chief supporter in James II and interlopers—rival traders not paying heed to the monopoly granted to the companies under their charters—become more prominent in the slave trade as they did in other sectors as free trade challenged the chartered companies’ monopolies.22 The trading companies declined throughout the eighteenth century and disappeared largely by the nineteenth century when state colonialism became more significant,23 although the Hudson’s Bay Company (1670) remains a major Canadian retailer. ‘John Company’: the English East India Company The most significant company to hold foreign territory was the East India Company. John Company was a trader with early factories such as Bantam on Java (1602), Surat in western India (1613) and Fort St George at Madras (1640). Also in India the company held Bombay under a 1668 lease from Charles II who

TRADING COMPANIES AND THE COLONIAL ENDEAVOUR

7

had acquired it in 1661 as part of the dowry from his Portuguese bride, Catherine of Braganza. In 1687 Bombay superseded Surat as the company’s Indian headquarters.24 The EIC went on to administer India, but that activity lies outside of the scope of this present book, which focuses on the company’s early years when its ambitions were limited: ‘by 1800 its imprint on the east was quite profoundly different from that envisaged by its founding fathers in 1600,’25 although Sudipta Sen thinks that ‘from the very beginning’ the EIC had wanted ‘to build a powerful and intrusive state in India.’ In any event, ‘John Company’s rule in India was based ostensibly on its permission from the Mughal empire to collect revenues,’26 thus the EIC in India was constrained by pre-existing local leaders. This was not the position with regard to its control of St Helena, which was a classic company colony under the direct command of its commercial masters and was termed ‘The Company’s Island’.27 That situation, not the later rule of India, is the focus of this book, hence the use of this phrase in the title. The book also does not consider the rule of large parts of Canada by the Hudson’s Bay Company (except for Vancouver Island, held under a later, separate, charter). The EIC was the largest English trading company. For the early seventeenth century Theodore Rabb’s analysis showed that it was capitalized at £2,887,000 with only the Virginia Company and the Irish (Munster and Londonderry) Companies getting into even six figures at £200,00 and £100,000 respectively. Most of the 25 companies Rabb listed produced hardly any return, although they provided experience for more successful trading and colonial ventures to come later in the century.28 The EIC was the exception, its early voyages seeking largely pepper and other spices were profitable.29 From 1601 to 1612 there were 12 voyages organised ‘on separate and terminal account.’30 This discrete funding mitigated against long-term involvement from investors and to overcome this problem, from 1613 to 1642 there were three successive joint stocks, with voyages to new sources of supply such as Sumatra, whilst Indian textiles grew in importance. After the English Civil War had disrupted trade in the 1640s, the company received a new charter in 1657 that provided for a permanent joint stock in expectation of long-term investment and continuous return. Writing of trading companies in general at this period Peter Klein noted that: The establishment of an overseas administration and military and naval services, the organisation of regular and large transports, the construction of warehouses, depots, shipyards and strongholds were all essential but expensive requirements that had to be subjected to long term management and control.31 The settlement of St Helena from 1659 can be seen as one such long-term investment. ‘The need to repeat voyage patterns year after year and to make predictable visits to a series of ports’32 saw also predictable passage of company ships up through the South Atlantic and St Helena was annexed as a company colony to supply water and other refreshment to EIC ships on their homeward journey. The EIC enjoyed a situation where the state had ‘effectively vested a group of merchants with semi-sovereign rights abroad and a national monopoly at

8

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

home,’33 but by the 1690s it was facing problems from increased competition. Tea was being smuggled into the British Isles from Europe (to where it had been transported by other nations’ companies), especially after 1680 when the English government had imposed a tax of five shillings per pound on imported tea. Further, rival London merchants set up the Committee of the New East India Company, appealing to King William III to permit them to trade in Asia. The original EIC petitioned against this and there was much corruption, including competitive bids to see which company could lend the king most money to help repay war debts. William favoured the new company, not least because James II had been associated with the original EIC, and it was allowed to trade from 1698. Matters, including on St Helena which remained with the old company, became difficult, there was really not scope for competing companies and they united from 1702, the merger taking full effect in 1709, forming the United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies,34 still known as the East India Company. There was no further change until 1813 when a new charter regularlised the entry of private traders to the East India trade. In 1833 the EIC ceased to be a trading body and was ‘entrusted solely with the running of the colonial administration of India.’35 The EIC was liquidated in 1858 following a series of unpopular policies in India, which helped to ferment the First War of Independence (formerly known as the Indian Mutiny) of 1857 after which the British crown took over responsibility for Indian affairs. ‘The Company’s Island’: St Helena as a ‘new world’ St Helena is a 122 sq km, mountainous (818m at the highest point), volcanic island situated in the Atlantic Ocean at 15.55˚S and 5.45˚W and was uninhabited upon discovery by Portugal in 1502. Small islands possess a suite of common attributes that constrain development opportunities such as limited scale, a resource base restricted in quantity and/or diversity, an inability to resist powerful outside forces, and isolation. Mostly these attributes are negative, although isolation can donate a strategic importance, as was case with St Helena, given its ability to provide a sheltered anchorage and fresh water in the midst of the Atlantic Ocean. Further, St Helena’s most prominent role in history, its use to imprison Napoleon Bonaparte after defeat at Waterloo in 1815 until his death in 1821 was predicated upon the difficulty of him escaping or being rescued from such an isolated spot. The British also used St Helena to hold several thousand Boers captured during the South African War at the start of the twentieth century.36 The present author has expanded upon these shared characteristics in a book about insularity in which the last chapter focused especially on their impact on St Helena.37 Further, Richard Grove who wrote in Green Imperialism generally about the tropical island as ‘a focus for understanding natural processes and a metaphor for handling new ideas about nature, “new worlds” and social utopias,’38 devoted much of one chapter to a study of ecological decline on St Helena from 1660 to 1790. There has also been recent work on this island’s history by Alexander Schulenburg, both in his PhD thesis and a subsequent article.39 St Helena thus seems to be of increasing interest outside its usual focus, its involvement with Napoleon. Schulenburg’s article was in a theme issue of the Journal of Historical Geography about islands, in which the editors noted that whilst ‘the island has a special place in within the disciplines of

TRADING COMPANIES AND THE COLONIAL ENDEAVOUR

9

social anthropology, biogeography and evolutionary biology’, ‘islands demand further thought and attention from geographers and other academics in the humanities.’40 This book, by a geographer focusing on St Helena as a company colony in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, is a contribution to meeting this demand. Study of St Helena is aided by an extensive, if far-flung, collection of original material with which to work, as detailed in Appendix 1. In fact, both the quality and quantity of this material challenge the view that St Helena was not a place of particular importance to the EIC. In his history of the company John Keay was rather dismissive of St Helena: Compared with the excitements at Bombay and Calcutta, news from the Company’s first and half-forgotten settlement at St Helena had rarely troubled the directors’ slumbers. So long as the Dutch were kept at bay (preferably the Cape’s Table Bay) and so long as St Helena always had enough green vegetables and fresh fruit for scorbutic English crews, the Company had been content to ignore it.41 This was not the case, as the next seven chapters will demonstrate amply. Chapter 2 deals with the acquisition of the island by the EIC and the struggle to establish an economy and society to support its principal use of refreshing company ships. Grove mentioned the role of tropical islands in the formulation of ‘social utopias’ and this issue will be explored, as in its early years the EIC did propose utopian policies for its island. Chapter 3 peoples St Helena—twice as the Dutch expelled the English for a few months in 1673—and shows that these people remained always subject to the will of the ruling company. The next chapter considers the ‘new world’ aspect of life on the island, the way in which the company had to set up a civil society, transferring law, morality and religion from England, but eventually establishing a justice system predicated on the needs and the capacity of the place itself. The next two chapters deal with groups on the island, which in different ways comprised underclasses subject to restrictions. Chapter 5 looks at women in the context of gender relations, which tended to reflect seventeenth century norms, with denunciation of behaviour outside the rigid social mores such as adultery and prostitution, with particular condemnation for people whose sexual activity crossed the racial divide. However, there was some resistance and the author has regard for a young ‘black wench’ who, when confronted by a white planter, clapped her hands upon her ‘britch’ and invited him to kiss there. This was a rare incident in which the black Other triumphed, Chapter 6 showing that the African slaves brought to island as a labour force lived brief, miserable lives subject to unremitting suspicion and fierce punishments sometimes without having been found guilty. There was a slave revolt in 1695 but it had little chance of success and the ringleaders were executed in particularly horrible ways. The tensions this reveals about society in St Helena were not confined to the slaves, for the next chapter deals with riot and rebellion more generally on the island when the early ‘levelling constitution’ (see Chapter 2) gave way to repression as the company struggled to retain control. The EIC’s pious expectation that all there were ‘embarked in common interest’ foundered upon the realities of life on this small

10

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

island, not least the inherent tensions of the company colony situation in which loyalty had to be divided between John Company and the English sovereign. Chapter 8 considers St Helena’s role as a company asset in the wider world, particularly regarding its defence, a defence that was found wanting for, as usual with small islands, it proved several times unable to withstand attack. The short final chapter concludes that no company colony was a success, the tensions of having to serve the commercial imperatives of the company in tandem with the imperial imperatives of the state rendering this form of governance unsustainable.

2 ‘THE HONOURABLE ENGLISH EAST INDIA COMPANY DOE TAKE POSSESSION OF THE ISLAND AND WITH DRUM AND TRUMPETT PROCLAIM THE SAME’: St Helena and the East India Company ‘A halfway house in the midst of the great ocean’ Most European ‘discoveries’ merely brought knowledge of places to Europeans, given that other groups of humans already knew they existed. However, there are places for which the term ‘European discovery’ is appropriate in that hitherto no humans knew of their existence. St Helena is one: The history of discovery and colonization is too often the history of injustice and oppression; of countries invaded because they were rich and valuable; and of their inhabitants enslaved or exterminated, because they were weak. Happily, the settlement of this barren island has afforded no opportunity of increasing the catalogue of crimes committed by the discoverers of new regions [as] it was found without any human inhabitants.1 The finder was on the fleet led by the Portuguese commander, João da Nova, which was returning to Europe from the East around the Cape of Good Hope when the southeast trade winds blew them past the isolated island (Figure 2.1) on St Helen’s Day, 21 May 1502. The next year Vasco da Gama found the island again, probably in ignorance of the earlier sighting. Discovery was inevitable, for, as one seventeenth century traveller put it, once the Cape of Good Hope was left ‘the wind is very constant and carries you in 16 days into St Helens Road.’2 The Portuguese stocked St Helena with livestock, especially goats, and planted fruit trees and herbs to refresh returning ships. François Pyrard reported in 1610 how they also hunted and fished at this place which ‘God has been pleased to fix … as a halfway house in the midst of the great ocean.’3 St Helena’s importance can be appreciated from a comment made by a Dutchman, John Huyghen Van Linschoten, who had been working in Goa and visited St Helena with the returning Portuguese fleet in 1589. He stated that ships which missed the island would not be able to turn back in the face of the steady southeasterlies and would have to make for the coast of Guinea enduring ‘the greatest miserie

12

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

in the world’, before limping ‘halfe dead and spoyled into Portingall [Portugal].’4 The Portuguese also used St Helena as a sanatorium. Sick men would be left ashore with rice, biscuit, oil and spices to eke out what they could take from the island. If they recovered, they would be picked up the next year. Van Linschoten’s own fleet left 15 sick men, also some slaves who escaped.5 The first person to be described as resident on St Helena was Fernando Lopez, a nobleman disfigured by the authorities in Goa for desertion with amputations of his right hand, left thumb, ears and nose. Rather than face humiliation at home, Lopez escaped onto St Helena in 1516 and lived alone with a pet cock, tending to the plants and preying on the goats, whose skins he traded. He was taken to Europe once, meeting the Pope, but returned to St Helena where he died in 1545. Slaves who, like Lopez, escaped onto the island and hid might have developed into a resident community but instead were rounded up and expelled, for Portugal would not allow other permanent residents on St Helena wanting it to be ‘common for everie man to take what he hath neede of.’6 There were less altruistic explanations. Thomas Cavendish thought in 1588 that the Portuguese ‘suffer none to inhabit there that might spend up the fruit of ye yland;’7 Pyrard suggested that the King was afraid that that permanent settlers ‘should make themselves masters and take possession of the island’ and would adversely affect the shipping.8 A French report from about 1673 thought that the Portuguese did not settle ‘parce qu’il serait dificile du conservez cette Isle contre touts les autres nations.’9

Figure 2.1 Map of St Helena.

ST HELENA AND THE EAST INDIA COMPANY

13

It was inevitable that other trading nations would come across St Helena. It has been claimed that Thomas Cavendish made an independent discovery towards the end of his circumnavigation,10 but his report that on 8 June 1588 ‘we fel in sight of the yland of S. Helena’11 seems rather to be confirmation of an expectation that land would there, perhaps because he had a captured Portuguese pilot on board. Cavendish may not even have been the first English captain there, for Robin Castell made the case for Francis Drake having called during his own circumnavigation in 1580.12 Further, another English adventurer, Edward Fenton, had been ‘determined [to enter] in St Helena, and to possesse the same, and theare to be p[roclaimed] King’ in 1582.13 Cavendish reported favourably on the island and this was followed by Van Linschoten’s book first published in Dutch in 1592. This not only praised the utility of St Helena (see below), but also showed in general ‘that the colonial empire of Portugal was rotten, and that an energetic rival would have every chance of supplanting them.’14 Its appearance caused a ‘sensation’, Russell Miller wrote, and acted as a catalyst for greater European trade with the East.15 Energetic rivals certainly started to contest the use of St Helena and did supplant the Portuguese there. In the early seventeenth century there were a number of skirmishes off the island between ships of different nations competing for St Helena’s resources or seeking plunder. St Helena was known to be a place where returning fleets gathered before going ‘home together in companie’ as a contemporary captain put it,16 and ships waiting there might be able to be attacked, which had been Fenton’s scheme. In 1610 Nossa Senora de Peigna de Francia despite a troublesome voyage from Goa, which had transformed most of the drinking water into thin soup, it becoming corrupted by both salt and pepper, decided not to call into St Helena for water. They had left only about a ‘chopine [half a litre] apiece, a day, for the remainder of the voyage,’ but the commander ‘feared to find enemies there who might occasion him much annoyance.’17 One notable loss from a skirmish was the VOC’s Witte Leuw, which with two accompanying vessels engaged two anchored Portuguese ships in the road in 1613. One of Witte Leuw’s guns exploded and the consequent fire spread to the powder room, which in turn exploded taking the ship to the bottom with all hands. One hundred tons of pepper and much Chinese pottery was lost.18 The wreck was found in 1976 and a cannon and porcelain from it are now exhibited in the Jamestown museum (Figures 2.2 and 2.3). Icelandic traveller, Jón Ólafsson, at the island in 1625 with the Danish ship, Pearl, described how when an approaching vessel was sighted ‘telescopes were snatched up and their flag at the top mast examined’ in case it should be an adversary.19 Another description of a skirmish was written by Willem Bontekoe of the Dutch ship Hollandia returning from Java which made St Helena also in 1625 to find a ‘Spanish’ carrack (i.e. Portuguese, the two Iberian nations were then united) from Goa already there. The Portuguese would not allow the Dutch to take on water, resulting in a firefight in which there was damage to both ships. Hollandia eventually withdrew and sailed away unrefreshed, but the carrack was more seriously damaged, for other Dutch ships later found her sunk with the Portuguese ashore with the ship’s guns, with which they drove off the Dutch.20 Such dangers were part of the reason why Portuguese interest in St Helena waned, associated with their ability to use less

14

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Figure 2.2 Cannon from Witte Leuw, St Helena National Trust Museum.

Figure 2.3 Porcelain from Witte Leuw, St Helena National Trust Museum. contested havens in Africa; one observer noted in 1671 that the island ‘was out of the way of their trade’;21 although another opined in 1670 that had the Portuguese kept St Helena and the Cape ‘they might have easily lorded it in India, for where should ships take in fresh water and provisions.’22 The English made a reconnaissance expedition to the East from 1591 led by Sir James Lancaster in Edward Bonaventure, which saw him at St Helena in 1593, two years after his companion, Abraham Kendall, had visited, Kendall having had to abandon his Royal Merchant’s participation in the venture.23 Lancaster was

ST HELENA AND THE EAST INDIA COMPANY

15

at St Helena again in 1603, commanding a voyage of the new English East India Company; Sir Henry Middleton’s ships called on the second EIC voyage in 1606;24 Thomas Best was there in 1612;25 Sir Thomas Herbert in the late 1620s, and his sketch of the island exemplifies its lack of development at this time (Figure 2.4).26 Further, the lack of management of its resources had led to St Helena being damaged. François Pyrard, at the island in 1610 for the second time found that everything ‘broken and spoiled’ since his 1601 visit as the Portuguese had taken to destroying correspondence left there by the Dutch and, in retaliation, the Dutch had damaged Portuguese buildings and fruit trees.27 In this anarchic situation the Dutch decided to take action and in 1633 had the fleet returning from the East via St Helena ‘accept the possession and proprietorship of the island … in order to the benefit and advantage of the said Netherland State, as soon as the circumstances shall allow, to fortify, occupy, populate and defend it against the invasion of enemies.’28 Some historians assumed that the Dutch did indeed go on to occupy the island. Thomas Brooke (and, following him, John Melliss) had the Dutch there until 1651 with the EIC settling that same year, but neither of these statements are correct.29 Philip Gosse considered that tales of Dutch supremacy after 1633 probably related to temporary command being assumed by captains anchored at the island for refreshment in the usual way. Reports of visits to St Helena between 1633 and its acquisition by the EIC in 1659 do not mention Dutch settlement or a garrison. Peter Mundy’s visit in 1638 spoke of the Dutch as having been on the island judging from evidence in Lemon Valley and recent repairs to the chapel, but there was no reference to them being in current occupation.30 It has been claimed, alternatively, that the permanent Dutch presence started in 1645,31 but the visit of the English ship Dolphin in 1645 seems to have been uncontested, for there was leisure during a lengthy stay of 58 days for crew to carve an elaborate memento into a rock (Figure 2.5), perhaps used as a letter stone under which messages were left.32 Further, John Baptista Tavernier, a Frenchman returning to Europe with the Dutch in 1649 made no mention of a Dutch presence, rather the reverse: ‘the Dutch seamen and soldiers … cry to one another we shall never come hither anymore, and out of greediness cut down a whole tree instead of gathering the fruit.’33 In 1655 the French governor of Madagascar, Etienne de

Figure 2.4 View of St Helena, Sir Thomas Herbert, 1629.

16

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Figure 2.5 Rock carved by sailors on Dolphin, 1645, Jamestown.

ST HELENA AND THE EAST INDIA COMPANY

17

Flacourt, was at St Helena and ‘heard dogs barking, but saw nothing to suggest that there were any human beings on the island.’34 In his analysis of the matter, Sir William Foster concluded that ‘St Helena remained as before a mere port of call for ships returning from the East’ and as the Dutch claim of 1633 had not been followed by any attempt at occupation, it had no validity.35 The idea of Dutch settlement might be traced to a 1691 statement from mariner William Dampier, that the Dutch had ‘settled’ St Helena before occupying the Cape of Good Hope.36 In 1644 there had been a call for St Helena to be acquired by the EIC from Richard Boothby, a merchant who had visited the island, but as it was made in a pamphlet whose title complained at the ‘intolerable wrongs’ done to the author by ‘two lewd servants’ of the EIC, his advice was hardly likely to receive a sympathetic hearing in East India House. However, the title would probably have ensured that the work was read there and Boothby’s reasoning was certainly sound: the island was ‘healthful, fruitful and commodious’; it ‘was a place for trading with all nations at their return out of India’ and it could be defended—Boothby thought it could be easily fortified and then held by one hundred men against an improbable attacking force of 100,000.37 At that time the company was opposed to colonization, but the potential benefits of owning St Helena grew, especially its utility as a rendezvous for company ships before convoying up to Europe. EIC ships had been ordered to gather there from 1649—‘authorities at Bantam and Surat shall be given notice to order the homeward-bound ships to sail to S Helena and there await one another.’38 From 1656 the Company had petitioned the Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell, for ‘one or two good frigates’ to meet them there and provide extra protection.39 In 1657 Satisfaction was sent to carry out this task for the first time,40 at an estimated cost of £4000.41 The next year, the company was ready to establish St Helena as a private fortified base. They had an expedition to hand in that a scheme to colonise Pollerone (Pulo Run or just Run, ‘pulo’ meaning island) in the Banda Islands (Indonesia) had been postponed and the ships had not sailed. Being valuable for its nutmeg, Run had been contested by the English and Dutch from 1616,42 and was ceded by the Dutch following the war of 1652 to 1654. Cromwell had begun to take an interest in 1657, seeing the occupation of Run through the EIC as a way of breaking the Dutch monopoly of the spice trade. John Keay opined that Cromwell awarded the EIC their new charter with its permission to hold territory and build fortifications and settlements specifically with the exploitation of Run in mind.43 By October 1658 Captain John Dutton, who had formerly worked for the VOC and had a Dutch wife from Batavia, was appointed governor of Run on a substantial salary of £200 p.a.44 However, the expedition to place him on his island was postponed for fear of renewed hostilities between the British and the Dutch. In the meantime, on 15 December 1658, the EIC ‘after long debate unanimously resolves to send forty men with all expedition to remain on the island [of St Helena] with conveniences to fortify and begin a plantation there.’45 The company decided to employ Dutton ‘to undertake the business of St Helena until a settlement is made there, when they will send a ship to take him to Pulo Run.’46 Dutton’s commission as Governor of St Helena was formal: ‘Wee doe therefore require you that… in the name of his Highnesse Richard, Lord

18

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging and for the use of the Honourable English East India Company doe take possession of the Island and with Drum and Trumpett proclaim the same’.47 He arrived on 5 May 1659 (Figure 2.6), when the actual ceremony of possession might have been rather low key given the only structure shown there in 1658 was the original Portuguese chapel (Figure 2.7)48 and the company declared that only those who could be spared from work aboard ship were to be permitted ashore to witness the ceremony.49 Dutton was informed in 1660 that ‘we have thereupon now decided to take possession and plant our islands of Pollerone. And therefore according to our promise made you at your going forth for St Helena Wee have concluded and pitched upon you to be the Governor of that Island.’ He was to proceed from St Helena to Run via the EIC factory at Bantam on Java. Any people on St Helena, except his deputy, Captain Robert Stringer, who was to remain as governor, were free to accompany him.50 (Appendix 2 is a timeline, which lists the governors of St Helena.) Dutton left on 6 May 1661, ‘Imbark’d my Self and Wife aboard the Ship Affrican for India [sic] with 32 persons in all, viz Myself, wife and child, and a Maid, 25 men and three blacks.’ After potential mutiny over brandy allocations, deaths, striking a rock and murder of a ship’s boat crew, Dutton arrived at Run on 11 March 1662 only to find that the Dutch had no intention of surrendering possession and after a number of skirmishes, the English abandoned the mission on 14 April. (The crown eventually took Run in 1665 only to swap it with the Dutch under the Treaty of Breda in 1667 for a North American island called New Amsterdam, later renamed Manhattan). Following a stay at Bantam, Dutton left for St Helena on 1 October and after a difficult voyage, troubled by

Figure 2.6 Plaque marking 300th anniversary of John Dutton’s landing, Jamestown.

ST HELENA AND THE EAST INDIA COMPANY

19

Figure 2.7 View of Chapel Valley, John Nieuhoff, 1658. cold, contrary winds and a shortage of water ‘came in sight of the long wished for island of St Helena’ on 21 January 1663. He left on 1 February and arrived back at his Greenwich house on 12 May, over two years after setting off from St Helena on his failed mission.51 The EIC’s renewal of interest in Run impacted negatively on St Helena. Dutton’s party represented a considerable majority of the population. Measures were put in place to encourage people to become planters (their farms were called ‘plantations’), since the company, as evidenced in Robert Stringer’s commission as governor, had resolved ‘that the said Island shall bee possessed and kept to as for the use of us and our successors.’52 The company had it in their power to keep the island, for under the charter it was their possession. This was unlike the factories, which were held under the gift of local rulers and in 1684 the Bantam factory, with which early St Helena had links, was taken from the EIC by the Sultan who closed his ports on Java to all but the Dutch.53 For St Helena to be ‘kept to’ by John Company, a sustainable presence had to be established. ‘An earthly paradise’? Establishing the economy The purpose of St Helena was to refresh company, and sometimes other ships returning from the East, especially by supplying water, even if there were contemporary reports of this sometimes being ‘as thicke as puddell’ and moreover difficult to load as casks had to be ‘halled of to the boate with roapes’ as the boats could not tie up safely owing to the swell.54 Figures 2.8 and 2.9 show the operation of watering in 1787, the method being unchanged. Barrels hoisted from boats by the crane were placed on the cart, positioned under the trough, filled via the flexible pipe and returned to the boat. The importance of

20

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Figure 2.8 ‘Sketch of a gate and crane at which the ships water at St Helena’, Oziah Humphrey, 1787.

Figure 2.9 ‘Watering place, St Helena’, Oziah Humphrey, 1787. the water, any water, can be appreciated from merchant Francis Rogers, who left Surat on Arabia on 22 February 1702 ‘to make the best of our way for the Cape or St Helena.’ On 4 May a storm drove them to the south of the Cape, so they had to aim for St Helena, which they made on 8 June, having ‘come to a pint of water for 24 hours.’55

ST HELENA AND THE EAST INDIA COMPANY

21

St Helena needed to be fortified and garrisoned against seizure or unauthorised use by foreign enemies or commercial rivals. Thus, supplies of fresh food were needed not just to refresh ships, but to meet constant demand from the company’s administrative and military staff. Civilian planters who produced the food needed a socio-economic system to be developed to allow the accumulation of private wealth and property, enabling a self-replicating community to become established. There was also the desire that St Helena bring a profit to the company in addition to refreshing ships and being a rendezvous, consequently there was a search for a cash crop or other exportable product. Over two centuries later the Neu Guinea Compagnie were look for ‘returns from the exploitation and utilisation of land and soil’ to try and ‘make a profit’ from their colony or at least ‘match the capital so far invested and still to be invested.’56 ‘Marvellous faire’: potential What might the EIC have expected from its own considerable investment? There were a number of reports prior to 1659. In 1588 Thomas Cavendish described ‘a marvellous faire and pleasant valley’ in which stood buildings erected by the Portuguese, principally the church. Nearby was a garden growing ‘pompions and melons’ and the valley itself had oranges, lemons, pomegranates, dates and pomecitron. Of especial note were figs, which, he explained, could fruit at any time of year as ‘the yland standeth so neere the Sunne.’ These trees had been planted by the Portuguese in walks to provide shade. Herbs and vegetables mentioned were basil, sorrel, parsley, fennel, aniseed, mustard and radishes, all succoured by the brook in Chapel Valley, with further fruits in the interior although Cavendish did caution about the ‘wonderfull laboursome’ nature of the journey inland owing to the steep terrain. He mentioned partridges, pheasants, turkeys and thousands of goats, ‘sometimes you may beholde them going in a flock almost a mile long.’ There were also pigs—swine—‘very wilde and very fat’, and difficult to capture, ‘except it be by mere chance when they may be found asleepe.’ There were also supplies of wood, to which Cavendish helped himself.57 The following year, 1589, Van Linschoten described and drew St Helena (Figure 2.10). He found five of the six other ships in his fleet (the other had been lost at sea) already in the road, ‘as safe as if they were in a haven, for they may well heare the wind whistle on the top of their maine yards, but lower it can not come.’ Van Linschoten’s text spoke of a high, hilly island, ‘very ashie and dry’. There was much wood, if of poor quality and fit only for fuel. Rather it was the ‘great store of fresh water’, which attracted: the ‘Portingales [would] fill their vessels full of fresh water and wash their clothes, so that it is a great benefit for them.’ He thought the appearance of abundant water running through the dry coastal valleys to be a ‘myracle’. If so, it is the miracle of orographic rainfall, caused by the airstream being forced to rise over the obstruction that is St Helena, cooling and becoming less able to retain its moisture, which is released as rainfall. Van Linschoten actually described the phenomenon, noting that St Helena ‘commonly reacheth unto the clouds;’58 Sir Thomas Herbert put it more colourfully: ‘it vails its head often in the clouds, where opening a wide mouth it gulps down sufficient moisture to cool its ardour.’59

Figure 2.10 View of St Helena, John Van Linschoten, 1598.

22

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

ST HELENA AND THE EAST INDIA COMPANY

23

Like Cavendish, Van Linschoten described the goats, ‘wild hogges’ and imported birds, which could be killed by stones and staves. He opined that all sorts of fruits from Portugal and India ‘assuredly without any doubt … would grow well’ owing to the ‘good temperature of the ayre’ and the regular rainfall, showers five or six times a day, ‘so whatever is planted, there it groweth verie well.’ The EIC expected St Helena to produce a wide variety of crops as will be detailed below; presumably they knew this passage. Fish in abundance were available, ready to take the bait of a ‘crooked nayle’. They could be dried or salted, using salt deposited on rocks and pools from the evaporation of seawater. In short, St Helena was ‘an earthly paradise’, ‘miraculously discovered for the refreshing and service’ of ships. It was a ‘boye [buoy] placed in the middle of the Spanish seas.’60 Richard Grove wrote that ‘the island was initially described by travellers in predictably paradisal terms,’ although that tradition lasted only a little time here for Sir James Lancaster, who was to be twice an EIC director, observed after his 1603 visit that ‘this iland is not an earthly Paradice, as it is reported.’61 The use of this phrase confirms that Van Linschoten’s work was known in EIC circles, although Lancaster’s denial of its appropriateness would seem to bode ill. However, he, too, commented on the fruit and animals, even if hunting them necessitated ‘great labour and paines, for they are wilde and the iland full of great high hilles.’62 Thomas Best reported that ‘with ease you shall kill them … But to bring them to the boate is labour beyond measure; for you must carry them 7 or 8 miles over the tops of hye mountains, then down into the valleys, then up.’63 Lancaster, on his two visits to St Helena reported that sick sailors recovered themselves from both scurvy and, in one case, from a nine-month spell of ‘flux’, presumably diarrhoea. This was important, for on Lancaster’s second voyage, only 278 of the original complement of 460 seamen got back to England.64 Presumably it was the herbs and fruit on St Helena that helped, Sir Thomas Herbert in 1629 had found ‘scurvy grass and like acid herbs sovereign against the scurvy.’65 The restorative properties of St Helena continued to be praised into the company period: ‘sailors just dead with the scurvy … with eating nothing but salt provisions … when carried ashore here, recover to a miracle, rarely any dying.’66 Another voyager, Peter Mundy, wrote in 1638, that, ‘there is hardly such another Ragged, steepy, stony, high, Cragged, rocky, barren, Desolate and Comffortlesse coast’ but ‘above’, that is on the flatter top of St Helena, there was ‘excellent Mold’ [soil] and, like the others, Mundy noted hogs, goats, also cattle, grass, birds, fish, and lemon trees ‘bending with their burthens’ of fruit,67 a considerable improvement on the situation in 1629 when Herbert had commented on the decline of fruit trees since the days of Cavendish. Further, in 1647 John de Mandelslo wrote of St Helena being able to supply whole fleets with refreshment.68 ‘Plants, Rootes and graines and all other things neccessarie for plantation’: company support Knowing, thus, of the potential for St Helena from published accounts and from their captains having called on the ‘common for everie man’ principal, when St Helena was ‘a magazine of private trade’,69 in 1659 the EIC took the ‘boye’ for itself. On 11 January 1659 all company ships returning from the East were

24

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

instructed to unload a ton of rice ‘for the supply of our intended plantation on the island of St Helena.’70 From the outset it was clear that the island’s inhabitants should not remain reliant solely upon the company sending food. Captain Robert Bowen of London, who was to take Dutton and party to St Helena, was required to stop at Cape Verde to procure plants, roots and herbs.71 Dutton’s orders were more particular. At St Iago or another of the Cape Verde Islands he was speedily ‘to procure all manner of plants, Rootes and graines and all other things neccessarie for plantation,’ especially ‘planton rootes’ (presumably plantains or bananas), cassava, ‘jamooes’ (presumably yams), potatoes, peas, beans, oranges, lemons and ‘gravances’ (?)—the first entries in what became a long list of items it was hoped St Helena would grow or produce to minimise its demands upon and costs to the company (Table 2.1, Appendix 3). Also at St Iago, Dutton was to buy five or six ‘Blacks or Negroes’ presumably to help with the agriculture. He was advised about the care of the plants on ship—they were not to be kept in the hold away from the light—and about their transplantation, although his priority was to fortify the island to ‘offend any enemies’. The company had loaded onto London and Marmeduke, a smaller vessel in attendance, enough provisions for 14 months. Dutton was to appoint a steward to oversee their issue and was to ‘order your allowance so that the same may hold out until you have a supply from your own plantations.’ Hunting and fishing were to be carried out in any spare time to supplement the rations.72 Within the 14 months, in June 1659, further comestibles in the shape of flour, peas, brandy and beer as well as shoes were sent with Fruroe, Captain Swanley, but, as became the norm, such donation was accompanied by materials to stimulate domestic production, for Fruroe also carried fishing lines and hooks and was to procure grains, nuts, yams, potatoes, oranges and lemons for St Helena during its trip ‘to be fit for planting when they arrive.’ Captain Swanley was also to bring slaves from West Africa to add to the pool of labour at the island, and the party on St Helena was assured that the company was ‘very mindful of you and supply you with all things necessarie for the carrying on of that worke in which you are by us engaged.’73 Governor Stringer was reminded ‘that it must therefore bee your duty soe to improve there … as not expecting any further supply from hereto.’74 However, disappointment must have followed for those in East India House on London’s Leadenhall Street, for four years later material and labour were still having to be supplied. In September 1663 plants, including more trees and roots, poultry, cattle and sheep were sent amongst other provisions, together with ‘two blacks skilful in planting’, these seemingly being substituted for a planter and a gardener the company had been unable to procure.75 Help certainly seemed to be needed for in his report in the early 1660s Henry Gargen was dismissive of the planters’ limited skills at growing crops, the slaves’ yields on their small plots being considerably better. His account detailed the tiny scale of the St Helena enterprise at this time—there were just four free planters.76 In 1666, a French traveller, Sochu de Rennefort, presented a mixed report. Governor Stringer seemed to live well with his wife who ‘conservoit des marques d’avoir esté fort agreeable’, and the island had several products: cattle, goats, vegetables, fruit and fish, also the pleasures of hunting, ‘le divertissement de la chasse’. However, there was a prodigious number of rats and residents still needed to be provided with biscuits, oil and salt beef by the EIC.77

ST HELENA AND THE EAST INDIA COMPANY

25

Some years later the company’s plans were thrown into disarray by the Dutch invasion and support had to be increased after the retaking of St Helena in 1673. Some planters returned; others were recruited and soldiers were asked to become planters with their wives being granted free passage to St Helena. Given the lack of experience of some, sensibly there was provision of an agricultural advisor and a fixed, if guaranteed, market set in recommended crops—sugar, indigo, cotton, ginger and tobacco—that could be sold to the governor at the trade price. Support was also seen in the issue of land and two cows per plantation for new settlers and the entitlement to free provisions from the company ‘magazine’ (store) for up to nine months.78 The pressing need after 1673 was to re-establish production and thus in 1676 when a proper survey was made and it was discovered that some planters were on land not belonging to them, a blanket pardon was issued by Governor Field—‘it would be much to the disadvantage of such Poore People if not to their Ruine to rebuild in another place’—with the planters left on these lands until 1680, providing only that wood was not destroyed.79 John Fryer, a visitor, reported that the gain from the island in terms of refreshing ships and combating scurvy made it worthwhile for the company after re-occupation to ‘be at some expense for this benefit, supplying them with cattle, hogs, fowl, tools for husbandry and the constant guard of soldiers.’ Rats continued to be a problem, ‘a mischievous Virmin sorely vexatious to them,’80 as they were at the 1689 visit by John Ovington, such that any attempts at agricultural diversification was doomed to failure: ‘all hopes are quite devoured by them’ and only yams, potatoes and livestock were possible to be produced.81 This was despite the company in 1678 having supplied a rat catcher. That year more plants had been imported with strict instructions as to how they were to be transplanted to the company plantation, kept free from weeds, properly watered (evenings only), fenced off from animals and once established and mature distributed to the planters.82 The island always had to be sent manufactured goods including large pieces of agricultural equipment; two ploughs in 1662, for instance.83 In 1678, Johannah, Captain Bendall, ‘600 tunns or thereabouts’ was sent with ‘the Almighties permission’ laden with £2809 16s 5d worth of goods by the EIC for their settlement on St Helena, the lading being signed off by the ‘Accomptant Generall’, Francis Beyer.84 The author has re-arranged the entries into various categories in Table 2.2 (Appendix 3). Manufactured products included tools, hardware, cooking utensils, beds, books and stationery. There were substantial military supplies including seven falcon (light canon), and food staples that would survive the journey such as flour, grain and biscuit. To expand production there were agricultural tools, vegetable seeds and fruit trees. Further, as well as shoes, shoemakers’ materials were sent; in addition to garments, came material for the repair and manufacture of clothing. The next year it was reinforced that clothing would not be supplied as a matter of course, but bales of cloth could be obtained from company ships,85 although this system did not always work insofar as captains with a contract to deliver goods to England were not always willing to part with such materials. In 1692, the garrison was ‘bare of all sorts of clothinges’ and Governor Joshua Johnson had to requisition cloth from the stores of Kempthorne, the captain hoping that supplying three bales would ‘not be to his prejudice’, although he recognised that ‘the necessity of the said island is

26

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

urgent.’ A civilian passenger also helped, perhaps pleased to find a buyer desperate enough to purchase two bales of cloth damaged by seawater.86 Complaints about the inability of St Helena to, at least, feed itself started to become strident. East India House did ‘much wonder that in all this time the inhabitants have not been able to raise themselves a sufficient store of provisions from their Plantations … they cannot reasonably expect to be allowed supplies from our shipping.’87 That was in 1678; three years earlier the company had even threatened to repatriate any planters who would not grow produce on their own land.88 Planters had not ‘employed themselves with industry’,89 sometimes not bothering to improve their land, instead hunting goats, which were deemed to be company property.90 Reluctantly, the EIC had to continue to supply food, the representative in India sending supplies of rice and rice paddy. Paddy, being unhusked, would keep longer, up to seven years apparently, but by then it might not be wholesome and the governor was to be aware that old paddy might bring on the ‘bloody flux’. As always, accompanying the donation of supplies were demands for greater domestic production and seed rice was also to be sent, although the company accepted that water control possibilities on St Helena might not be suitable and decided not to send ‘a black man or two’ to cultivate same until further advised,91 although some rice was grown. In 1683 the governor was sent a document (which has not survived) which, he was assured in the accompanying letter, would demonstrate to him and others that St Helena had ‘severall singular and great advantages … above any English Plantation [colony in this context] Wee know in any part of the world.’ This had reassured the company after its ‘long and chargeable disbursement’ estimated to have been ‘£40,000 without one penny profit hitherto more than refreshment for our ships.’92 As early as 1666 the EIC had complained of ‘the great charge in its keeping.’93 Later in the lengthy 1683 communication, the cost for ‘the settlement and security’ of St Helena was put at £60,000. There were pious hopes that knowledge of St Helena’s advantages would lead the planters to make better improvement given the ‘great opportunity which God Almighty by his Providence and our Indulgence to them hath put in their hands.’94 Recent evidence of that ‘Indulgence’ had been boats sent to stimulate fishing in 1680, together with a professional fisherman, who, disabled in company service, was excused swimming. In that year was acknowledgement for the first time of receipt in England of an island product, goat wool. It was coarse and ‘hayey’, but nonetheless the governor was encouraged to increase production.95 Deer were sent in 1682,96 although in 1669 it had been thought that deer might harm fruit and vegetable crops.97 In 1683 the list of suggested crops grew to include cloves, cedar, ‘Cyprus’ trees (for masts and boards), wheat, nutmegs, olives and pistachios. The manufacture of nitre and saltpetre was encouraged. Cotton seeds and other plants were to be sent from India with five or six negroes on each ship, ‘plants and negroes such used and imployed that we may at length recap some benefit of all our care and cost.’98 The following year the governor was ordered to grow sugar with the aim of producing rum and molasses, with mention of sending down an engine, presumably to crush the cane. Henry Cox, a sugar overseer from Barbados accompanied the ship to set up the industry. The EIC would have been aware of what Jack Greene later

ST HELENA AND THE EAST INDIA COMPANY

27

styled ‘the enormous profitability of sugar’99 from Barbados, Jamaica and the Leeward Islands colonies at this time and must have hoped that St Helena could share in this trade. After learning he was to facilitate sugar production, as the governor turned the pages of this letter he would then have found copious instructions on how to make salt on his island, even where to build salt-pans—in Rupert’s Valley. Salt production would stimulate the fishing industry and equipment to catch more fish, including a yawl, was to be sent. The expected overplus of salted or dried fish could be exported to Barbados. Sugar and salt, it was confidently expected, would enable the EIC ‘to be paid in time for our vast disbursement unto that island, especially if you can teach our planters how to raise ginger, Indico, cotton and alloes.’ Further on it was saltpetre that was to be made; iron was to be prospected for, rice was to be attempted again; coconuts produced for their oil, limes for their juice, tobacco was to be planted, pepper and ‘beetle nutts’ (betel) grown.100 This multiplicity of plans sounds like desperation. This may be true; the complaints about the lack of return on company investments are valid, even though the unsympathetic assignment of the reasons to indolence betray insufficient appreciation of the problems in running an economy (and society) on such difficult terrain in so isolated a place. Further, Richard Grove has criticised the ‘failure of the EIC to appreciate the [environmental] results that might ensue from the rapid establishment of plantation agriculture in an small area of very high relief with variable rainfall’.101 However, it must be noted that the East India House did not issue orders without advice from experienced consultants. Thus, regarding the growing of wheat: We have discoursed with many persons … and we know that very good it doth grow in many parts of the world about the same latitude, and therefore would have our Governor continue to make trialls of the Surat wheat and a bushel of English wheat herewith sent, until you shall find by experience which are the fittest seasons of the year and the fittest places in the island for the sowing and growth of it.102 East India House must have seen the report about agricultural potential by Henry Gargen, who had been on the island from 1661 to 1665, for in 1666 he was appointed deputy governor and manager of the company plantation, with his wife and sister running the dairy.103 The report had practical advice on how best to grow onions, melons and pomegranates according to local conditions. Gargen identified problems with vermin, especially caterpillars, and from wind blast that prevented flowering fruits and vines setting. However, most of the cattle brought to the island had survived and Gargen expected them to thrive,104 and a visitor in 1666 mentioned with favour the cattle and the butter.105 Another, a Frenchman, in 1672 found the butter on St Helena to be ‘aussi bon que le meilleur d’Europe.’106 Some of Gargen’s advice seems to have been re-used in the 1684 letter. Further, the suggestion for the location of the salt-pans came from a Captain Bass who had seen the island and the letter has practical advice about salt production and was accompanied by a printed book about salt making in France. Regarding crop production, there was helpful material on the use of dung, ash and fish refuse as fertilisers. Grass seed was to be sought to improve

28

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

the pasture. There was advice, perhaps after Gargen, about constructing high walls to protect citrus from wind damage; a section on the care of bananas; material on the control of vermin, with the practical help of the ship delivering 20 pounds of ‘impalpable powder of glass’ to kill rats. There was even a section on microclimates and their effect on production: In all mountainous countries such as yours is, there is very great difference of weather at very little distance of place and ye hilly and windward parts oftimes as coole as lie in latitudes from 35 to 40 degrees when ye valleys and Leesides of Mountains are as warm or hot as Climates from 10 to 15 degrees of latitude and therefore it must be your discretion to prepare ye seeds and plants of Europe in ye cooler places as those of East India and ye West Indies in ye hottest. Rice was to be tried again following the advice of Captain Knox, commander of the vessel going to St Helena, who had lived 20 years in Ceylon and had ‘knowledge of a particular sort of rice that grows best on high and dry lands.’ Knox was bringing down this seed. Also on board was one Ralph Knight, experienced in rice cultivation, who was to remain as overseer of the project. The workers on the rice were to be ‘ye Company’s own Negroes under your view’ and it was to be grown on company ground, not wasted on the planters, ‘so loose and negligent a people’, who were not to be trusted with ‘any … new experiment’.107 David Smallman, a modern governor of St Helena, regarding these attempts to stimulate the plantations in 1684 writes: of the recognition in the Company’s London boardroom that the colony was not paying its way and yet [East India House] was deciding upon an inappropriate course of action to solve the problem. A common enough mistake, but one that was to be repeated with dismaying regularity throughout the years that followed and into the twentieth century.108 Thus, regarding sugar, despite the investment, the instructions and hopes expressed in 1684, nothing came of it: in 1709 it was noted that Henry Cox had not succeeded, being ‘an idle, drunken fellow’.109 This long letter of 1684, with its plea for production of various sorts to be attempted to help defray the company’s ‘vast disbursement’ was almost the last shot. The shot fell short. In 1689, John Ovington, a visiting ship’s chaplain, opined that the company would have abandoned the island, it having ‘no commodities as yet proper for the profitable Negotiations of a Merchant,’ were it not ‘so very serviceable to the furtherance of the East India voyages, particularly to the ships homeward bound.’110 That year a Huguenot refugee, Stephen Poirier, later to become governor, was sent to cultivate vines to make wine and brandy, to be ‘disposed of to the company’s advantage.’ He was to attempt to grow sugar, cotton and indigo again, earlier experiments having proved ineffectual. These, he was instructed, were to be grown in his leisure hours, given that he was also to supervise the company plantation with its production mainly of yams, potatoes and cattle.111 Despite hopes expressed in a marginal note to a 1698 letter that ‘we expect Captain Poirier to make our island

ST HELENA AND THE EAST INDIA COMPANY

29

yield us some clear proffitt,’112 Poirier was no more successful in developing a cash crop than others. Grove wondered if depredations by the rats may have caused the vines to fail,113 but the company’s expectations of Poirier were usually unfulfilled. By the turn of the century, there had developed a fatalistic realisation about the limitations of St Helena. Astronomer Edmond Halley wrote in 1700 that: ‘I arrived at this island to fill my Water and refezen my men.’114 That was all that could be expected: ‘we are at some thousands a year charge to keep that island only for the sake of refreshments’ stated East India House in 1701115 and the island ‘produce[s] nothing of itself for merchandising for all ye conveniency in ye homeward bound ships to supply themselves with water’ confirmed the captain of the naval frigate Macclesfield.116 The ‘place itself affords nothing but water and milk’ was a 1702 comment.117 By 1708, all hope had gone: ‘St Helena is a dead charge to us as you know we have no commerce there to make it good.’118 One EIC historian said the company held the island ‘merely’ as a refreshment station.119 However, in 1711 after the active governorship of John Roberts, a refreshing change to the sluggish Stephen Poirier, the EIC was restored to hope and in instructions to Roberts’s successor, Benjamin Boucher, looked for wine, brandy, sugar molasses and rum to become exports, also ‘oyl from the physick nuts’ (presumably the Barbados nut, Jatropha curcas; the oil could be used for lighting (today it is a bio-diesel) and boiled leaves were used for purging).120 Success, however, continued to prove elusive. One Victorian scientist wrote that ‘the island has never been able to produce any article of export’. Much potentially arable land was then just under pasture, a more intensive use needing ‘a tangible and apparent purpose … and a market found for the produce.’ Yet another extensive list of crops that might be suitable were then suggested and the recommendation about New Zealand flax was prescient in that this crop did become significant in the first part of the twentieth century.121 ‘Surveigh … ye plantable grounds’: the organisation of the land The return from the EIC investment was the production of a limited range of foodstuffs, largely meat, vegetables and fruit, along with the usually ready supply of water, all situated in a strategic position in the south Atlantic. To produce food, suitable parts of St Helena had had to be transformed from an uninhabited (though not untouched or unspoilt) wilderness into productive farmland. The land had to be assigned to planters, with some reserved for the company. A fort and its associated settlement had to be built: habitation and plantation as Patricia Seed put it in the section on the English in her book on European colonial possession. In addition to houses she points to the significance of establishing boundaries, evidence of the occupation of land, along with clearing, if not always planting in the early years. In medieval England there may have been common usage of land but by the time the first colonies were established, private occupation and use were the norm, even where settlements began with collective land grants. Seed demonstrated that fenced or hedged plots, preferably with some gardening, were significant early requirements of the seventeenth century English colonies in America and elsewhere. This commonality, which she summarises as ‘building fences, planting gardens, constructing houses—the

30

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

English signs of possession’121 applied equally to the new English East India Company colony of St Helena. Planting was significant. In the early years indentured servants on a four-year contract had to perform labour dues for the company, three days per six-day week, Sunday being the day of rest. But the three days the labourers were not directly working for the company were not ‘at their disposal to doe what they please, but to work upon their owne plantations fo ye rising of provisions … we did not send them to take their ease.’123 ‘Rising’ was necessary even to meet the rent, for after the first year, planters had pay the governor for their land in plantains, peas, potatoes and cassava. Captain Stringer was instructed to divide the island’s cultivable land into 150 lots, five shares for himself, 15 to be reserved for the Company, the rest to be issued to planters: one share for a man, another for his wife.124 The 15 shares were the origin of the company plantation; today the governor of the Overseas Territory of St Helena still lives on that land, in Plantation House, built in the 1780s (Figure 2.11). Stringer’s instructions were otherwise impracticable given the large estates that would have resulted from having only 150 divisions and shortly afterwards planters were being allocated 20 acre lots. To ensure efficient organisation of land allocation, there was supposed to be a survey; indeed the first instructions to John Dutton in 1659 had ordered a survey to find plantable ground, marshes, clay deposits, trees and their ‘bignesse’, water resources and how ‘these waters may be transported to the plantations.’ A map was to be made, ‘drawn to a large scale… by the most rigorous person that shall be present.’125 There is no record that such a map was drawn and a surveyor, Robert Swallow, who was also to be

Figure 2.11 Plantation House, St Helena.

ST HELENA AND THE EAST INDIA COMPANY

31

deputy governor, was sent in 1668.126 Again no survey seems to have been carried out, so by 1669 the company instructed Governor Richard Coney thus: ‘We have several times desired from you a Surveigh to be taken & sent of all ye plantable grounds upon the Island which yet you have neglected to doe, play let it be done with speed and sent by the first opportunity.’ In the next paragraph were complaints about the neglect of agriculture and an exhortation that ‘every family shall provide for themselves, out of the produce of their owne stock and grounds.’127 In 1672 a survey had still not been carried out.128 In 1673 came the Dutch invasion. Upon the island being retaken (see Chapter 8), planters that returned were re-issued with their former lands, whilst new ones received 20 acres, ‘rough and plaine’, a mixture of good and poorer land in the valleys and on the slopes. Plantations were to be ‘rendered to them, their heires and assignees for ever,’129 with, a few years later, instructions forwarded regarding family inheritance of the holdings.130 In Seed’s model land was generally privately occupied, even if this was not the case at first. St Helena filled this expectation perfectly, for in its more utopian early period in 1660, the company had wished there to be a measure of co-operation. There was no expectation of such co-operation after the re-taking of the island, the planters being settled on private, individual holdings. Later the reasoning behind this policy was stated: ‘private persons will husband a farm better for themselves than by what appears our servants will do for us.’131 Seed’s model gives significance, too, to housebuilding and new settlers were enjoined to build their cottages, ‘that they may sooner get to planting.’132 And actual planting was required, for the land was not to be held as an investment as it could not be sold ‘unless they have improved it by planting and have lived on it for at least four years.’133 That was 1673 and there was certainly a land market established after the elapse of the four-year period for by 1678 the governor was being ordered to set up a process properly to confirm land holdings,134 and the St Helena archives contain frequent reference to land transfers, for example in 1680.135 An unfettered land market was not allowed to develop, for in 1681 an edict was issued forbidding any planter to have even two plantations, ‘whether by purchase or otherwise’,136 and in 1683 the governor was reminded that that leasing out the usual 20 acre lots should not preclude the company holding ‘half the said island [which] shall be intirely kept for the Companies use and not allotted or leased out on any terms whatsoever, without our further orders in writing.’137 From this date issue of company cattle to new planters was to cease, land not occupied and any that reverted to being the company property was for exclusive company use. No common grazing land was to be allowed to develop, commons were in the view of East India House, ‘but Nurseries for Thieves and Beggars’ and no planter was to allow his animals onto company waste land.138 Nor were the planters allowed to gather lemons from anywhere except their own land on pain of a four shillings fine. The lack of lemons was of ‘great inconvenience of those shipps that touch here expecting refreshment.’139 These distinctions between company and planters’ land and property symbolise the fact that relations between the company and their subjects were not good. Seed’s requirement for fencing was reinforced in 1683, when planters were given three years—upon pain of forfeiture of land—to enclose their holdings ‘by

32

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

ditch, wall or other good fence’.140 Such enclosure was all part of the maturation of the St Helena agricultural environment, which gathered pace in the 1680s, although the actual fencing may have been inadequate as evidenced in 1709 when Governor Roberts complained that the want of fencing ‘hath bin the ruin of this island’.141 In 1680 there had been an order for a survey to be made of all remaining plantable lands not yet allocated, which could ‘from time to time be granted and sett out according to the rules.’ The rules were listed and encouraged the development of agriculture and also social stability. Soldiers could not become free planters unless they married. Single men set down by the EIC were allocated only ten acres and one cow, but more would be allocated upon marriage.142 In that year came a demand to the planters to report on their land holdings and boundaries, also details of land bought, sold or transferred. All deeds were to be brought to the fort so ‘every man’s title to his said land may clearly appear and be registered in order to ye Honourable Company’s confirmation of the same to them and their heirs.’143 This exercise presumably laid the basis for Governor Blackmore’s report on land holding to East India House for which he was praised in 1683, with a reminder that he had to report every year and that if planters refused to co-operate or gave a false return, they were to be fined. False returns may have been stimulated by the company’s head tax on cattle, which caused further tension between rulers and ruled. Around this time planters seeking permission, sometimes retrospectively, to take in an acre or two of extra ground would usually get it, with a caveat that wood could not be cut.144 By now a settled disposition of land and a system for its management had been achieved and the council’s records, the consultations, begin to be weighed down by the petty disputes of a maturing agricultural sector. For example, at the consultation at Fort James on 30 July 1683 the governor, deputy governor and two council members, in addition to a case of adultery, an assault, problems with keeping watch on the island, disorderly soldiers, proving of wills and dealing with estates and orphan children, had to endure endless disputes between planters. These were about cattle grazing on others’ lands, more than one case disputing ownership of hogs, quarrels over ownership of cattle and of yams and a planter who had sown crops on land he did not own.145 The maturing rural landscape was signified by the establishment of an improved infrastructure, including a pound for cattle erected by planters in Chapel Valley in 1681.146 More significant was the growing road network, some built by public labour, but including private drove roads or ‘driftways’ for cattle. The road system had to be regulated, distinguishing between public and private routes ‘for ye prevention of many strifes and quarrels.’147 The island was divided into quarters and three surveyors were elected from each ‘to peruse and regulate the main roads, the neighbourly driftways and private neighbourly pathways, to be as a standing rule; and law hereafter for neighbours and the neighbourhood to know whatt is properly the knowne roads, Drift and path ways.’148 The report, presented to the council six months later, established rights of way across private land—to give access to the church at Sandy Bay for example—and also drove roads for 82 named planters across other people’s land. Church roads were to be at least four feet wide and gates were to be built at property boundaries. Some driftways have not survived, but many of the main roads on St Helena today can be identified and this survey and its meaning in terms of the control of the land

ST HELENA AND THE EAST INDIA COMPANY

33

and the society upon it shows that by the end of the seventeenth century, St Helena was no longer a pioneer settlement. In 1698 a French zoologist, François Leguat, visited and described favourably the production of fruit, pulses, vegetables, herbs, game and the cattle, which had ‘exceedingly multiply’d’, as well as ‘a great deal of good fish’. Only ‘the prodigious number of rats’ spoilt the rural idyll.149 This progress is confirmed by a contemporary account held in the Earl of Ancaster’s papers. The unnamed visitor estimates St Helena’s population at 600 (excluding slaves) ‘free of all distempers, Sanguine and flourishing in Constitutions, large of limb, well clad with flesh, ready and bold in all executions, begotten out of the productive food of yammes, Milkmates and fish.’ The rural areas had rich, fertile valleys, well built wooden and stone houses (Figure 2.12) with pigsties near streams and goat folds on the hills. The writer praised the company plantation for the quality of its vegetables, livestock, and dairy—the butter as good as in England—but regretted the lack of success of vineyards as well as the prevalence of vermin, especially rats. The greatest want was of cereals to make bread. Another problem was a growing scarcity of wood. This was attributed to excessive distilling of ‘arrack’ (spirit) from potatoes; also because the yams which constituted the bulk in the diet were of ‘that harsh and corrosive quality that no animal or insect will attempt’, but, as a result, needed 12 hours boiling. The cost of incorrect cooking was to ‘ye Roof of the Mouth to ye bottoms of ye Belly … [with] great prickings and the Discharge of nature strongly prevented,’ presumably cramps and constipation.150 One observer noted that yams were ‘ruff to the palate’,151 another that a yam not cooked properly ‘fetches the Skin off your Mouth’.152

Figure 2.12 Rock Rose, a late-seventeenth century St Helena house.

34

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

‘Ye laying in of provisions’: the development of trade and products The Ancaster Papers presented a rosy view of a rural economy, specialising in the production of vegetables (especially yams), fruit, pigs, cattle, goats and fish. There were, it was estimated, 2000 head of cattle, 6000 goats, many pigs and some sheep.153 Cattle were used as currency for settling large debts, such as accounts with the company. By 1680, the planters collectively owed the company £1300 and the governor was ordered to call in the debts ‘and what they cannot pay in mony, endeavour to get it in cattle (whereof we hear they are well stocked) at the price current and let them be put in our grounds.’154 Cattle were thus the measure of wealth and the number and type thereof was as important as the number and type of inhabitants. A census in 1722 recorded bulls, cows, bullocks, heifers, steers, yearlings and calves, all told 1483 beasts.155 Hides and leather formed one of few products other than foodstuffs sent off the island at this period, records mentioning the trade in 1671 and in 1698,156 although a few years later instructions were sent to use the product on the island, with bark being sent for tanning.157 Cattle were also occasionally exported. In 1683 the company decided to settle upon ‘some island in the South Seas’ and to assist that endeavour the Governor John Blackmore was ordered to send 22 cattle as well as pigs and goats; in 1687 cattle, pigs and also stone was sent from St Helena to Bencoolen (Bengkulu), a company settlement on Sumatra. Cattle and other produce for refreshing ships had to be brought down to Chapel Valley for transfer. Henry Gargen’s contract as company plantation manager in 1666 had ordered that he have a place in Chapel Valley ‘neare ye waterside for the bringing down and securing the fruit of his Plantation.’158 Two years later it was ordered that all persons be permitted to build places by the waterside ‘for ye laying in of provisions against ye arrival of shipping’ and free permission to go aboard and trade was granted. The cattle pound was in this valley. In addition a market place was to be established there ‘where such that come and go from ships may have free liberty to buy what they please and the Inhabitants the freedom to sell without any contradiction from the Governor.’159 Later permission to trade upon ships was revoked; a consultation of 1685 required planters to use only the dedicated market place where their goods ‘had to be freely and openly’ exposed to sale.160 This may identify the weakening trust between the company and the civilians, although an alternative explanation was to prevent people boarding ships bagging all saleable commodities and reselling them to islanders at excessive rates.161 In 1685 a new market house was erected, orders having been several times sent from East India House that it be built,162 and the previous building having been recast as a court. A consultation decreed the precise spot, the building’s dimensions and appointed a gunner’s mate and carpenter to build it for a fee of £3:10s with materials to come from the company stores.163 This structure would also help marketing within the island and was further proof of a maturing agricultural/commercial infrastructure. More evidence was an official system to licence the retailing of liquor and tobacco, licences costing £1 per annum. In January 1688 five planters applied for licences for punch houses, which were granted upon payment of a bond and with the requirement that all supplies were to be purchased from the company and that good order was kept.164 Most of their business was carried out when ships were in the road. William Dampier’s detailed description of a ship visit in

ST HELENA AND THE EAST INDIA COMPANY

35

1691 explains how important these were to the inhabitants. He noted that the settlement in Chapel Valley had 20 or 30 small stone houses that usually stood empty, their owners living at their plantations. ‘But when ships arrive, they all flock to the town, where they live all the time that the Ships lie there; for then is their Fair or Market, to buy such necessaries as they want, and to sell off the product of their Plantations.’ The islanders traded vegetables, livestock and poultry, taking in exchange cloth and clothing, arrack, sugar and lime juice. They would also accommodate visitors. And ‘the Punch Houses were never empty.’165 After the early period when planters were allowed on board, most of the supply of ships’ stores, as opposed to private purchases by seamen, was carried out by the company itself, they having bought the goods needed from the planters at advertised prices, as well as using produce from the company plantation. This would also sell meat to the garrison, the company maintaining separate cost centres for its various enterprises, but the company table, comprising the governor, other officials and important visitors who dined together, was maintained from the company plantation without transfer of funds. ‘Law and good government’: civil society The EIC on St Helena had to support the establishment of a civil society with all its institutional and infrastructural needs. The company sometimes struggled to fulfil its responsibility in these areas and it did not become as distant from the provision of some services as it might have liked. The governor of St Helena was supported by a council that had, at least at first, civilian representation, although meetings took place in that symbol of company dominance, Fort James in Chapel Valley. Further, the meetings could be conducted in seclusion with the public held back behind closed gates, officially to avoid disturbance from ‘noise and clamour’.166 This contrasted to the situation in another seventeenth century company colony, Bermuda, where from 1611, soon after the island was acquired, a separate legislative building, States House, was erected and the business of government was physically distanced from that company’s military command. That this did not happen in St Helena might identify a tight grip on the administration of the island by its rulers. Even today the St Helena Legislative Council meets in the Castle, the successor to Fort James, a legislative building has never been erected. The establishment of a justice system was a key responsibility of the EIC and copious missives on the subject were sent from East India House and form much of the material analysed in Chapter 4. ‘Some bookes for your younger sort’: education, health and religion Education was bound up with religion and the first teachers were ministers appointed and supported by the Company. In 1670 the EIC appointed William Noakes as minister and he took books of divinity to start a library on the island, also ‘some bookes for your younger sort, for our Minister to give to ye Children, as hee seeth cause, for it is our desire that your children bee brought up in reading & writing and the knowledge of what is good.’167 (Governors had their own libraries; Governor Blackmore’s estate in 1690 contained 83 books, mainly religious but also histories, a natural history, a dictionary and several Speed maps.168) In 1673 Noakes’s successor, William Swindell, was specifically

36

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

employed as both minister and teacher, part of his salary being for educational duties, to include teaching ‘as many of the Negro children who are capable of learning.’169 Swindell died in 1674 and his good beginning went to waste as his successor John Wynn, appointed in 1676, had problems in getting the islanders to send their children to be educated.170 In 1678 inhabitants were instructed to send their children to school and were informed that the company at its own charge would teach ‘the children of the said inhabitants to read and to instruct them in the principles and fundamentals of the Christian religion, as well the Blacks as the English.’171 St Helena ministers were not always committed and the assumption that they would teach as well as preach was challenged. For example, in 1681 John Wynn persuaded East India House to allow him to teach only those children who could already read.172 And this was after Wynn had been supplied with a schoolmaster to help him, his role being only to attend frequently. Employment of specialist teachers under supervision of the minister continued, as in 1698 when a new minister, John Humphreys, was freed from the ‘burdensome part’ of teaching by a former soldier, Phillip Legett, who was to be paid by a poll tax upon the inhabitants. Legett’s wife came to the island at company expense to be schoolmistress.173 As for school buildings, in what became Jamestown the church was used, being ‘the most publick and convenient place’.174 Scholars were not permitted ‘to goe into the … pews, or pulpit, nor anyway impayre, hurt demnify or otherwise spoyle any of the seats, formes, doores, Windows or Communion Table.’ The teacher was to clean the church every Saturday afternoon. This list of restrictions was issued to a former soldier, William Melling, who was appointed to teach English in 1683.175 Chapel Valley was not convenient to many planters and in 1680 those living in the east of St Helena sought permission to open a local school,176 and they were allowed to build a schoolhouse and appoint a master.177 The same year, eastern planters were also granted permission to build a church.178 The company was responsible for ensuring that ministers and also surgeons were in post. These men would eat at the company table and receive a salary but their expenses were met by fees in the case of the surgeon and by taxation in the case of the minister. The inhabitants also had to contribute to the maintenance of churches firstly on a voluntary basis, after 1685 from the poll tax.179 Sextons and church overseers were paid from poll taxes. Edward Cannan in his history of South Atlantic churches opined that a posting to St Helena would have been seen often as a placement on the first rung of the ladder with the hope of better preferment to come.180 Indeed, getting anybody to serve as surgeon or minister was not always possible and there were occasional pleas to the governor to try and find somebody suitable from passing ships. On occasion, the island would have to manage on its own and in 1680, when it had not been possible to get a surgeon from Caesar, an islander, Matthew Pouncey, was appointed although if any other person could be sent Pouncey was immediately to give place to him!181 Fortunately, within a few weeks a qualified surgeon, Dr Francis Moore, was entertained from Society and Pouncey was paid off.182 The process was repeated in 1682 when Moore died and some weeks elapsed before a surgeon, Christopher Girling, was taken from Caesar, an important appointment given an

ST HELENA AND THE EAST INDIA COMPANY

37

outbreak of violent flux on St Helena.183 The local who served as temporary surgeon in 1682 was William Hunt, not Matthew Pouncey,184 whose professional skills took him in another direction; in 1684 he appeared as an attorney.185 In 1683 a surgeon and a chaplain were taken from Surat Merchant and President respectively,186 and the following year the governor was just told that ‘we shall not in future send you any minister or Chyrurgeon [surgeon] from here, but leave it to your discretion to those whom you like best out of our ships.’187 Such did not become normal practice and the company continued to appoint ministers and surgeons, as with Reverend Humphreys sent down in 1698 as mentioned. Humphreys was a bad choice and the doubtful quality of St Helena chaplains will be discussed in Chapter 4. Surgeons could also be of questionable character and competence and Henry Manning was discharged in 1691, being reduced to the rank of private soldier, the position he had held when he first came onto the island, although he had been a surgeon’s mate in company ships. ‘Unskillful’, ‘ignorant’, ‘remiss’ and ‘negligent’ were words used about him.188 Manning was also a scripture reader and was dismissed from that position, too.189 With regards to equipment and infrastructure, whilst the company provided two ‘chirurgery chests’ in 1669190 and a medical chest with surgical instruments, as on board Johannah in 1678 (Table 2.2, Appendix 3), the surgeon just had rooms at the fort. There was no hospital until 1741 (on the site of the present hospital in Upper Jamestown), although a house was ordered to be used for sick soldiers in 1705, for such men might be turned out by the householders with whom they lodged.191 Often the surgeon would have to travel to his patients; in 1680 it was noted that he spent so much time away from the fort that he was not getting value from his place at the company table and was authorised to draw food from the company store.192 ‘Love and amity’: St Helena as a paper utopia The narrative of St Helena in its early decades of rule by the East India Company is one of disappointment in both economic and social terms. Relations between the garrison, the planters, the slaves and the company’s rulers were usually poor and sometimes bloody. There were mutinies, revolts involving planters and slaves, murders and an assassination. The people who could be persuaded or coerced to staff the remote island proved often to be venal, incapable and sometimes corrupt. Governors as well as surgeons and chaplains were dismissed. Only the continued ability of the company to refresh their ships and rendezvous their fleets saved the venture from total disaster. It was not supposed to be like this, either with regard to the economy, as already described, or the society. It is clear that East India House was aware that it had an opportunity to develop a decent, mannered and compassionate society in the new setting of St Helena, although any social experimentation would always have been secondary to the capitalist imperative of St Helena’s practical utility to the company. This is not to suggest that the new colony could ever have been a gentle or kindly place. This was the seventeenth century, a time of horror in the European world, of rebellion and insurrection, of social upheaval in which offenders against states or the social order received dreadful punishments. The company colony of St Helena was a product of its period, with slavery, whipping, torture and dismemberment. However, at least initially, there was an

38

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

attempt to establish what the company later described as a ‘levelling constitution’;193 presumably a reference to the Levellers, radicals who demanded constitutional reform and equal rights during the English Civil War. The writings from the 1640s of one of their leaders, William Walwyn,194 certainly would have been known to the directors of the EIC. It has been said that the restoration of the monarchy saw the extinction of the Leveller movement, but that was from 1660, after the settlement of St Helena had been set in motion. The heading for this section is ‘paper utopia’. Utopia was Sir Thomas More’s 1515 conceptualisation of a perfect society.195 More’s ideal state, itself set on an island, was a critique of the corruption of European civil life; on St Helena the EIC had the chance to turn from criticism to practice, to set up a real society free from such problems. More had had a lengthy canon of idealised conceptions of society on which to base his ideas, dating back to Plato, and the century and a half since he wrote had thrown up further notions, not just the Levellers. Another relevant recent publication was James Harrington’s 1656 book, The Commonwealth of Oceana,196 which ‘because … [it] employs the devices of fiction to portray the arrangement of an ideal state … exhibits the characteristics we call utopian.’197 ‘Oceana’ was Cromwell’s England and ‘the book, stripped of its allegorical trappings, is little more than a magnified written constitution’ for that country,’198 but it contained strategies that could be employed elsewhere, including ideas for democracy. Also recently published in her miscellany of 1655, was Margaret Cavendish’s ‘The inventory of judgement’s commonwealth’,199 described as ‘a condensed utopian blueprint’, which looked forward to her better-known utopian work, The Blazing World of 1666.200 In 1658 a Dutchman, Pieter Plockhoy, had tried to set up a co-operative commune in England to demonstrate how poor people could be enabled to end their poverty. He published a tract with a letter to Richard Cromwell, in whose name the EIC annexed St Helena.201 The EIC must have been aware of the activities of the American company colonies; in that of the Virginia Company there was initially communal production of food and a requirement, at least amongst indentured servants, of work for the ‘common stock’.202 In short, there had been considerable discourse about the modelling of society in the years prior to the annexation of St Helena and it would seem likely that the thinking of those tasked with establishing settlement on the island would have been informed by this. The word ‘paper’ is attached here to ‘utopia’ because the way in which the company envisaged St Helena developing did not really escape from the page, reality, too often bloody reality, sullying high ideals. Margaret Cavendish herself wrote of the fragility of ‘paper bodies’;203 for paper can easily be crumpled and torn and this is a metaphor for what happened to the society depicted on the pages penned in East India House; the idealism of the early years did not last. Ideas of democracy did not equate with absolute equality, St Helena was not to be a commune. The company’s governor was always to have ultimate authority; John Dutton’s commission made this clear from before the acquisition: we doe hereby require and command all our people whom wee have now appointed or shall hereafter appoint to reside upon the said island that they acknowledge and receive you for their Governour attending to this

ST HELENA AND THE EAST INDIA COMPANY

39

our commission and render unto you that respect as is due unto you and as becometh them to yield.204 However, there was also to be a council, which for the next 24 years had civilian representation and Dutton was to ‘make shore of three of the most ablest, discreete and honest persons to be Counsell with you and your Leftenant,’ the governor to have the casting vote when matters were tied. One of the council, not an EIC appointee, was to keep a record of the meetings, the consultations; all were to sign and the original record was to be forwarded to London.205 Robert Stringer’s commission of 1660 required that six persons were to be members of the council, two to be appointed by himself and four by the freeholders.206 However, six years later, he was informed that he was to appoint as the council: two of the most knowing persons who are servants to the Company (whereof Mr Henry Gargen [being sent as deputy governor] to be one) and the other twoe out of the free planters and in case of a difference, & that the votes be even, the Governor to have the casting voice.207 The free planter majority had lasted only seven years. In addition to the council, there were occasional mass meetings, General Courts, and these would be held away from the military establishment, in the Market House, for example, as in September 1681, notice of which was issued as early as February that year.208 No minutes of meetings held under this early democracy have survived, the first records of consultations being from 1675 to 1676 in the British Library, whilst the earliest in the St Helena Archives date from the arrival of Governor Blackmore in 1678, by which time civilian councillors were out-numbered. Maybe there are no records not because they have been lost, but because meetings were not held. Captain Richard Coney was the third Governor from 1669 until dismissed in 1672. Letters and petitions from St Helena, writers including the minister, had reached East India House complaining of Coney’s ‘unjust and arbitrary proceedings’.209 Chief amongst his faults was that he had ‘managed all affairs there without the assistance of the council appointed to advise him.’210 In Coney’s letter of dismissal of June 1672, sent down along with his successor, Captain Anthony Beale, he was reminded that ‘wee gave you instructions to manage… with the advice and consent of ye Councill.’ Another problem was that Coney had not organised ‘an equal distribution of what we have appointed to ye inhabitants for their encouragement,’ which indicates a rather utopian view about how company largesse should be shared out. Coney, then, had disobeyed the strictures regarding at least a veneer of democracy and equality and he was ordered back to England.211 There were other intimations of democracy. In 1660 when East India House wrote to Robert Stringer, then about 50, to appoint him as governor, for all they knew he would be dead before the orders reached him. In such an event, or if Stringer would not take on the position offered, the freeholders had the power to elect ‘some able, honest person amongst themselves to bee their governour.’212 There were occasional elections, never for governor, but for church wardens and overseers of the highways, and the democratic process was

40

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

protected in that persons who eventually acquired large holdings through their own ‘thrift and good management’ or others’ ‘debauchery, folly and ignorance … shall notwithstanding hath but one personall vote.’213 This civilian democracy was in the gift of the governor, who could remove councillors for being ‘remiss or negligent’. This was confirmed in 1681,214 and two civilians were expelled from the council that year when there were stirrings of resistance to company rule (see Chapter 7).215 Early instructions pleaded that people should ‘live together in love and amity’;216 although the route to such ‘love and amity, without endeavouring to raise any mutiny’ was ‘due obedience’ to the governor and the observance of company orders and people unwilling to opt for the love, amity and obedience path were to be subject to ‘speedy removal from ye Island.’217 But at least love and amity were on the agenda, as were hopes that people would help each other. In time the free planters would ‘have gained estates to purchase themselves servants and negroes’, but at the start, ‘the best waie for people to live comfortably and go more chearfully about their business’ would be for five or six to ‘joyne … togither that each may be helpful and an assistant to the other.’218 That phrase was written in 1660 and at that time plans for St Helena comprised radical proposals for a democratic, land-holding, tax-paying democracy along with this support for co-operative working. Negroes were not then termed ‘slaves’ and the instruction to the company agents at Fort Cormantine from whom supplies of these people were obtained was that they be ‘lusty’ and ‘young’ and also ‘may bee such as will voluntarily and without compulsion sail in ye ship.’219 There were further orders that towards ‘Blacks’ (as they are usually called in the records) the company overseers were not to be ‘too cruell’.220 That Negro children were to be educated has already been mentioned. That some Negroes might eventually become free planters themselves was also stated as a possibility and ‘our Negroes’ were to be taught Christianity, and, if suitable, could be baptised.221 This was quite liberal, for Michael Zuckerman has shown that baptism was amongst the ‘commonalities’ denied slaves in other seventeenth century English colonies.222 The way in which the company established the practice of Christianity on St Helena would have been seen by them as a social good, as would setting up a system of justice. These matters will be discussed in Chapter 4, for now let it be noted that letters from East India House frequently contained pious axioms about religion and justice, one from 1677 can serve as an example: We recommend unto you the encouragement of the practice of true religion, virtue, justice and all honest and good converse with one another that none may receive wrong. But all just complaints may be afforded not only a hearing but all justice administered unto them that good may be encouraged and Evill persons for their crimes punished that the peace and quietness may be preserved.223 Perhaps the last utopian message was one in 1678 when planters were urged to ‘succor each other’.224 By that time East India House had generally begun to adopt a more authoritarian tone, as evidenced by the complaints about planters failing to become self-sufficient reproduced above. John Keay in his history of

ST HELENA AND THE EAST INDIA COMPANY

41

the EIC distinguished, too, between the company’s attitude to St Helena before and after the 1670s: the first period being characterised as a ‘Cromwellian commonwealth of market gardeners’; the second ‘a plantation economy in which the erstwhile smallholders became feudal serfs obliged to work the land and supply recruits for the garrison.’225 How far the island had travelled from the hopes expressed almost 20 years earlier might be seen from Governor Blackmore having appealed—unsuccessfully—to East India House to be sent the same number of soldiers as he had planters to enable him to keep the planters ‘in good order’.226 Further, in Blackmore’s first consultation in 1678 it was decreed that councillors had to keep their ‘debates, discourses, consultations or resolutions … very private and secret excepting such orders or declarations as are agreed … to be made publike.’ All the councillors, then three planters outnumbered by military men in the form of the governor, deputy governor, two lieutenants and a visiting ship’s captain, signed this document restricting the public’s right to know of the workings of their government.227 Civilians continued on council for just a while longer. John Luffkin, a sober and serious planter, was ‘nominated, chosen, appointed and admitted’ on 25 October 1683,228 as there were then only four councillors, a lieutenant having been dismissed for excessive drinking.229 However, by this time East India House had decided to remove civilians from positions of power in St Helena, it being so decreed in the commission to Deputy Governor Robert Holden issued on 20 June 1683. Further, ‘all inhabitants, officers and soldiers entertained in our service [were] to be obedient unto our said Governor … Deputy Governor and Councill’.230 Holden, together with a new ensign, surgeon, minister and writer (Richard Kelinge, later governor), arrived aboard Charles II on 3 January 1684 and from the council meeting of 8 January Luffkin lost his position as civilian participation in the government of the company colony ended.231 In April that year planters were dismissively described by East India House as ‘loose and negligent’;232 in October came sedition, during which Governor Blackmore ordered the garrison to open fire on the protestors and several were killed, followed by the controversial execution of several more (see Chapter 7). The paper utopia was torn to shreds. ‘Too much pity spoils a Citty’ was now to be the watchword and the planters were to be kept down, and further, disarmed.233 Soon after that came the assassination of a governor (see Chapter 8), a slave revolt and the ten year reign of the former Huguenot refugee Governor Stephen Poirier, not a person amenable to carrying out instructions and the company ceased to issue strictures on the improvement of society, expending their ink instead on hectoring Poirier, with singular lack of success. This illustrates an inescapable fact about the company’s dealings with St Helena. They could advise, they could issue orders, but unless they could get a ship’s captain to take direct action, there was little they could physically do to dictate events on their remote island other than dismiss people. Chaplains, surgeons and officers, including governors, were sacked although never Poirier, despite many threats, but it was not easy to get better replacements for the devils they knew. Another problem was that people in post could die and have to be replaced sometimes by inexperienced juniors. Governor Richard Kelinge, in power from 1693 until his natural death in 1698 had arrived at St Helena as a lowly writer (clerk) in 1684, following which one governor fell down a mountain

42

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

and the next was assassinated leaving him as senior man. Kelinge’s successor was Poirier, who had been sent in 1689 not as a potential military commander and leader but to grow vines. After what must have been the welcome news of Poirier’s death from dropsy in 1707, the company for the first time since the appointment of Governor Blackmore in 1678 engaged an active new broom from outside, rather than promoting somebody already on St Helena. This may have come as a surprise, perhaps a disappointment, to Poirier’s deputy governor, Thomas Goodwin, who, maybe on the expectation of the governor’s salary, had built a substantial property in 1707, Alarm House (Figure 2.13). Governor John Roberts arrived in 1708, and with him the company’s ideas of social good revived and missives from London became more positive regarding good government, justice, worship, order and morality. Democracy itself returned in some form for Roberts was told when considering regulations for general benefit to ‘summon the Chiefest of the inhabitants together in the nature of a Common Council and there to agree upon such methods as shall be found most proper.’234 The results were to be pinned up in public places and also announced on two successive Sundays in church. The Common Council, later referred to as a General Assembly, was also to rule upon the use of the death penalty.235

Figure 2.13 Alarm House, the central part built by Deputy Governor Thomas Goodwin in 1707.

ST HELENA AND THE EAST INDIA COMPANY

43

The translation of the paper utopia into an actual society proved impossible on seventeenth century St Helena, given the circumstances of the time and place. However, ideals of planning had some success in built form, for the company imposed regulations that tended to improve the appearance of the settlement. Often they were to do with defence, particularly an edict against allowing houses to be built on the seaward side of Fort James, which might have interfered with operations against a seaborne enemy. But there were also rules about houses having to be built regularly, as in instructions regarding the resettling of the island after the Dutch hiatus in 1673.236 Some years later there had to be ‘all possible regard to the uniformity and regularity of the streets and buildings after the manner they are now in London.’ Buildings not conforming to the plan were to be altered or demolished ‘for the publique good and accommodation of ye generality of the inhabitants.’237 The company did not find it so easy to arrange the human possessions in its colony for ‘publique’ or, indeed, economic good.

3 ‘CARRY FREE PLANTERS TO ST HELENA (IF ANY ARE WILLING TO GO)’: Peopling the Company Colony

Company colonies were not settler colonies, smaller-scale versions of Canada or Australia, places to which people from the mother country would go or could be sent. Their raison d’être was to support the imperatives of their ruling trading company, imperatives that might well be at odds with the development of substantial settlement even if the state that chartered them wished this. Thus, the Hudson’s Bay Company under its 1849 licence from Queen Victoria making it the ‘absolute Lords and Proprietors’ of Vancouver Island was charged with establishing ‘upon the said Island, a settlement or settlements of Resident Colonist Emigrants from our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or from other Our dominions.’1 That these instructions clashed sometimes with the needs of ‘the trade’ is clear from a journal entry by colonial governor and also Hudson Bay Company chief factor, James Douglas in 1853 agonising about the release of lots for settlement at Nanaimo, then a company mining camp: ‘I should much prefer leaving the place as it is… in the Company’s hands, but that course would be opposed to the legitimate progress of the Colony and give rise to a great deal of public clamour against the Company which would be desirable to avoid.’2 Douglas’s worries about company interests being swamped proved prescient, for a few years later Vancouver Island was overwhelmed by migrants passing through to a gold rush on the mainland and had to be taken out of company control and assigned to the crown. Getting the balance of population correct was something all colonies had to attempt; on St Helena it was usually a struggle to establish a population of sufficient size to meet the needs of its company. ‘Ye number of our Englishmen are not sufficient to defend this place’: immigration to St Helena planned from London (i) pre-1673 In a document of 11 January 1659 relating to the annexation of St Helena appears the phrase ‘fortifie and plant on the said island.’3 The archaic spelling does not disguise the sense of ‘fortifie’, but ‘plant’ requires some interpretation. Its meaning incorporates settlement and the establishment of population as well as literally planting crops. The terminology was carried forward in that the civilians to whom land was granted were known as ‘planters’. It is not known

PEOPLING THE COMPANY COLONY

45

how many in the first voyage were of this status, but their number must have been small given the size of the party decided upon in 1658: ‘after long debate [the company] unanimously resolves to send forty men with all expedition to remain on the island with conveniences to fortify and begin a plantation there.’4 A few months later it was reported that another ‘six men shall be sent to supply the plantation and guard of St Helena.’5 Governor John Dutton was to focus on fortifying the new colony, ‘but while this work is going on,’ he was to ‘proceede to the planting of your provisions.’ To help with these tasks he was to ‘procure 5 or 6 Blacks or Negroes’ at St Iago,6 and from the first, the importation of slaves was part of the peopling of St Helena. Further assistance came from indentured labourers, people whose passage costs were to be repaid by labour obligations. For example, in 1664 ten men were ‘to be entertained for four years … and then to be free to remain there or return home.’7 If they stayed they would become free planters. In the late 1670s apprentices were also sent. The use of indentured servants in seventeenth century colonisation schemes was common. There are contemporary descriptions of such people being of low quality, but a modern analysis of those going to the Chesapeake area of North America found that they originated from ‘a broad spectrum of working people.’8 This sector of the St Helena population was relatively small compared to other colonies. People brought under at least some duress to the island were necessary since sufficient volunteers to settle there could not be assured. England and the wider British Isles were already settling Bermuda, several Caribbean islands and the North American colonies, in addition to supplying migrants to Ireland. It has been estimated that 25-30,000 emigrants in total left during the first three decades of the seventeenth century, increasing to 6500-8000 annually from 1630 to 1660.9 By the 1640s, even one of the most successful of the colonies, Barbados, was having to rely increasingly on the importation of slaves rather than settlers from the British Isles to supply its labour needs.10 St Helena had serious competition as a destination, and when the company decided in 1660 to send Dutton on to Run, the pinnace, African, bought for that purpose and sent to collect his party would ‘carry free planters to St Helena (if any are willing to go).’11 They would have been sorely needed for when Dutton left St Helena in 1661, his party of 32 constituted the majority of the population. Margaret Wilber reported that the company as a result of the ‘fear’ of insufficient people on St Helena put posters up in London describing ‘the joys of pioneer life on the island’.12 This comment presumably related to the ‘direction’ of the Court of Committees in April 1662 ‘for bills to be set up in convenient places to encourage men and women to go to St Helena as free planters, the Company giving them free passage and land to plant upon.’13 The campaign had limited success for Henry Gargen’s report on his period on the island from 1661 to 1665 portrayed a tiny, struggling society (Table 3.1, Appendix 3). The governor lived in some style with three servants and four slaves, but other than the deputy governor, nobody else had servants. There were only four planters, who with the company plantation, a couple of the garrison who kept cows and a small plot run by the slaves formed the agricultural sector. Whilst the pastoral economy was doing well, arable agriculture was bedevilled by problems from adverse weather conditions,

46

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

through infestations by pests to ‘ye planters having little skill’, achieving yields lower than the slaves. Gargen mentioned some deaths having occurred— especially by drowning—and people, including his family, were leaving, three men had already illegally stowed away.14 In 1666 a French visitor who saw round St Helena estimated the population at 50 men and twenty women with six slaves.15 This was insufficient and the population problems of St Helena were again referred to the EIC’s Court of Committees.16 This had some success for by the end of that year the captain of Charles was ordered to sail directly to St Helena with migrants, including Henry Gargen who was ‘againe entertained’ to return as ‘second to our governor’ as well as manager of the dairy. Governor Stringer was sent a schedule of the migrants but that document has not survived and it is not known how many took passage.17 In 1668 it was reported in London that ‘several persons are willing to go at their own charge to St Helena, if on arrival they are given some land and cattle,’18 although in 1670 people were still ‘wanted on the island for its better defence and security,’19 or, as another source that year put it with stark clarity: ‘ye number of our Englishmen are not sufficient to defend this place if it should be assaulted by an enemy.’20 ‘Our’ Englishmen seemed to have particular meaning for despite the difficulty in attracting people, some groups of English were not permitted to go to St Helena. Richard Coney was only appointed governor in 1669 providing that neither he nor his wife were found to be ‘of the Romish religion’ and he was entitled to take with him ‘his son, a kinswoman and her maid-servant, also one or two men servants, provided all are Protestants.’21 In 1670 the company arranged to have one of its ships bound for Bantam instead be sent to St Helena ‘to encourage … young persons to go there,’22 and 50 planters and their wives were so encouraged. A fortnight later it was decided that either Unicorn or John and Martha would be hired to take them to the island with ‘a good minister, if one is to be had on reasonable terms.’23 The vessel chosen was Unicorn, and her captain, Thomas Harman, was to acquire another 24 Negroes from St Iago. The new settlers (not the Negroes) were to receive land grants and were to be supported ‘with provisions from our own plantation till they shall have of their own.’ Amongst the passengers was, indeed, a minister, William Noakes, who was also to be allowed a plantation of 20 acres in extent as well as ‘4 milch cows and 2 Blacks, a man and his wife.’ (Sadly, as Chapter 4 will demonstrate, he was not a ‘good minister’). Unicorn also carried building materials to help erect the structures necessary for the new plantations.24 Retaining those sent to the colony was another helpful strategy. In 1666 it was hoped that soldiers stationed on the island would remain as planters,25 whilst the repatriation of people for breaking the law was not to become the norm. In 1671 East India House expressed dismay that ‘one Bowes had been sent home for some misdemeanours.’ The governor was instructed not to exile people ‘for every offence’. ‘Where men have been at pains to settle, and are well-established, it is very hard that they should be deprived of all and sent away,’ was one reason stated although as always, there was the company’s interest, which was ‘that the island should be well peopled and planted.’26 Some idea of how far the company had achieved these objectives prior to the Dutch invasion can be gained from the description of a Spanish cleric, Dominick Fernandez Navarette, who celebrated Christmas on St Helena in 1670: ‘In that place there is a little town of

PEOPLING THE COMPANY COLONY

47

English who till the ground, sow rice, make butter and cheese. There are some sorts of fruit, swine and goats that were put in by the Dutch and Portuguese so there is refreshment enough there at present.’27 ‘Ye encouragement of more persons to go’: immigration to St Helena planned from London (ii) post-1673 The company’s efforts to plant their island were abruptly set at nought by the Dutch conquest of 1673 when almost all the people were expelled (see Chapter 8), arriving back in England in ‘great want’.28 After St Helena was regained it had to be populated afresh. Two ships, European, Captain James Setter, and, given that ‘European cannot take all the provisions and passengers designed for St Helena,’29 John and Alexander, Captain Samuel Richards, were hired to transport in addition to military forces, a civilian population to St Helena. This was an expensive business; the company’s contract to European was for 100 passengers at £6 per head,30 plus a fee of three shillings ‘head money’ per passenger to the doctors.31 Eighty-four civilians were carried and another 35 went down on John and Alexander. Some were going to reoccupy their plantations, although the company weeded out those not ‘fit to return’ through consultation with Captain Anthony Beale, the governor who had lost St Helena and was going back as deputy governor. Settlers, as always, needed practical skills. When Walter Raleigh had planned his colony of Roanoke in the late sixteenth century, in addition to specialists in the fields he hoped to promote such as metal workers, he had been advised to secure those skilled in jobs ‘needed to keep the settlers alive’: ‘carpenters and joiners, tallow chandlers and wax chandlers, bowstave preparers and bowyers, fletchers and arrowhead makers, men to rough-hew pikestaffs and other men to finish them.’32 For St Helena nearly a century later, there was not such a focus on weaponry, rather ‘artificers [such] as bricklayers, masons, carpenters, coopers, smiths etc shall be entertained and encouraged to go to the island, with allowance of tools freely given to them for their several works and professions.’33 A list of the 119 migrants has survived for this voyage (Table 3.2, Appendix 3).34 The only occupations recorded were those of the deputy governor, surgeon, minister, armourer and the servants. The rest of the passengers were presumably these artificers and planters, many with families. In the case of the single women and some of the women servants they were probably journeying to the island in the expectation of an early marriage (see Chapter 5). The list is headed by Captain Beale, William Swindell the minister, and the ‘chyrurgion’ (surgeon), Francis Moore. Moore’s salary was £25 per annum, with free diet at the company’s table and a gratuity of £5 p.a.; by contrast Richard Moseley, the armourer, was to receive £12 p.a. with his food.35 Captain and Mrs Beale and their two children required seven servants. Dr Moore, his wife and three children had three servants; other families had fewer, a couple of them none. The minister, who had no family, had one servant. Black servants had their race denoted, 12 ‘Negro servants of the Company’ were sent in a group as well as those within households.36 A month after these ships sailed, Loyal Merchant was to be sent down with 40 more planters and 20 young women with their provisions.37

48

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

The men amongst the 1673 settlers were required to serve in the militia, like those sent before the invasion. The following year the company was looking for a further 50 planters to go to St Helena specifically ‘to lessen the cost of soldiers’ there.38 The necessity of such multi-tasking, typical of the requirements placed upon residents of small islands anywhere, was to be reinforced in 1683 when regarding new members of the garrison sent on Charles 2: we have as near as we could listed no souldier but such as are of some occupation or other that they might be more usefull to assist our governor in the Companies buildings, plantations or other works and our Agreement with them is that they shall be always ready to serve the Company when they are not upon or excused from their duty as souldiers.39 A 1674 voyage of Johannah was intended to take 100 passengers to St Helena, but it seemed that the company could not fill this quota and the captain, Hopefor Bendall, was encouraged to seek out more migrants at Gravesend ‘of which he was to inform them [the EIC directors] by sending a list’ before he set sail—evidence of the careful watch the company kept on St Helena’s population.40 Another 20 young men and ten young women were sought in 1676.41 These may well have been the apprentices mentioned in a dispatch to Governor Richard Field later that year. They were bound for five years, but ‘at the expiration of this term [were] to be allowed such encouragement as other single persons … received at their coming over.’42 In 1680 the company reiterated the rules regarding land grants to migrants: basically ten acres and a cow for a single man, 20 and two cows for a couple. Single men upon marriage to a planter’s daughter or to an English woman sent down got another ten acres and a cow.43 The EIC in 1684 wrote ‘as soon as we hear [how] our people are settled upon ye island we shall publish our propositions here for ye encouragement of more persons to go from hence and we believe many will present.’44 Most of the migrants became landholders. Daniel Beeckman said in 1714 that there were 70 or 80 houses in Chapel Valley, ‘which are inhabited by Planters, who come down [to trade] when ships are here; otherwise they generally keep at their Plantations up the Country, which is more profitable and pleasant to them.’45 A minor source of population was Huguenot refugees from France. John Ovington visited St Helena in 1689 on Benjamin and ‘hither we brought … several Refugees from the Tyranny and Persecutions of France, who found a competent Subsistence and Relief from the Bounty of the Company upon this island.’ Amongst the group was the Poirier family with three sons and five daughters.46 They were to be part of the company’s proposal to develop viticulture and the head of this household, Stephen, went on to become governor. ‘If you meet with a sober chaplain’: taking people from ships Another source of civilian settlers was from those who had occasion to be at the island. Sometimes company servants on completion of their contracts would transfer to the civilian population rather than return to England. In 1674 when war with the Dutch ended, the company sought to reduce expenses by downsizing its garrison on St Helena. Only 75 soldiers were to be retained, the

PEOPLING THE COMPANY COLONY

49

‘remainder informed of the Company’s terms for staying on the island as free planters. If they do not accept these terms they are to be sent home.’47 Additionally, sailors or passengers in ships could be induced to stay. Thus, in 1669 when the company was struggling to attract inhabitants, an order accompanying the new governor, Richard Coney, to the island stated that: any English passengers or seamen upon our returned ships from India [that] shall desire to stay upon our island as Free Planters and have ye consent of ye respective commanders, it is our order [that] you permit them and lett out to each of them ye same quantity of grounds and other privileges as other Freemen have had.48 Thus a lowly seaman could become a landowner. It is not known how many seamen availed themselves of the offer, but they would have had to get permission to leave their ship, and, commanders being unlikely to allow their vessels to become short-handed, it must be assumed that numbers were small. On occasion, servicemen from ships, probably unaware of the opportunity they had in theory to apply to stay, would desert at St Helena. John Croplands, a soldier aboard New London did not rejoin his vessel ‘upon some thwarting words from an officer,’ and was punished for desertion, but then enlisted into the garrison.49 Sometimes seamen staying on St Helena had not volunteered to do so as captains sometimes abandoned sick or troublesome sailors. These people were not necessarily made free planters. John Davis, having been expelled from Rochester, was nonetheless judged to be a ‘painfull, careful sober man’ by a councillor in 1685 and was taken into company employment to mind horses and cattle.50 Another sailor left off sick from Johannah in 1679 became a servant for several years before becoming a soldier.51 Seamen and passengers were not the only people taken from ships. Sometimes ‘Madagascar ships’, slavers working that island, would call seeking water and refreshment for which payment would have to be made. That payment could be in slaves: ‘cause them to be employed in taking in more ground for the inlargement of the Company’s plantations,’ was the instruction to Governor Blackmore in 1681.52 Ten such Madagascar slaves were to be bought ‘in truck’ for beef or other provisions in 1698.53 Ships were also a source for company officers, such as surgeons and chaplains. The story of having to use islanders as surgeons until one could be hired from a ship in 1680 was told in Chapter 2. In 1689, the company instructed their governor thus: ‘If you meet with a sober chaplain in any of our returning ships you may entertain him.’54 ‘Census to be taken of all inhabitants in ye usual place of abode’: counting heads The company needed to monitor population in order to refine its policy, whilst the effect of the extensive migration in the 1670s needed to be examined. This included the eastward spread of people after the initial penetration of the island from Chapel Valley and the upland area above it, evidenced by the need by 1680 for a school and a church in the eastern division (see Chapter 2). Hence a census was ordered in 1681.55 The next year, after new settlement was established at Sandy Bay ‘towards the windward part of the Island,’56 another

50

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Census [was] to be taken of all inhabitants in ye usual place of abode and to take an exact account of all ye persons, male and female, old and young, whites and blacks in each family or household with their respective ages as precisely as they may and likewise they are to take ye number of all neate [neat or domesticated] cattle that any Officer, Soldier, Free Planter or any other hath in his owne or any others possession for him on the sayd Island, with the severall kinds and ages of them all returning a speedy account that the same may be transmitted to ye said Honourable Company by ye next returning ship.57 The process was cumbersome: in 1687 instructions were for ‘all the inhabitants to bring in a true list of all of their familys, men, women and children, blacks and whites, with all their stock of neat cattle and land each person hath or had this last year unto the Sessions House on the same Wednesday ye 30th Instant.’58 This proclamation was made on 17 March, so the inhabitants had almost a fortnight to survey their households and property. The population history of St Helena is summarised in Figure 3.1 and Table 3.3 (Appendix 3), calculated from a variety of sources as few of the censuses seem to have survived. Multipliers of 4.17 for male planters and 0.6 for adult male slaves, figures based on the few details of household structures for the island at this period, are used to help calculate the totals placed on Figure 3.1. This exercise is speculative, but what seems secure is the size relationships between the different elements of the population and the distinctions between the situation before and after the 1673 expulsion. Precise figures are known from a surviving census of 1722 (Table 3.4, Appendix 3).59 St Helena then had 924 inhabitants, almost half of whom were slaves, a total about 18 times higher than that of the voyage of occupation 63 years earlier. ‘Your island abounds with young people’: St Helena as a population reservoir The EIC went to considerable lengths and great expense to twice establish a population on St Helena. It was successful enough for, on occasion, St Helena to be used as a population reservoir when emigration was organised to serve the company’s wider purposes. Soldiers in company service could be posted from St Helena to other places, although there is evidence that their wishes were sometimes considered. For example, in 1701, Thomas Abbey asked for permission to serve in Bombay and as there was not then a shortage of soldiers on St Helena, he was permitted to go, given ‘he was little skilled in military discipline’ anyway.60 A few years later at the higher end of the military scale Deputy Governor Cornelius Sodrington was dismissed as ‘he does not at all answer our Expectation nor the character which his friends gave of him when first recommended to us,’ and he was sent to Borneo as a Lieutenant.61 Civilians who had transgressed the company’s law could be exiled as part of their punishment—to company advantage. Thus in the troubled period following the 1684 sedition (see Chapter 7), whilst some rebels were executed, others were eventually pardoned and considered for exile to Fort St George, the company settlement at Madras. It was hoped they ‘may live happier and thrive upon any

PEOPLING THE COMPANY COLONY

51

Figure 3.1 St Helena population, 1659-1722. calling’ but they were to be paid only as soldiers. Governor Blackmore was told in the same dispatch that all those banished from the island were from then to be sent to India.62 The domination of the EIC over the lives of those on the island was illustrated by the fact that people not on its payroll and who had not been convicted were regarded as assets to be moved elsewhere for the company’s benefit. In a neat encapsulation of the concept of overpopulation, East India

52

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

House commented to Governor Blackmore in 1689 that ‘we know your island abounds with young people which growing up can hardly find room to subsist within your narrow limits.’ The dispatch detailed a policy to alleviate this situation in that Blackmore was to permit all young people over 14, if their parents assented, ‘to take passage on this ship, the Benjamin for Bombay.’ Their passage would be subsidised, costing migrants only £4. Young men upon arrival would be engaged as soldiers; women, ‘may soon get husbands there, where there is a great want of Englishwomen.’63 Overpopulation was not normal for early St Helena and the use of the island as a population reservoir was amended when circumstances changed. In 1704 some St Helena civilians were still being allowed to decamp to company settlements elsewhere—Bombay again, Benjar on Borneo, but not now Pulo Condore (an island off Vietnam where the company had established a factory in 1702) as the EIC had abandoned its interests there. However there was no longer a blanket encouragement for people to leave. The company realised that ‘quiet, useful people’ were of benefit to St Helena itself and Governor Poirier was instructed to dissuade such persons from emigration, indeed he was to try to conceal from them knowledge of opportunities elsewhere.64 By 1712 the policy had changed to active discouragement of emigration. Benjamin Boucher, another governor who distressed East India House (for not ‘studying our interest’), had bought into company control several civilian plantations. This led to him being criticised on two counts. Firstly because East India House had determined that private enterprise was superior to company employment when it came to managing St Helena’s agricultural sector (see Chapter 2)—‘witness Hutt’s Plantation and the others you complain of which are gone to ruine because the People look after them for our account and not their own.’ Secondly as ‘it is against all policy to contribute to the depopulating of any place as this naturally tends to,’65 given that planters bought out by Boucher were leaving. ‘To serve ye Company’: St Helena and East India Company expansion Part of the operation of St Helena as a population reservoir was the way in which it contributed to the EIC’s territorial expansion. The story of John Dutton and his two-stage journey from London to Run via St Helena has been told, including its potentially deleterious impact on St Helena’s population. St Helena featured also in the development of the pepper-trading centre at Bencoolen (Bengkulu) on Sumatra, founded in 1685. In 1687 as well as any surplus soldiers, Governor Blackmore was instructed to send there the sons of planters aged 16 or 17, either as soldiers ‘or such as can write and read for writers to serve ye Company.’ They were to be volunteers, although the governor was reminded that he had the power to banish miscreants to Bencoolen. Indeed, William Cox, one of those condemned after the 1684 rebellion, was to be sent there as a free man, with the pay of a soldier. Blackmore was also ordered to send eight or ten slaves, either from the company’s stock on St Helena or by purchase from elsewhere. Especially welcome would be those who could speak English or Portuguese.66 These people would be sent with Captain Harding, who was to call at St Helena en route to Bencoolen, and whose own orders were to take in addition from St Helena surplus casks and hoops, together with provisions and other material.67 There was much further

PEOPLING THE COMPANY COLONY

53

discussion in East India House before Harding actually left England about plans to make Bencoolen a considerable settlement. One hundred tons of stones were ordered from St Helena for building gun platforms with not ten Negroes as originally arranged, but up to 16.68 A few days later the company agreed to furnish from St Helena roots and the seeds of yams, potatoes and limes, also two tons of beef, which had to be properly salted, so extra salt was to be sent with Harding. Other company posts were also to help establish Bencoolen, it ‘being of mighty concernment to the nacon [nation]’.69 A few days later, yet another letter written to Harding, whose voyage had been delayed, increased the order of stone from St Helena to 200 tons, with the addition of cows, sows and a boar. Also as well as the single men, five St Helena families could go, not more until Bencoolen’s Fort York, built on a small hill to the south of the Bengkulu River mouth, was ‘completely strengthened to resist any enemy.’70 In 1699 Governor Poirier was to employ his ‘useless Black children or other negroes to best advantage’ until the arrival of a vessel which would take them to Bencoolen, where, presumably, they would be of greater utility.71 Further, in 1703 Poirier was required to send surplus slaves to Bencoolen ‘where we are in great want of them.’72 Characteristic of Poirier’s troubled relationship with East India House, his response was deemed inadequate, for the next year he was criticised for the quality of the slaves dispatched. He had sent eight ‘black wenches’ and a boy, but ‘we don’t want children but serviceable people there and such we expect you would have sent when you write you are oversubscribed with Blacks.’73 Further slaves were sought in 1705 and 1708.74 Bencoolen was never profitable for the Company; it has been described recently as being ‘a relative backwater’, despite initial hopes that it would become as significant as Bantam had been. The supply of pepper in the region was not sufficient and the climate of the area not amenable to European settlement, but nonetheless the company remained until 1824, helping to develop a substantial Chinese community, before ceding it to the Dutch in exchange for territory elsewhere.75 St Helena was also a potential staging post for settlement of Tristan da Cunha. Once this island’s potentially strategic location in the South Atlantic had come to attention, the company planned to occupy it. First, enquiry had to be made as to its suitability for settlement, a process to be carried out from St Helena. In 1684 Governor Blackmore was instructed to make up a party of ‘some intelligent person’ to serve as governor with five soldiers and three or four Negroes, with their wives, to venture to Tristan to investigate if there was a harbour, river or good anchorage. The expedition would be supplied with stores and weapons including eight cannon for defence and it was to build a fort.76 Detailed instructions were given for Blackmore to transmit to the person chosen as governor. There is no record of this particular expedition taking place; presumably it was to have been the voyage of Tonquin Merchant, which had to be abandoned after the crew mutinied in the road at St Helena and sailed away with the ship.77 However, the company sent at least three other ships to investigate possibilities, if always with a realisation that Tristan da Cunha and the islands adjacent (Inaccessible and Nightingale) might provide ‘no encouragement for a settlement.’78 No attempt was made to set up even a temporary base, and Tristan da Cunha waited until 1816 for organised occupation when a British naval party annexed it. Perhaps the lack of a safe anchorage was what dissuaded the EIC

54

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

from taking it earlier, for during its occupation the British navy lost 55 people when HMS Julia was driven ashore in 1817.79 ‘Great trouble and vexation’: the care of orphans Let us now consider company policy to one sub-group of the population, the orphans. The attitude towards these children reveals another aspect of population policy, also the operation of the company as the authority responsible for such young people. Orphans were important to a small society that usually needed increased population, so they had to be cherished being part of the coming generation. Further, they would often have inherited property, cattle and land from their parents and these assets had to be managed. The care of orphans featured rarely in instructions from London, their substantial place in the records is largely within the St Helena consultations. In 1678 a company orphan was issued to the wife of a man taken into EIC service as a drummer.80 The child was to be a servant, thus indicating that orphans were regarded for their labour value; some older ones were set to work on the company plantation. However, more often orphans were a cost and responsibility and what would now be called care packages were set up for them. Only a few case examples need to be detailed. In 1682, the surgeon, Francis Moore, died. His orphaned children were assigned to a planter with a slave issued from company’s stock to help look after them. However, the slave was surly and rude and the planter traded him back to the company, accepting instead payment of 2s 6d per week.81 Later that year several siblings were orphaned. The oldest, 14, was assigned to a planter to work his keep, being bound for three years. Younger children were assigned to families with payments made for their keep from returns from their parents’ livestock. They were all to be taught to read. A daughter of ten was put into the minister’s family. Her sister of six was placed with another family for a period of seven years. A son of seven was assigned to the family of Lieutenant Morris. Morris also took the baby of one month and, as seemed usual with orphaned babies, was issued with a slave, Anthony, to help with her care.82 In 1683 the consultations have several pages detailing the arrangements made for the orphans of Dr Moore and of Widow (Mary) Orchard, in the latter’s case down to the details of the disposition of the milk from her three cows: Molly, Cherry and Welcome.83 In addition to being taught to read, orphans might be taught skills, sewing being one in the case of girls. For boys it could be a trade. Thus a planter and cordwainer (shoemaker), Thomas Box, agreed to take as an apprentice for 12 years an orphan, Leonard Hunt, then aged between six and eight, who could not be dismissed during this period, was to be properly fed and be given a set of cordwainer’s tools at the end of his apprenticeship.84 In Maryland at the same period orphans were also being apprenticed to teach them a trade.85 Inevitably there were cases where orphans were badly treated, but the company, through the appointment of executors, continued to oversee the care of children towards whom it had responsibility, so the ill-treatment could be checked and those responsible brought to court. In 1683, the family looking after an orphan who had been beaten and forced to sleep outside was reminded of the contractual agreement to provide proper care.86 The same year George Sheldon was charged with frequently entertaining ‘a lewd woman’, Sarah

PEOPLING THE COMPANY COLONY

55

Marshall, in the house of a dead planter, where lived orphan children under Sheldon’s supervision. Sheldon was ordered to keep away from Marshall himself and, especially, to keep the children from her, on pain that he would have both house and children taken away. There was ‘much debate and long discourse’ on this matter, led by the orphans’ two executors.87 The company gunner, Andrew Phillips, did lose an orphan he had agreed to take. The boy, James Young, had been assigned to Phillips in 1682 but had not been taught to read as had been agreed. In 1686, now 15, Young was deemed to be too old to go to another family, so was removed from Phillips to be put to work on the company plantation, the overseer of which was to see to his education. Young’s labour on the plantation would pay for his food, until he could be taken into ‘service’ presumably as a farm labourer when the opportunity arose.88 By contrast, there were cases when it was the orphan who caused problems and the company also had a duty towards the persons who took on the responsibility of care. The planter who had been assigned one of the Orchard boys but had had ‘great trouble and vexation’ from him brought him before the governor. Young Orchard was ‘publiquely whipt’, to bring him ‘unto an orderly and regular cause of living’ before being returned to the planter for a three year trial period.89 ‘Carry free planters … (if any are willing to go)’: conclusion This chapter has shown the initial difficulty in getting people to live on St Helena as civilians, as opposed to those brought in a military or administrative capacity. Even the inducement of free land seems not to have produced a flood of potential settlers: ‘carry free planters … (if any are willing to go)’ exemplified the pessimism of 1660. However, numbers did pick up, perhaps through the inclusion in its migration voyages of young single women as an ‘encouragement’ to settlers. In 1673 the company had to start again because of the Dutch hiatus. It seems to have been more successful second time round with hundreds of people going down in the middle years of that decade, even if they were not the cream of English society: ‘the minds of the inhabitants are generally as Uncultivated as the neglected soil, their intellects as ordinary as their Qualities, but what is infinitely worse, [is] the [de]pravity of their Manners.’90 By the late 1680s there were fears of overpopulation. Ovington noted in 1689 that the island ‘was well stockt with Inhabitants of both sexes, whose numerous Progeny shew’d little of sterility among them, how barren soever the Island was otherwise.’91 At that time people were being decanted from the island, although a little later the governor was being urged to encourage suitable people to remain. One group the EIC wanted to retain was the orphans and there was quite careful management of these young people by a company exercising its duty of care as the local authority. St Helena was not simply a work camp, but nonetheless it was a company possession and slaves were not the only St Helena people the EIC would transport round the world for its greater overall benefit in association with its ambitions in Run, Bombay, Benjar, Bencoolen and, although this failed in reality, potentially Tristan da Cunha.

4 ‘UNCIVIL ACTIONS, ATTEMPTING TO BREACH HER CHASTITY AND BEING GUILTY OF HORRIBLE SWEARING’: Law and Morality on St Helena

‘We do hereby reserve to ourselves’: company colonies and the rule of law Governors Richard Blanshard and James Douglas of the Hudson’s Bay Company colony on Vancouver Island, appointed in 1849 and 1851 respectively, were both instructed that: you with the advice of the said Council shall have full power and authority to make and enact all such Laws and Ordinances as may from time to time be required for the peace, order and good Government of the said Colony… Provided nevertheless and we do hereby reserve to ourselves, our Heirs and Successors our right and authority to disallow any such ordinances in the whole or in part. The ‘we’ in the documents was the royal we. The government of Queen Victoria’s United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland retained the right to oversee the laws of this company colony even though the ‘Governor and Company of Adventurers of England Trading into Hudson’s Bay … for the time being and their successors [were] the true and absolute Lords and Proprietors’ of ‘that portion of our Territories in North America called Vancouver’s Island.’1 Note the ‘our’. Governors could be replaced if there was even a hint that their activities were antipathetic to the interests of the state. Bermuda’s Governor Richard Coney, in office both under the company and the crown was tainted by, ‘a malitious report of late raised and spread abroad, of his betraying ye Island into ye hands of ye Spaniards.’ He vehemently denied this, but was replaced.2 One assumes this to be the same Richard Coney who was governor of St Helena from 1669 to 1672 and who was also dismissed with a hint that he was prepared to betray the colony to a foreign enemy (see Chapter 7). Companies operating colonies could be subject to parliamentary enquiry as with the Hudson’s Bay Company, the East India Company and the Neu Guinea Compagnie and the limiting state sanction was the withdrawal of their charter as happened to the Virginia Company in 1625, the Somers Island/Bermuda Company in 1683 and the Massachusetts Bay Company in 1684. Companies and their governors did

LAW AND MORALITY ON ST HELENA

57

not have a free hand in company colonies and one area of oversight was in the development of the rule of law. ‘Justice impartially administered, vertue promoted, vice of all kinds discountenanced and punisht’: the rule of law on St Helena The EIC expected Governor John Dutton to establish ‘good and well-ordered government’ in St Helena in 1659, operating under a general requirement that the laws of England should be upheld. This may have been a quick and easy regulation to issue, the St Helena venture was somewhat rushed. However, there were already precedents and Jack Greene has written regarding the Virginia Company colony of ‘the establishment of a legal and judicial order in the metropolitan tradition,’3 whilst Bradley Chapin showed that in colonial America generally the source of substantive criminal law was largely English in the first half of the seventeenth century, with law derived from biblical teachings also being important in some colonies such as Connecticut.4 The limited specific regulations sent to St Helena in 1659 required that people committing offences which under English law would merit the death sentence—‘of which sort we hope there will be none’ added the scribe, innocent of events that would unfold—were to be held in chains before being transported, still ‘chayneth’, for England with documentation of their case. The governor and council were to judge lesser crimes.5 These basic orders were repeated in Governor Robert Stringer’s commission in 1660.6 Ten years later the EIC declared that they were to send ‘Lawes made for government’ of the island;7 in the meantime the governor was forbidden ‘to inflict any corporal or pecuniary punishment upon any person whatsoever without advice and consent of counsel or two of them at ye least.’ This was a peremptory admonition to Governor Coney, who was causing anxiety to his underlings on St Helena and his superiors in London for ruling ‘without the assistance of the council appointed to advise him.’8 The promised laws were presumably delayed by the hiatus when the island was seized by the Dutch in 1673. A document entitled ‘Laws and ordinances of St Helena’ was written in October that year, but this was just an abridgement of the charter issued by Charles II to the EIC after St Helena had been retaken by the navy in which the EIC was reminded of its ‘privilidge to constitute Laws, Orders and Ordinances for the Government of St Hellena and the same to revoke and abrogate as they shall think fitt and convenient,’ although the laws were ‘to be consonant of reason and not repugnant or contrary but as near as may be agreeable to ye Laws of England’ with a ‘compleat establishment of Justice’, with courts, sessions and the administration of legal oaths.9 This short document ends with a reference to more being given ‘at large’ elsewhere, namely in the charter.10 The ‘First Commission of ye government after the retaking of the Island from ye Dutch’ also made reference to ‘the laws of England’ which were to be applied especially in relation to profane swearing, taking the name of God in vain, intemperance, fornication and uncleanness.11 The same year ‘order [was] given for a particular register to be kept of all orders and rules made for St Helena,’12 but a set of specific laws for the island, rather than vague recommendations to follow English example was still several years away. There was an ordinance from London concerning land registration, property holding and inheritance regulations in 1679,13 whilst in 1680 there was a further

58

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

assurance that ‘Rules and Powers as may better enable you to deal with Delinquents’ were to be sent by the first opportunity. This renewed promise resulted from the governor repatriating three mutinous soldiers.14 The company actually considered returning them given that their offences were ‘committed at so remote a distance and the witnesses and proofs not to be had’ in London. Further, there was a concern that getting sent to England ‘will rather encourage than dismay more [people] of that temper’ and so in future the island authorities were ‘to try offenders … and not to send them home’, hence the renewed realisation of the need for a criminal code.15 Establishing a way and method for due proceedings’: the ‘Lawes and Constitutions’ of 1681. The scheme of justice for St Helena and the principles under which it was to operate was finally drafted in March 1681 and delivered aboard Surat Merchant. The document runs to about 4000 words and sets out its principles under a series of numbered paragraphs. 1. Touching Religion and the Service of God. 2. Touching on the administration of justice and common right. 3. Establishing a way and method for due proceedings. 4. To the intent Religion, Morality and vertue may be countenanced and evil suppressed and punished. 5. For the better preserving of the peace of the said Island and keeping all persons in due subordination and securing the island against enemies. Material regarding religion and morality will be discussed later; theme 5 is the subject of Chapters 7 and 8. For the present, the second theme, justice, will be considered. An important principle was established at the outset: ‘We doe direct and appoint that in all cases justice be administered to all impartially without favour or affection.’ Then rights are stated: that cases leading to the loss of goods or lands or the infliction of corporal punishment must be tried by Jury; nobody was to be imprisoned without a warrant for commitment being prepared and, further, they must be brought to trial by the second court day or released from commitment on bail. A Sheriff was to be appointed: under our said Governor and Councell [to] inspect all matters and affairs within the said Island both for prosecuting the companies rights, and for the maintaining of peace, amity and good order amongst the Inhabitants, punishment of Crimes, sin and wickedness as hereafter expressed and for execution of all orders, writs and summons from the Governor and Councell or from the Court of Judicature (to be erected as hereafter expressed) for the returning of Juries, apprehension of Criminalls, and such like affairs. A Court of Judicature was to be erected and sessions held every three months under the governor as judge. Fees for legal matters were to be set at a level ‘not burthensome on the People’. Jurors were to take a solemn oath to try the matter before them ‘well and truly’.16 Fine principles indeed, although note that the first duty of the Sheriff was to ‘prosecute’ the company’s rights, which in this context

LAW AND MORALITY ON ST HELENA

59

means to protect them. Further, the operation of the justice system is the acid test of fairness rather than the principles themselves and Chapter 6 will demonstrate that impartiality ‘without favour or affection’ was not always applied to slaves, although they did have some protection under the law. Ten categories of criminal offence were to be recognised, ranging from what would be seen now as minor moral transgressions such as swearing and not keeping Sunday as a day of rest to crimes of universal seriousness, including wounding and murder (Table 4.1, Appendix 3). Punishments fitted the crimes, ranging from a reprimand—an ‘admonition’—through a graded list of fines, corporal punishment, imprisonment to execution. There is some evidence still, just over twenty years since the company first occupied St Helena, of the early idealism. The hope of reform was built into punishment for moral lapses such as profanity which saw the guilty being admonished for the first offence, not yet subject to more serious punishment which was reserved for repeat offenders. Financial penalties were related to wealth in that rich drunks—intemperate ‘persons of quality’—were fined more than drunks of ‘meaner rank’. There was local control over punishment for fornication, uncleanness and adultery as East India House felt this should be ‘agreeable to the nature of the people’. It transpired that the people (or perhaps the governors) were rather judgemental regarding such behaviour, for those convicted of these crimes were often subject to severe corporal punishment, especially slaves and not excluding women (see Chapters 5 and 6). Finally, as has been noted, a jury system was to be established to try major offences, juries being an important element of the justice systems established in English colonies in the seventeenth century.17 East India House communicated again with Governor Blackmore a few days after scribing the laws, the letter also sent on Surat Merchant. This was the usual type of missive, a mixture of replies to Blackmore’s letters, advice and comments on actions he had taken. Blackmore was told to act impartially as judge; as to the laws, they were ‘so plaine in themselves that wee need not enlarge upon any of them,’18 thus the governor now had all he needed to conduct a modern justice system. Blackmore was killed in 1690 when his stick gave way and he fell down the mountainside above Chapel Valley. Amongst his library when his possessions were inventoried was a volume entitled A Mirrour for Magistrates.19 This might be assumed to be a practical guide to the law, rather it is a sixteenth century verse work which Cambridge University Library files under political ethics. The only law book the author found mention of on St Helena at this period was Keble’s Justices of the Peace sent in 1704, no others as such applied only to England, Wales and Berwick upon Tweed and ‘are not of use in the Plantations’.20 Surat Merchant carrying the laws written on 10 March 1681 arrived at St Helena on 9 October 1683, an example of just how long it could take to get messages to the island. Later that month the document was discussed at a consultation. It was ordered that a Court of Judicature be readied by rebuilding the Market House for that purpose; that John Sich, free planter, be appointed as sheriff, with another, John Bolton, to be clerk to the Court of Judicature. A prison for civilians was to be built inside Fort James, separate from the facility for soldiers.21 The new court was opened on 27 November with Sheriff Sich ensuring that there were sufficient jurors.22

60

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

‘But few persons fitly qualified’: the jury system on St Helena Despite the company’s initial assurance that the 1681 laws needed no enlargement, by 1683 the directors had changed their mind because of local circumstances, St Helena proving too small for the system issued to operate properly. A parallel can be found on another seventeenth century company colony, Providence Island, where instead of bringing people to court, petty offences including swearing, drunkenness, and Sabbath-breaking ‘could be punished with predetermined sentences by any councillor on the oath of two sufficient witnesses.’23 In the German company colonies, too, national civil and criminal codes were subject to ‘some measures for the purpose of adapting [these laws] to local conditions’,24 such as the indigenes being excluded from vital registration in New Guinea, whilst on the Marshall Islands, the company, Jaluit Gesellschaft, had the right to be consulted about laws and ordinances proposed by the state’s representative, the imperial commissioner.25 Regarding St Helena, the EIC admitted that the system they had assigned in 1681 was ‘for the most part drawn from that Modell of Laws wee established upon our Island of Bombay, where the number of inhabitants are computed at 20,000.’ They estimated the population of St Helena to be under 500 (excluding slaves) and now considered that this was too few to sustain the extensive jury system they had so recently imposed. Upon perusal of your Consultation Books and observacion of the trivial causes that do fall under your decision and the fewness of ye inhabitants yet we think such a formal proceeding as wee have prescribed by ye aforesaid system of Laws would rather be a Burthen than a Benefitt to our Island at present, and that therefore you may proceed to determine cases in that method you have already begun and with which your inhabitants are not only acquainted but very well satisfied … But in case of the taking away of Life, Limb or Lands wee would have you proceed according to that method by juries. False witness, counterfeiting and, most significantly, theft were offences not now to be tried before a jury. This is not an indication that they had been downgraded, in fact, East India House now added to the penalty for theft: ‘besides the punishment appointed by ye system of lawes’, an offender was to ‘wear about his neck an iron collar constantly for one whole year or an iron lock about his right leg.’26 Blackmore acquiesced with the company’s conclusion regarding juries. His council discussed the 1683 ruling in August 1685, although Charles II had delivered the revised orders on 3 January 1684,27 and it was their ‘humble opinion and judgement … that the method of proceedings by inditement and Jureys in General is not soe easy and ready for deciding ordinary differences arising in this place, where are but few persons fitly qualified for such methods of Law practiced in England.’ Further, ‘the former and usual way that hath bin hitherto practiced on this Island … hath bin approved by the Honourable Company Lords Proprietors and by whom commanded to be still practiced by us.’28

LAW AND MORALITY ON ST HELENA

61

That the jury system would not have been sustainable in the 1681 model can be confirmed by an inspection of the members of juries after 1683 when the ruling reducing the demand for jurors was introduced. Table 4.2 (Appendix 3) identifies members of eight juries between 1685 and 1698. Civilians and members of the garrison were both involved, a total of 57 men, of whom 22 served more than once. Had the categories of cases requiring juries not been reduced in 1683, multiple service would have been even commoner with the danger of overstretching those required to serve, perhaps rendering them unwilling to perform their civic duties responsibly. The fact that inescapably in a small island everybody knows everybody else—and usually their business— anyway places the jury system in disrepute; justice can hardly be impartial when the accused are well known to those deciding their guilt. As to the ‘trivial causes’ being brought to court which were identified as a problem in 1683, Blackmore had been more forceful about them in 1679: ‘contentious and clamorous persons’, ‘frivolous and slight occasions’ and his time wasted on ‘impertinent brabblings and squabblings.’29 ‘Consider the reson of things to adjudge of all cases in a summary way according to Equity and good conscience without tedious delays or countenancing Litigious persons in their vexatious prosecutions’ was the advice given to Governor Poirier in 1704, presumably still troubled by ‘brabblings’.30 ‘As good Law as Magna Carta’ In the later 1680s the company instructed Blackmore to copy all current orders into a book, ‘to be always lying on your council table or at hand and made publick to all ye inhabitants of that Island, such our orders being to you and all ye inhabitants of that island (during his Majesty’s pleasure) as good Law as Magna Carta is to England.’31 That done, St Helena’s Magna Carta prepared, East India House announced it was not going to be ‘frequently altering ye grammar and general rules of our Island but keep things in the order as we have now settled them.’32 Future messages on the law were affirmatory as in the 1703 instruction to Governor Poirier to ‘hold on to your ancient method of hearing and adjudging all Civill and Criminal Cases as heretofore.’33 New governors in the early eighteenth century were also sent reminders: John Roberts in 1708 that ‘justice be impartially administered to all;’34 Benjamin Boucher in 1711 that he should make himself familiar with instructions held on the island and should publish the laws sent in 1679 (relating to land holding) and 1683: You must from time to time observe and look upon them as the Law of the island and which all that inhabit or reside there must duly conform unto … You are trusted by and under us with the Government of St Helena. You must look upon it as a duty always incumbent upon you to see those laws obey’d by all on the place … justice impartially administered, vertue promoted, vice of all kinds discountenanced and punisht.35 The decency of such declamations can be counterpoised by consideration of a letter sent from East India House to Governor Blackmore in 1683. The company had been perusing copies of Blackmore’s consultations and voiced

62

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

criticism, not of the verdicts, but of the sentences, especially because ‘you very rarely sentence or decree any fine to the Company which you should never omit.’ Justice was an income stream: ‘wee must desire you in all your Consultations not only to study regularity, order and plausibility to the people (which are all very good) but likewise … the Company’s interest and Profitt.’36 Two centuries later on German New Guinea fines were also company income, with the justification that the Neu Guinea Compagnie ‘had to bear the costs of the administration of justice.’37 ‘Ride ye wooden horse’: military discipline St Helena was a military encampment as well as a civilian colony. All were tried before the same person but to soldiers he was the commander in chief not just the governor and a guilty soldier could face military detention and special punishment. Soldiers could be convicted for crimes against civilians; one who stole food from a planter in 1678 received 20 ‘stripes’ at the flagstaff in the fort and had 14s stopped from his pay to make restitution.38 They were also subject to military discipline; in 1685 Private Samuel Taylor disobeyed an order from Corporal John Field, who had been on guard. To make matters worse, Taylor had been drunk. He was sent to prison and made to ride the wooden horse.39 Here was where military punishment differed from civilian, for the wooden horse was ridden only by soldiers. The consultations contain dozens of examples of soldiers being ordered to sit astride this pitched frame, always with weights attached to their feet to increase the pressure and the pain. The level of punishment was regulated by the time mounted and the heaviness of these weights. Taylor had shot attached to his feet; others had muskets or containers of shot. One further example: in 1688 a newly arrived young writer, Thomas Heath, fell into bad company when he was taken on a spree by William Wells, a gunner’s mate; George Sutton, the coxswain; Corporal Ralph Spires and John Talby, a soldier. They broke tiles on the roof of the Market House, set fire to a child’s dress, throwing it upon a thatched roof and knocked up several people in the middle of that Sunday night demanding punch. Leister Sexton, who found them on his balcony, gave them five quarts, yet they ‘did abuse him with much gross language … & so continued in ye streets & Market House all the night.’ At their trial later that day Wells ‘confessed, saying that they were overtaken with Drink and hereby deserving favour.’ Favour they did not receive, for, in addition to having to repair the Market House, Wells and Spires were put in irons for a couple of days, ‘young Heath’ and Talby were admonished and George Sutton was to ‘ride ye wooden horse after ye general Muster one houre with a whole case of shott at each heel.’40 Crimes more serious than disturbing the citizenry whilst drunk were committed by soldiers, as Chapter 7 will reveal. ‘Scandalous behaviour’: morality The seventeenth century in most of Europe was disagreeable. There was political unrest, constant warfare and revolution, all veneered by a morality, associated in places with protestant fundamentalism. The earnestness of the EIC’s directives to St Helena have been made evident and it will come as no surprise to learn that an inflexible moral code was imposed upon those who lived and worked in the company colony.

LAW AND MORALITY ON ST HELENA

63

‘Proneness to excess in drinking’ In 1678 Governor Gregory Field was discharged after complaints touching his ‘ill-living’ and the company sought a replacement of ‘sober life and conversation’.41 This person was Major John Blackmore, who amongst his ‘directions for the better government and managing of our affairs on the said island,’42 found a set of regulations upon behaviour, many of which repeated earlier edicts. Swearing was outlawed again, as was ‘taking of the name of God in vaine’, fornication and ‘uncleanliness’. Intemperance and drunkenness were separately listed and neither was allowed. There was no prohibition on the manufacture and consumption of alcohol. The company supplied it to the island and profited from its sale to the inhabitants, a retail licence costing £1 per year.43 There are frequent mentions in the archives of brandy and ‘arrack’ (a term still used for spirits in Asia, usually as ‘raki’), also punch and beer and Stephen Poirier was sent originally to St Helena to produce wine and brandy. Planters and, one imagines, soldiers distilled their own arrack, mainly from potatoes. In fact, such was the level of this activity that its consumption of fuel had contributed to a shortage of firewood by the 1690s.44 The prohibition was not on drinking, but on getting drunk. In 1698 the company promised to send ‘His Majesty’s proclamation against all immorality and debauchery’ as a ‘further prevention of drunkenness’ (also profane swearing and riotous excesses); the next line was ‘we hope to send you some vine plants.’45 The proscription against drunkenness was partly for health. There were also implications of social regulation, concerns that drunks are out of control with disquieting implications for morality and security. Blackmore’s reports soon after he took office produced the following response from East India House: We take great interest in what you wrote concerning the mutiny of the planters and their great proneness to excess in drinking, but your care must be ye greater for to give them good redress when they are sober and keep them in good order to prevent drunkenness and where any, after admonition, are found delinquent in that particular, you are to punish ye offence and make them exemplary of your justice, for we know it is too common a thing in all plantations for people to be addicted to drunkenness if they be not kept under by constraint.46 The archives have many entries regarding intemperate persons, including more than one chaplain (see below). Two court cases will serve as examples. Benjamin Miller was fined 5s for being drunk on the Sabbath in 1676. Whilst drunk he had attempted to burn down his house; arson was a more serious matter and he was flogged for that.47 In 1690 Robert Exeter, planter, brought alcohol into court. He was sentenced to sit in the stocks. He then stuck an officer, swore profanely, was contemptuous of authority, vilified the governor, broke the lock of the stocks and ran away. He was caught, sent to prison, fined for being drunk, had to pay to repair to the stocks and to compensate the officer for his hurt, and was bound over.48

64

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

‘Curs the island’: swearing and blasphemy Like drunkenness, swearing and blasphemy had been prohibited from the start when John Dutton was instructed to ‘suffer none of these people, whom we have put under your charge to swear, curse or Blaspheme the name of God.’49 Prohibited words were not just those from the usual list: ‘cheating pocky rogue’ was enough to get a planter fined in 1683.50 There could be objection, too, regarding the object of cursing. In 1690 Elizabeth Parum did not just curse but did ‘curs the island and all that was on it’ according to the evidence of Sergeant Israel Hailes and another witness. Parum at first denied the charge but ‘afterwards shee fell downe on her knees in the face of the court and acknowledged her offence, humbly begging pardon of the court, and Country.’ She was fined one shilling.51 Often swearing was a minor offence committed in association with some more heinous act. A soldier was in court in 1680 regarding a planter’s wife because of ‘uncivil actions, attempting to breach her chastity and being guilty of horrible swearing’; also for denying the existence of the Holy Spirit, proclaiming that there was no reason to fear death, as there was no afterlife. He was prepared for his day in court for he had, he said, the opinion of ‘many learned divines to back him up’, but he was not tested on theology, just punished for incivility and swearing, set astride the wooden horse for two hours with a bag of shot at each ankle.52 Another case was when an overseer collecting money for the church was robbed in 1680 and the list of charges laid upon the perpetrator, Job Jewster, included his ‘shamefully swearing several oaths’. He was imprisoned, put in irons, given 21 lashes and bound over for 12 months; it is not clear which part of that lengthy list of punishments was for swearing.53 If swearing was linked to blasphemy, matters became serious. In 1696 a Dutch resident, John Sinsennis, was heard near the fort to blaspheme: ‘God curse Christ’. Later, at his lodging he continued in this vein, seemingly bearing God ill-will for his being unwell: ‘come burn the bible for so long [as] I have the word of God in the house I shall not be cured.’ Allegedly, Sinsennis then tried to hang himself. This further crime was witnessed by Margaret Manning, the surgeon’s wife, there as midwife, Sinsennis’s wife having a new baby. Sinsennis was found not guilty of attempted suicide, but the gravity of his offence of swearing, and the blasphemy of which it was part, can be seen from his ferocious punishment: exile following 39 lashes and being branded on the forehead with a letter B.54 By the early eighteenth century churchwardens had become pro-active in attempting to deal with lapses including swearing and sometimes defendants were overheard by these moral guardians. Churchwarden Charles Steward reported John Mudge for swearing in 1706. This being Mudge’s third offence, he was fined the considerable sum of 30s.55 ‘Runn themselves into great Debt’: gambling Gambling was seen as a vice. It was usually carried out in connection with the playing of games and was particularly venal if the players included slaves and Chapter 6 will reveal the contempt held by the authorities for white people who joined slaves in gaming. In 1680 a consultation recorded in amazement that, despite unlawful gaming having been ordered to be avoided for some time, it was nonetheless practiced by ‘some officers and some soldiers of ye younger

LAW AND MORALITY ON ST HELENA

65

sort.’ As with the perceived need to curtail heavy drinking, there was a social control, almost welfarist, aspect to the regulation. Some people ‘lately by playing at severall games [had] lost very considerable summes of money and runn themselves into great Debt, even beyond their pay, which practice if continued would tend to the impoverishing if not ruine of ye said losers.’ In what to some must have been a welcome judgement, the governor ruled that all gaming debts ‘are hereby made null and void’. Winnings were to be returned, on pain of corporal punishment if they were not. Unlawful games were prohibited anew, specific mention being made of nineholes, ninepins and boutles, this last now usually called bocce, a sport related to bowls and pétanque played on a dirt court. Lawful games could still be played, but these were not identified, unlike the sinful ninepins.56 ‘Touching religion and the service of God’ The Providence Island Company’s colony was founded and ruled by puritans who ‘strove to create a godly society.’57 The EIC’s ambitions for St Helena were always more practical, looking to commercial ends, but nonetheless St Helena was to be a God-fearing, protestant society, for John Company, like the VOC, promoted religion in its ships and territories at considerable cost.58 Doubtless there was sincere belief that this would benefit the spiritual well being of those on St Helena, but the company might have also ‘believed the transfer of the Church of England … was essential for the maintenance of social order,’ as with English colonies in North America.59 In John Dutton’s commission in 1659, there was an instruction to diligently promote the worship of God. The Sabbath was to be observed and bibles and other good books were sent down on London with him.60 Other religious beliefs were not to be allowed to gain hold. Chapter 3 mentioned that investigation was made to discover if Richard Coney or his wife were catholic before he was appointed as governor and they were only allowed protestants amongst family members and retinue.61 A Spanish priest who visited during Coney’s time was dismayed that two slaves and two Frenchmen resident on St Helena ‘had been catholicks at home but were hereticks there.’62 Further, in 1682, a newly arrived planter, William Scadder: discovered himself to be of those principles which are labelled Quakers and then seems to be under some troubled mind as to his eternall state and condition in all which tyme he was bore with pity and comforted but afterwards breaking forth into many heinous unciville misdemeanours both in words and actions slandering many persons of most eminence in ye Government, speaking many words tending to blasphemy and when reproved his answere usually was that he was commanded to say these things. It is not clear whether Scadder’s worst offence was his attitude to the governor, blasphemy, or just being a Quaker. In any event he was expelled from the island, his land confiscated back to the company.63 Expulsion was not uncommon in such circumstances and Quakers in English colonies elsewhere were executed for refusing to leave the territories from which they had been expelled.64

66

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Robert Stringer’s commission in 1660 ordered that he perform acts of worship and profess the Christian religion.65 In 1666 he was reminded of the importance of: divine worship, and ye reading of ye scriptures, etc and also ye reading of a sermon & until such time as a living for a minister may be raised from the fruit of your labours we do appoint ye governor to read himself or find some fit person to do ye same.66 Richard Coney was ‘recommended’ to promote the ‘fear and worship of God’,67 and within a few months his mission was supported by the employment of the first company chaplain, William Noakes (Table 4.3, Appendix 3), for in 1670 East India House had started looking for ‘a good minister … if one is to be had on reasonable terms.’68 In fact all but one were paid the decent salary of £50 p.a., plus, for most, the expense of transporting them to the island, with another £20 for ‘fresh provisions and other necessaries for the voyage’ for the first of them.69 Noakes was ‘an able minister’ who East India House doubted ‘not but will, by God’s blessing, be a means to settle you in love and amity with one another.’70 The company sought relief for at least some of the chaplains’ salary from the planters. In 1687, a tax of 6d per head on each slave owned was partly for this but also for the maintenance of the church.71 A little earlier a poll tax had had the same purpose.72 The company also provided religious books. Noakes was promised originally £15 for books, but was then allowed to spend £30 on books to take to St Helena.73 Some were on divinity, other books were for the children.74 Three years later another £10 to £12 was spent on bibles and catechisms for the island.75 Governor Coney was ordered to accommodate Noakes ‘in our House with the Governor or if hee please at our Plantation, which may be most convenient for him.’ Noakes could have his own plantation if he wished, 20 acres close to the fort with four cows and a pair of slaves, a man and his wife. Further, he was to be second in council,76 deputy governor. This was, in theory, a position of considerable influence and the company’s first dedicated minister was made party to decision-making and placed in a position to guide the development of the island along a righteous path, however Noakes proved unable to exercise any power. His mission to bring ‘love and amity’ collapsed in face of conflict between him and Coney. Edward Cannan, a twentieth century bishop of St Helena, stated that the dispute arose because Noakes distributed literature to the garrison that taught that kings (and governors) might be disempowered by the people.77 Coney seemed not keen on such radicalism; indeed, when he was dismissed as governor amongst the charges levelled was that he had ruled without bothering to consult his council.78 This became known in London at least partly because Noakes, his second, informed against Coney in letters sent to East India House. Some historians have Coney held captive by his fellow councillors in a coup, but the present author has been unable to find a contemporary source verifying this action.79 In any event Coney was dismissed in 1672,80 but a few weeks later Noakes was given a terrible rebuke from East India House because of several complaints that he acted against EIC orders and was ‘addicted to several vices noeways becoming a sober person, much lesse a

LAW AND MORALITY ON ST HELENA

67

minister of ye Gospel. We doe hereby give you notice that wee are very sencible of your misdemeanour and require from you a reformation.’81 Thus, was Coney’s reluctance to bring Noakes into government a sensible policy rather than arrogance? East India House decided to ‘ascertain from the commanders and others lately returned from St Helena all that is possible touching the behaviours of Captain Cony [sic] and Mr Noakes,’82 but the results of these enquiries are not known. Noakes was amongst the people who fled the island on the Dutch invasion.83 He did not return. Captain Beale, who had replaced Coney as governor shortly before the invasion, was consulted about who should be allowed to go back. There is no evidence for this, but given the trouble he had caused, one might speculate that Noakes was not wanted. The company considered at least three candidates before appointing William Swindell as Noakes’s replacement.84 At the re-occupation there were fresh reminders that ‘the Lord’s Day be religiously observed by abstinence from all bodily labour and secular employment and as also from all pastimes.’ The governor and council were specifically required to ‘joyne in the publique exercise of all religious dutys [that] by your presence [you] encourage the minister to the discharge of his duty and the people at their attendance.’ That there was a necessity to record the need of the minister to attend church would suggest that Noakes had not been assiduous. The new minister was offered a plantation and had the right to eat at the governor’s table. He was to have a salary of £25 p.a. and a like sum as a gratuity given he was to teach both the English and Negro children.85 A gratuity had also been offered to Noakes and if he had ‘applied himself industriously to preaching the gospel, catechizing and instructing the young people and children at St Helena,’ he would have received an extra £20 each year ‘as an encouragement’.86 Swindell died in 1674, to what seemed to be the genuine regret,87 and was replaced by John Wynn, engaged at £50 p.a. There was constant reinforcement from East India House of the need to establish a God-fearing society. In 1677 virtually the same instructions about the Sabbath as in 1673 were repeated,88 although later there was a relaxation in that when ‘ships are in danger of losing their passage or otherwise straightened in want of time they should not be restrained from fetching water or other refreshments on the Lord’s Day.’89 In 1681 the catalogue of laws issued to St Helena began with rules ‘touching Religion and the Service of God’ starting with the usual strictures regarding activities on Sundays. There was to be public worship ‘whereof all persons may resort for prayer, reading the word, hearing of sermons, Singing of Psalms and on occasion the administration of both the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.’ If no minister was available, the people were still to assemble solemnly together with the governor and council taking the lead with ‘prayer and such other duties’. There were to be punishments for ‘all and every person or persons that shall publiquely prophane the Lord’s Day by travelling, working, gameing or other unlawful pastimes’ as well as for ‘prophane swearing and taking the name of God in vayne’ (Table 4.1, Appendix 3).90 In 1678 John Wynn had asked to return to England; his successor was the suitably named Joseph Church. Church’s salary was again £50 p.a. with a £50 gratuity, a reward not just for his catechism and teaching, although he was ‘not

68

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

[to] be obliged to teach any children but such as already can read,’91 but also for ‘a more diligent attendance … to his ministry on the Sabbath Day … than hitherto hath been practiced,’92 evidence, perhaps, that not one of the first three chaplains had been dutiful on Sundays. Church, who had become a ‘great planter’ by amassing 30 acres, was dismissed in 1683, not, for once, because of personal qualities but for defying company rules, firstly over interlopers, secondly for questioning that the governor’s authority exceeded his own in connection with a licence to marry issued by Blackmore.93 Joseph Church died that same year of 1683, probably before learning he had been dismissed. He had married on the island and his child was taken to England in company with returning planters; his wife did not go.94 The company recommended that Church be replaced by a chaplain from a passing ship,95 and John Crammond, serving in President, was appointed for six months in October 1683,96 although another minister, Thomas Sault, arrived from London in January 1684,97 and Crammond was allowed to return home.98 Within a few months, after a dispute regarding land, Sault resigned as ‘clerk’ and lost his lodging at the fort and the house at the church in the country.99 Sault appears to have become bitter and started to go about ‘to gett subscriptions to a paper’. The council was concerned that this might be seditious—the 1684 rebellion was only two months away and there were tensions already on the island—and summoned Sault. There was an argument. Sault accused Deputy Governor Holden of babbling, refused to listen to the governor, ‘saying that the King … would laugh heartily to see him baited by these fellows, then turning his back upon the Governour and Council, clapt on his hatt, and in a scornful manner went away.’100 For a period after this there was no resident minister, only lay readers. One was the incompetent surgeon, Henry Manning, who was dismissed as both surgeon and lay reader.101 Another was William Clifton, a former soldier, then a schoolteacher,102 who featured in an adultery case in 1690 (see Chapter 5). There is also reference to chaplains from ships acting on the island, as in 1685 when Robert Buttler from New London performed a marriage, if incorrectly, for which he had to beg pardon.103 Despite the importance given to religion, those appointed to administer it continued to disappoint. The instruction issued in 1689 to seek to appoint a ‘sober chaplain’ from a returning ship says something about both the problems of getting an educated person to bury himself out at St Helena and the qualities of the chaplains that had hitherto been engaged.104 The VOC also struggled to find good ministers: ‘the prospect of being completely subservient to the civil apparatus of the VOC could hardly have made the ostensibly attractive idea of an Asian parish particularly inviting’ and in his study of the VOC, Walberg Pers went on to note that ministers were often ‘individuals whose spiritual calling left much to be desired.’105 On St Helena matters did not improve. There is little in the archives about the next couple of chaplains, but John Humphreys, appointed in 1698 for the usual £50 salary and £50 gratuity for catechism and teaching,106 a year later had to be threatened with dismissal: We have had a sad account of Mr Humphreys your Chaplain, his behaviour very unbecoming a person sent over by us to instruct ye inhabitants by Precept and practice, not only by his Antick dresses at the

LAW AND MORALITY ON ST HELENA

69

instigation of ye Commanders but also by his intemperate drinking and other unseemly carriage. Let him know we highly resent this and expect his hearty Repentance and that his future behaviour be agreeable to the holy profession of the Christian religion, otherwise we think him unworthy of his gown or our salary and if he don’t amend, send him home.107 Humphreys was finally dismissed in 1700 and exiled, the EIC ‘having received from several hands full information of the debauchery of Mr Humphreys as Chaplain and of his impious, lewd and vile conversation.’108 The company apologised to Governor Poirier, ‘sorry that he [Humphreys] proved so contrary to [the] character, which first recommended him to us. If we can hear of another [of] whose good conversation we may receive undoubted testimonials we intend to send him, otherwise we think it better to send none at all.’109 This last phrase is a considerable departure from the heady days of 1670 when the chaplain was second in council. The island again had to manage with just a lay reader, a planter, Edward Edmunds, acting until John Kerr was appointed chaplain in 1701, upon a recommendation from the Bishop of London. By that time the East India House seemed to be suspicious of the chaplains it was providing and Governor Poirier was instructed to report back upon Kerr’s behaviour.110 It is doubtful that Poirier did so, he rarely carried out orders, but such reports would presumably have been unfavourable for within a short time Kerr was engaged in disputes with him, particularly because of Poirier’s French origin. ‘Let us have no more of such wrangles, nor foolish occasions of them,’111 bleated East India House, presumably in vain, for Kerr joined the already lengthy list of chaplains to be dismissed, in his case in 1704, the company having ‘fresh reason to believe his restless humour will never be long quiet.’112 Kerr remained troublesome to the company, who resented having to pay for his lodging and diet until they could send him home ‘after which we are to be eased of that charge.’113 However, in 1706 Poirier was asked by East India House if he had promised that Kerr should be paid a gratuity.114 In the document that dismissed Kerr in 1704, the company hoped for better service from the next chaplain, Charles Masham, who ‘is well-recommended to us and we hope he will make good his promise of behaving answerable to his holy profession, studying to follow and promote peace with all men and to employ his whole time in the duties of his function.’115 Masham had been retained at the usual £50 salary and £50 gratuity—figures unchanged since the 1670s—along with ‘reasonable lodging’, a study and meals at the company table. That Masham was expected to be a full-time cleric is evidence that his predecessors had not been assiduous. In fact he seems to have been the most conscientious of the chaplains on early St Helena. This comes out clearly in a letter he wrote to Thomas Lord, the Archbishop of Canterbury. This is couched very humbly and reveals something not just of Masham as a man and a minister, but also of the nature of religion as then practiced on St Helena. Masham confirmed that there were only adherents of the Church of England there, although the rites sometimes differed from normal because of ‘ye nature of ye place’. One matter of concern was baptism. As Masham noted, children were then baptised at a very young age—infant mortality rates would have been high

70

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

and there was a need to perform the ceremony straight away to minimise the chance of a child dying before being received into the Christian community. However, the planters were reluctant to have baptism carried out in either of the churches as ‘’tis too dangerous to carry them up and down the Hills soe young, which are very steep and always attended with troublesome winds.’ Masham had himself travelled to planters’ homes to carry out the ceremony for fear that otherwise the children would not be baptised at all and he sought the Archbishop’s opinion as to whether he had acted correctly. Neither church on the island had been consecrated, ‘however they are as much preserved from all profane life as if they were.’ Nor were the three burial places consecrated. Thus, there seemed to Masham no reason why they had to be the only places that could be used and he had permitted burials upon the planters’ lands, concerned again at practical difficulties, of having to carry bodies a long way over rough terrain. Unsure about this practice, Masham wrote ‘I beg your Grace’s directions in this, too, that if I have offended, I may offend noe more.’ Masham’s next concern regarded matrimony. He asked if Governor Poirier, ‘Supream Magistrate here in Civil affairs,’ had sufficient ecclesiastical power for Masham to marry people upon Poirier’s licence without having to publish banns. This same issue had caused the rift between Reverend Church and Governor Blackmore in 1683. Poirier had informed Masham that as governor he had the prerogative to ‘direct in all Ecclesiastical matters’, further that he could fine the minister if he refused to obey orders. Indeed, Poirier, had issued a proclamation on vice and immorality to his ‘subjects’ a few years earlier and throughout his troubled period in office he was constantly at loggerheads with East India House basically because he would not recognise any authority higher than his own.116 Masham’s problem seemed to be a contest between church and state (i.e. company), for, by issuing couples with his licence, Masham observed that Poirier ‘does in effect marry them before they come to me by asking them … whether before God they are willing to have each other, they answering in affirmation he gives them his blessing and dismisses them.’ After arguing about banns, Masham had been ordered at times to publish them in the hall at the fort during morning prayers in front of ‘10 or 12 of the garrison’, although he tried to get more to come. Pious but realistic, Masham was ‘uneasie’, torn between ‘the eternal Rites and Ceremonies of our Church’ and the practicalities of life on St Helena: ‘if the inward Intention is as real and sincere as if the outward act had demonstrated it’, did the neglect of the rites ‘where place and circumstance will not permit … derogate from the Honour and Authority of the Church?’117 Charles Masham died on St Helena on 1 July 1706 a few months after writing to the archbishop, probably before any reply from Lambeth Palace reached him. The company in regretting Masham’s death asked Poirier if it should pay his estate a portion of the gratuity.118 Edward Cannan summed up the early clergy on St Helena as having ‘neither a high standard of education nor indeed a high sense of their calling.’119 Despite so many being lax, in 1714 a visiting captain, Daniel Beeckman, recorded a description of what had become a strong tradition of church attendance: They use great formality in going to Church; for about nine a clock in the morning, the Council, the Minister, and their Wives; together with such Commanders of Ships as have a mind to it, do wait on the Governor in

LAW AND MORALITY ON ST HELENA

71

the Castle. After which the Bell being ordered to ring, a Company of Soldiers, with a Serjeant, in good Liveries, are drawn up in the Castle, where they make a Lane (resting their Arms) as a Passage to the Gate, where there is another Serjeant, and a Company, which march with Beat of Drum before the Governor to the Church. After follow the Gentlemen and Ladies in their respective Order. As soon as the Soldiers get into the Church-yard, they fall off to the right and left, making a Lane to the Church-door. The Governor has a handsome large Seat, with Book, where he generally desires the Commanders of Ships to sit, the Ladies being seated by themselves.120 Religion, morality and ‘the Company’s interest and Profitt’ The distinctions between the principles of seventeenth century English morality and religion transferred to St Helena and their practice illustrate much about the constraints of life in the cramped confines of a small island. At first came the rather vague transference of the English legal tradition, with the spelling out to governors more advice upon religious and moral practices than upon criminal legal issues. Later came the realisation that standard English law books were not of much utility in the plantations and that the company could not just re-use English codes or transfer those developed in company settings elsewhere such as Bombay because of this island’s small scale. This was seen especially regarding the practicality of the jury system. St Helena was given its own system, pretentiously compared to Magna Carta. With legal matters there was always tension between the need to establish a properly functioning civil society and the needs of the company. This conflict of interest is particularly marked in the administration of justice, as the judge worked for the company. One telling communication on St Helena was the complaint against Governor Blackmore that his sentencing policy in regard to the scanty issuing of fines was antithetical to ‘the Company’s interest and Profitt’. The concept of the administration of justice as an income stream says much about the ethos and purposes that lay behind the operation of the company colony, as does the first duty of the sheriff being to consider the company’s rights. It should not be implied that there was not a desire to establish a law-abiding and God-fearing society on St Helena. The piety of the directors in London is not to be doubted, although the assiduity of some of those tasked to supervise the practice of piety on the island can be. Constant repetition of rulings, for example about the observance of the Lord’s Day transmitted to new governors and at other times such as 1677, 1681 and 1701 identify difficulties in establishing consistent observance. Early expectations that ministers would help establish a righteous society within the strictures of the commercial colony were soon dashed. Perhaps the tensions between the authority of the company versus that of the Almighty represented a circle that could not be squared, the struggles of the conscientious cleric Charles Masham imply this. Another problem for East India House was the poor calibre of those they could get to serve as chaplain to the island. Begging the governor to try and find a ‘sober chaplain’ aboard ship who could be inveigled to stay on St Helena was telling, as was the later suggestion that perhaps the island should just manage without clergymen, although there were questions regarding the competency and even moral

72

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

standing of some lay readers. One of the worst ministers was the first, William Noakes, and following him, with his addiction to vices ‘not becoming’ to a minister of the gospel and his failure to work with his governor in the administration of the island, no other chaplain was appointed to council. In fact, rather than ministers taking on an administrative role, the governors interfered perhaps more than was correct in religious affairs as with the disputes between Church and Blackmore and Masham and Poirier. Kerr and Sault also had serious disputes with the governor. The ‘Service of God’ and ‘good and well-ordered government’ were certainly both important on early St Helena, but of greater significance was that this was ‘the Company’s Island’.

5 ‘YOU MAY KISS THERE’: Gender Relations on St Helena

‘Cackling and scolding’: gender roles in the seventeenth century St Helena for much of the seventeenth century was encompassed within the English realm. This century started with a woman, Elizabeth I, on the throne of England. Towards the end of the century Mary II shared the throne with her husband, William III, for a few years. He survived her until in 1702 to be succeeded by another woman, Anne. Despite three women being head of state within a century, in this early modern period English women usually had restricted lives. This was an era when the man as husband and father assumed a patriarchal position with the woman, the wife and mother, as well as their children—including spinster daughters—being subservient. Such roles were to some contemporaries seen to have been designated by God and were certainly given credence through their general practice. The author of the 1632 book The lawes resolutions of womens rights, ‘T. E.’ (Thomas Edgar), identified three life cycle stages for women: unmarried virgin; wife and widow.1 The unmarried virgin was in thrall to her father or guardian and, obviously, was required to remain chaste. Marriage legally fused the woman with her husband. Her social position came from the man and she had to maintain his reputation by behaving with due decorum. T. E. then promised a freer period upon widowhood, at least until any remarriage, when the woman reverted to being subject to a man again. Obviously these three states and the associated behaviour did not equate with the lived experiences of many women, either through their own choice or through circumstances beyond their control. Women whose behaviour was deemed reprehensible could be subject to punishment, perhaps within the marriage—the husband had the right to beat the wife—or outside it through social ostracism and/or through the courts. The last chapter showed how there was an attempt to transfer legal codes and their associated normative morality from the metropole to St Helena. The EIC directors in Leadenhall Street (or in the country when driven from London by the plague) would direct how their minions in the South Atlantic should behave. Then distance, circumstances and the sheer bloody-minded venality of the people involved would filter such directions, so the lived reality of the island deviated from the pious, initially utopian, ideals transmitted from the

74

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

boardroom. This happened in the sphere of gender as in other aspects of society and this chapter considers gender relationships and roles. Settlers in English colonies took with them their experiences and expectations of conventional gender roles. Regarding sexual congress, Bradley Chapin summarised for colonial America: ‘seventeenth century Englishman regarded any sexual act performed outside the marriage bed as a mixture of sin and crime.’2 However, St Helena society was planted in the restricted ecumene of a small, isolated island with a tiny population. Might that have had an effect? Further, the peculiarities of the company colony need to be considered. The company endeavoured to establish a family-centred society amongst the civilians on St Helena but the island was garrisoned with many unmarried men, whilst the ships that called each season contained men who had long been apart from women. What was their impact on island women? Another factor was the presence of the imported Other, the black slaves. What were the gender relations between the slaves and the Europeans? What were the relations within the slave population, people not hitherto subject to English social norms and, as slaves, perhaps not to be subject to them on St Helena? Much of the evidence advanced here comes from court proceedings. These can be vivid and are sometimes remarkably detailed, conveying well the situations affecting the people involved. However, court records represent the unusual and the extreme rather than the norm. Their interrogation might imply that St Helena was a hedonistic place of illicit coupling and assaults. A glimpse of the usual more decorous behaviour comes from a letter written by a nervous young chaplain seeking advice from the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1705. Amongst the issues was whether or not Banns of Matrimony were valid if not read before both parties, for ‘sometimes ye woman out of modesty will not appear in person.’3 ‘A full supply’: transplanted gender relations and roles The passenger list from European and John and Alexander bringing settlers to reoccupy the island after the Dutch hiatus in 1673 was reproduced in Table 3.1 (Appendix 3). It can be scrutinised here to identify gender relations amongst the 119 passengers. Some single men travelled alone but none of the passengers were unaccompanied women. Two women of different surnames travelled with Fran (sic) Rutter—one wonder if this forename was Frances and these were three women travelling together for safety and companionship. In addition, five families had women who were not recorded as servants travelling with them. Thus unmarried women, or those travelling without their husbands, had to be protected, or at least assigned a position within a group that gave the appearance of protection.4 Single women travelling as servants had their employers as protectors: the gender of Negro servants was not recorded, but in 12 out of 20 cases that for white servants was given and ten were women, probably single. In addition to these two ships, the EIC were trying to secure a third that year to carry another 40 planters, presumably in family groups, and another 20 young women.5 These single women were significant as the success of the company’s enterprise on St Helena depended on the establishment of a sustainable community, which required sufficient marriage partners. When African was sent

GENDER RELATIONS ON ST HELENA

75

in 1660 to take John Dutton on to Run, indentured labourers were taken to St Helena. The men were to serve for four years before being granted their own land and a bounty. Women in this group, ‘when they shall be married to any of the inhabitants of the Island they are then to bee set free from service though it bee before the expiration of the said four years.’6 Women, then, were to be encouraged to become part of a productive, family-centred agricultural society, and were sent as an inducement to bachelors and widowers. Women were commodities; the company even used the phrase ‘a full supply’, regarding the number being sent to the island in 1674, the same words being used about provisions.7 This commodification was a normal occurrence with the EIC. In 1674 it was ruled at the Court of Committees that ‘as many single women (not under twelve or over thirty years of age) as wish to go to Bombay be allowed to do so at the Company’s charge.’ They would be supported for a year after arrival and given employment in the company, but it is quite clear that their primary function was to ‘marry Englishmen’. At the same meeting there was discussion about the further settling of St Helena, family groups were to be enticed to go, but as an ‘encouragement’ to planters ‘as many maidens be sent out as can be procured.’8 One means by which they might have been procured was suggested by John Ovington who visited in 1689 as chaplain aboard Benjamin with a ‘Curiosity of enquiring from the women, how such Plenty of them came there.’ His conclusion was that they were tricked, that ‘the current Report that then prevail’d was that all the single Persons upon the Island were either Commanders or Lords Sons of whom they might have Choice upon their Arrival.’ This seems unlikely and Ovington spends the next page enthusing about the ‘joyful Maids’ ransacking their stores for ‘ornamental dress’ to make themselves ‘Trim and Gay’ to meet their suitors, perhaps conveying more about the writer’s fancies than St Helena’s population policies. However, a remark about ‘the plain Courtship of men employed in Agriculture, and ordinary Mechanick Arts’ does ring true.9 In 1660 it had been suggested that land should be assigned to women in their own right, but that was in the first desperate days when the company was struggling to maintain a population with many of the island people following Dutton to Run. In the 1670s, after the re-occupation, when those ‘maidens’ were sent, they were not themselves permitted to become planters. A Court of Committees in 1678 noted that ‘several queries are made as to whether single women ought to receive land at their arrival,’ but ‘single women have not been entertained on any such terms.’ However, if a migrant woman married a man without land, ‘upon marriage a plantation and cattle shall be allotted to them for their encouragement.’10 Widows could become planters on family plots and by 1706, 12 out of 90 planters were widowed women.11 By 1678, soldiers who agreed to stay as planters were to have their wives sent down at company expense.12 So important was it that civilians be in family groups that a sawyer whose wife had refused to join him was repatriated and had to return monies advanced to the company.13 Further, by 1680 when land grants were 20 acres with two cows, a single man received only ten acres and one cow. The other half of the land grant and the second cow had to wait until he married either a planter’s daughter or a woman from England. Planters’ sons marrying

76

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

women from England got a standard grant, or if they had inherited from their father already, received an additional ten acres.14 Women assumed the status of their husbands. At the highest level was the governor’s wife. The wife of Governor Blackmore was ‘brought unto death’s doore’ on 5 January 1685 and, as a mark of respect for a person of her quality, all company proceedings that day were suspended. Business was not to have been mundane as several prisoners were due to be executed for staging a rebellion.15 This courtesy to Mrs Blackmore actually saved their lives for the sentences were later commuted to banishment. Blackmore himself died in 1690 after a fall. His possessions were inventoried and included a closet belonging to his late wife containing jewellery, silver spoons and plate, salt cellars, ivory boxes and a gold watch—evidence indeed of the high status and standard of living ascribed to her by her husband’s position. However, even high status married women lacked rights. Under English Common Law—the basis for the law in most places that have been part of the British Empire—women were ‘persons in matters of pains and penalties, but not in matters of rights and privileges.’ This meant that they could be deemed not to be ‘persons for the purpose of having the right to participate in public and professional life’ as was discovered by a woman magistrate whose tribulations led to the landmark ruling that overturned centuries of Common Law tradition in the 1929 ‘Persons’ case in Canada.16 The St Helena records do not show women seeking high office and the other aspect of Common Law operated, too, for when the company imposed a poll tax, it applied to both sexes.17 Gender roles were also traditional. Only male civilians were required to assist the garrison in watching for shipping and they also, in the early years, had to join the militia. Only men served on juries or stood for elected office. Women also had traditional roles such as midwives. One mentioned in 1696 was Margaret Manning, wife of the surgeon, Henry Manning.18 Slaves had their own; a list of the occupations of company slaves survives from 1723 and one of the 68 women is a midwife.19 Other female roles were also conventional: the wife of Reverend Humphreys was sent down in 1698 to assist her husband in teaching school;20 and a generation earlier Henry Gargen, employed by the company to supervise its plantation, had been accompanied by his wife and her sister to manage the dairy.21 Another woman made her living taking in laundry.22 Slave women in 1723 worked in the dairy, kept poultry and did the washing.23 In the English realm in the seventeenth century it was expected that women would be chaste outside marriage and faithful within it. In Maryland ‘colonists considered normal and exclusive sexual union, peaceful cohabitation and economic support of the wife by the husband the minimal duties that spouses must perform.’24 In the Chesapeake colonies ‘scripture and conventional values reinforced the dominant role of the male.’25 Such social mores could be backed up in colonies with the force of newly-minted law, thus in St Helena ‘all fornication, uncleaness and adultery [were to] be foreborne.’26 Of course, such practices were not always ‘foreborne’ and the court records contain numerous examples of prosecution in this area. In 1682 John Poole took his wife, Mary, to court accusing her of adultery with Richard Alexander. Poole’s evidence included a report of his hearing ‘much rustling, bustling [and] shakeing of the bed’, which was challenged by the accused couple, who said they had just ‘satt

GENDER RELATIONS ON ST HELENA

77

together whispering and talking.’ Mary Poole then did her cause no good by stepping further beyond the social bounds assigned her by confronting the (male) authorities sitting in judgement. She appeared ‘in such a rude furious and impatient manner that no question could be askt nor answer made for the noise, the cackling and scolding that she offered and uttered.’ ‘Cackling and scolding’ strikes one as gender-biased terminology. For swearing at the council she was punished by being strapped to the ducking stool located at the waterside near the fort and being ducked (Figure 5.1). Her case was then suspended, she, unsurprisingly, ‘seeming not to be well’. Meanwhile, her lover—for the couple were found guilty—was sentenced to 25 lashes on his naked body at the flagstaff and bound over for six months. Mary Poole was then sentenced to 21 lashes at the flagstaff, also on the naked body, although upon her husband intervening the sentence was reduced to 11 strokes.27 That corporal punishment was inflicted on women’s naked bodies must have added exquisite humiliation onto a dreadfully painful experience. The only latitude was if the woman was pregnant, in which case her flogging would be deferred until after delivery, as with Anne Cannady, who was punished for cursing a captain who was removing seamen from her company in 1676.28 The ducking stool was also designed to humiliate and it was reserved for women. Isaac Leach was in court in 1683 for non-payment of fines and, in an echo of the Mary Poole case, was ‘very bold, impudent and insolent in his behaviour … using many saucy reflections in his words and expressions.’ He was imprisoned and goods were seized to pay off the fines, but, unlike Poole, of course he was not ducked.29 Mary Poole had been flogged for adultery; the same year

Figure 5.1 Ducking stool, Bermuda.

78

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

fornication was the charge against a planter and a widow who had ‘lived naughtily together’ and had been found naked in bed by a witness who had thrown a pail of water over them before taking her evidence to the authorities. Both fornicators were also flogged, naked, and the woman—a widow, note, so with no husband to offend—was then expelled from St Helena. The man was not subjected to this further punishment.30 ‘Reputation, which she did value to as dear a rate as life itself’ James Sharpe has noted ‘that considerations of honour, good name and reputation’ were significant concerns in seventeenth century England,31 and such mores seem to have been transferred readily to St Helena. A case of defamation from 1693 illustrates the matter well. Grace Coulson took a planter, Richard Parum, before the court ‘for scandal’. Parum claimed that he had made an arrangement ‘to make use of her body carnaly’ after Coulson, who had wanted Parum to sell her a smock, after he refused offered to ‘lie with him’ if he would give it to her. However, when Parum ‘came to performe his said bargain he found another person making use of her as he ought to have done.’ Parum then spread abroad this story, thus taking Coulson’s ‘good name away and reputation, which she did value to as dear a rate as life itself.’ In an unsavoury case, which must have removed her reputation anyway, claims were made that Coulson had had sex with the doctor and that it was a ship’s captain in bed with her when Parum came for his bargain. Nevertheless, Parum was found guilty of defamation and was ordered to pay Coulson 20 shillings in recompense. The relative severity of the issue of defamation may be judged from the fact that Parum was also required to give five shillings to the company but was fined only two shillings for using oaths and, in the following case that day, which also involved him, was fined five shillings for working on the Sabbath.32 In 1695 there was a dispute between planters Robert Exeter and William Marsh over assault. Marsh lost, but in the next case won another suit with Exeter, for slander, based on what was probably the cause of the assault, Exeter’s claim that a slave had ‘lain’ with Marsh’s daughter. In what was a busy day for him, Exeter was fined for the second time, and also flogged for having falsely bragged that he was the father of three of the children of another planter, William Dufton (or Doveton).33 The punishments of Parum and Exeter illustrate something of the value St Helena society placed on women’s reputation and how it could be harmed by men’s behaviour, in words as well as deeds. A woman’s good name could also be taken away by those of her own gender. At the same court sitting as Exeter’s cases, spinster Margaret Harper took two other women to court for spreading false rumours that she had ‘slunk’, or miscarried. The two women were flogged as punishment.34 Usually, the reputation under threat was a woman’s. However, one woman received 31 lashes on the naked body for scandalising a ship’s captain, Hopefor Bendall;35 another was whipped for bringing a false breach of promise accusation,36 and one for having claimed that the father of her child was the deputy governor, Cornelius Sodrington.37 That last was in 1706 and, given that Sodrington had been sacked in 1704 as he did ‘not at all answer our expectation nor the character which his friends gave of him.’38 perhaps there had

GENDER RELATIONS ON ST HELENA

79

been some truth in the claim. Another case dismissed, doubtless to the relief of the man involved, was when a proposal was deemed to have been ‘jocular’, during a ‘merry discourse’.39 A woman without a reputation might be seen to beguile men. Elizabeth Swallow was convicted of adultery with a garrison soldier, William Clifton. Clifton was sent to prison for the offence, but Mrs Swallow managed to smuggle him out at night for further adultery until they were caught by her husband. The soldier was ‘a sorry young Man’ whom ‘this lewd woman did intice … as she had formerly done others.’ He was ordered to stay away from her,40 and later became a schoolmaster, presumably forgiven his youthful indiscretion. Laws regulating sexual activity seemed to be applied more severely to women than men, but they could also protect women. Isaac Leach, already featured above, was also convicted for ‘scandalising’ Mary Coales, another planter’s daughter in 1685. There had been kisses, but the woman had pulled away. However, Leach went on to brag of having had ‘carnal knowledge’ of Coales and the council were unimpressed by his ‘most filthy way and manner of expressing and declaring his adulterous act.’ He received eight lashes, was sent to prison, bound over and required to make financial restitution to Mary Coales. If a woman was mentally incapacitated the court took especial care to see that she was protected. In 1706 Hester Williams was brought before the court with Samuel Price for fornication. Price admitted that he had had carnal knowledge of her, confirmed by the court, which got a woman to examine Williams, who found she had been deflowered. There was more doubt as to her mental state and various witnesses were called to rule on Williams’s ‘idiocy’, to determine whether she was capable enough to realise that her action had been wrong. The court decided by reason of her ‘mean capacities’ not to prosecute the couple and they were required to do penance in church before being allowed to marry.41 ‘Amongst the physick nutt trees’: prostitution and assault As William Dampier recorded in 1691, relationships between visiting seamen and the ‘well shaped, proper and comely’ St Helena women could be correct. ‘Whilst we stay’d here many of the seamen got sweethearts’; one got married and another took a fiancé off to England—quick work considering Dampier’s ships stayed only five or six days.42 Other seamen might just have added to the demand for prostitution from amongst the civilian population and the garrison. A court case in 1684 made mention of a ‘house of ill-report’,43 but more often court cases involved women acting alone. Elizabeth Starling offered to ‘prostitute herself’ with ‘gentlemen strangers … amongst the physick nutt trees’ when her husband would be at the fort, it was alleged in 1676. Nothing could be proved, but she was ‘dukt’ (ducked) anyway, the unnamed stranger reporting to the court that he had ‘never meet with a more Impudent person in his life.’44 There was more evidence against Sarah Marshall, described in 1683 as a ‘lewd woman that hath been several tymes convicted.’45 One of those ‘tymes’ was in 1682 when three seamen visited her in Matthew Pouncey’s house in Chapel Valley. Pouncey’s ‘Black wench’ (servant) had called him to a bedroom upstairs where as the records graphically account, a seaman was on the bed with Marshall, ‘his breeches down and her coats up.’ She was sentenced to seven lashes. Allegations of fornication amounting to prostitution were often made of

80

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

women who went aboard ships. Two were fined for staying on board at night in 1676;46 in 1680 the governor ruled that such women ‘exposed themselves to temptation’, were ‘lewd and profane’, bringing ‘Great Scandall both upon themselves and ye whole Island.’ Women were not to board ships without his written permission on pain of punishment.47 East India House reinforced this policy in 1683: Wee have heard very scandalous reports of loose women going on board our ships. For the future suffer none to go on board upon any pretence without a licence in writing from the Governor and if any offend therein, force them to pay a fine of 2s 6d for the first offence, 5s for the second, 10s for the third and so doubling till you have broke them from that wicked and scandalous practice.48 Not all illegal sexual encounters between servicemen and civilian women were consensual, there were a number of assaults. One soldier was charged by a planter on behalf of his wife for ‘uncivil actions, attempting to breach her chastity and being guilty of horrible swearing.’ He had to ride the wooden horse with a bag of shot at each ankle for two hours.49 The most detailed case relates to the assault of Susan Doveton (or Dufton) by a soldier, Allenard Kirkpatrick. William Doveton, the husband, complained that Fitzpatrick had demanded entry to his house when his wife was there alone. She had refused, only for Kirkpatrick to force an entrance down the chimney. She was thrown on the bed where the soldier ‘attempted to have his lustful will upon her.’ Susan struggled free but was caught again and forced to the floor, at which point William Doveton entered. There was a history of bad relations between Kirkpatrick and the Dovetons. William Doveton had complained to the governor about Kirkpatrick after the soldier had threatened to kill him. Kirkpatrick had threatened also that he would give Susan ‘a whore’s mark’ by cutting off her nose and had accused her of ‘having lain with six severall blacks’. The cause of these poor relations may have been that Kirkpatrick had a venereal disease, ‘the pox’, and claimed to have contracted it from Susan Doveton, implying that she had committed adultery with him already. Kirkpatrick was found guilty of ‘heynous crimes’ sent to prison in irons and had to ride the wooden horse for four hours for three straight days. He was forbidden from ever going to the Dovetons’ house again.50 ‘Lusty young Negroes’: gender roles and relations amongst the slaves Gender roles and relations amongst the slaves are hard to uncover. They were property—the few ‘Free Blacks’ excepted—and it is not easy to trace individuals for they were never given family names, just one European (often classical) Christian name, or they were referred to in the records as a European’s property: Matthew Pouncey’s ‘Black wench’ was mentioned above. There are just hints, as incidental material in court cases. In 1686 Frank, slave of Richard Gurling, confessed to taking silver and pewter buttons from the house of another planter, Thomas Trewsdale, in a burglary during which Trewsdale’s slave, Amingo was murdered. Frank had given the buttons to a black woman belonging to Captain Johnson. Was the gift payment for sexual favours? If so, they were hard earned.

GENDER RELATIONS ON ST HELENA

81

Frank was hung, drawn and quartered; Captain Johnson’s slave was sentenced to 40 lashes, branded on her shoulder with the letter R, and had to carry one of Frank’s quarters to its place of display. The following year another slave, Peter, was executed for attempting to poison his master and mistress and he had tried to ‘entice’ another planter’s slave, Worla, ‘to run away from her master, telling her that he would go with her and bidding her not to be afraid.’51 Gender roles are revealed to some extent in these cases, with intriguing hints that the men may have been seeking sexual favours. In other ways gender roles were also conventional. Female slaves on the plantations would more often work within the house, whilst the men took on tasks such as fishing, hunting and cattle management. Most slaves could not have lived in family groups given the numerical imbalance between the sexes. In 1722 there were 186 adult male slaves and 18 ‘Free Blacks’, but only 67 adult black women,52 and there is only occasional reference to families amongst the black population. In 1673 during the retaking of the island, a slave, Oliver, guided the landing party. ‘Black Oliver’, as was known, was given his freedom in reward and made a planter. The company purchased ‘the said Negroe’s wife and two children’, the possessions of John and Mary Colston, and they joined Oliver on his land.53 The term ‘wife’ was not used just as a courtesy to Oliver’s new status for it was mentioned again in 1676 when a negro at St Helena became separated from his ‘wife and children’ at Fort St George in India.54 In 1723 three slaves belonging to the company were recorded as wives. This seems a small number given that the company had 68 female slaves and 124 male slaves, mostly in their twenties.55 The previous year the census had recorded 67 black women on the island as a whole, which would suggest some under enumeration. The figures perhaps lacking precision but given that there were 113 black children recorded in 1722 and only three black wives found in 1723, most of children were born outside wedlock. It is clear also that with fewer than two children per adult woman, reproduction amongst the slaves was below the replacement rate.56 ‘To keep company with a black wench’: gender relations across the racial divide In some European colonies sexual relations across racial lines were common, as in Portuguese and Spanish America, whilst in Canada the Métis emerged as a distinct ethnic group from unions between aboriginal people and mainly French Canadian migrants. ‘Only in English outposts was concubinage uncommon and intermarriage forbidden’57 reported Michael Zuckerman. St Helena was such an English outpost. Company soldier Alexander Fraizer, having been forbidden several times to go up to the company’s plantation ‘to keep company with a black wench’ did so once more when he should have been on duty at Rupert’s Fort. He was sentenced to ride the wooden horse with two muskets at each leg.58 Black men who were found guilty of having or trying to have sex with white women might expect exemplary punishment and the women involved lost their reputation. One of the worst insults that could be hurled at a white woman was that she slept with slaves, as with Susan Doveton as seen above. In 1693 Daniel Cottier brought John Oliver to court for saying that Jack, a slave of Sutton Isaack, had slept with his wife, Naomy. Witnesses had seen Jack in the same

82

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

room as Naomy, an offence deemed sufficient for an awful sentence of 61 lashes at the gallows.59 A few years earlier another slave, Coley, had been found guilty of laying hands upon Margaret, wife of William Roe. She had not been raped and had got away. Even so, Coley received 21 lashes and had his right ear cut off.60 Modern St Helena is one of the few places in the world where the melting pot model of integration amongst peoples of different racial origins actually holds. The island from the start was racially mixed. To its seventeenth century African and English bloodlines were later added Asian and different African and European lines. The Saints, as people from the island are known, are now each a mixture of these varied origins. However, in the early company colony there was little evidence of friendly relationships between the races, never mind relationships that extended into consensual sexual activity. The divide then was not just between black and white, it was between slave and master, a chasm indeed, and one deepened not just by social custom, but the force of law as with the soldier forced to ride the wooden horse for ‘keeping company’ with a ‘black wench’ and missing his duty. ‘Great clamour’: resistance This chapter has shown that in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, the women of St Helena led a restricted life. They were valued—‘maidens’ were sent down to the island for ‘encouragement’—but such value was largely for their reproductive faculties, this within a society so repressed that some women would not attend the reading of their marriage banns through ‘modesty’. ‘Modesty’ was their expected behaviour, the norms of seventeenth century English society outweighing any relaxation that might have been expected in the pioneer setting of St Helena. Certainly the garrison and the sailors found sexual relief amongst the island women, much more of it, one imagines, than found its way into the contemporary records. But the opprobrium and humiliating penalties heaped on the relatively few women found guilty of offences with seamen, soldiers or civilians shows that at least on the surface, chastity, modesty and the other principles of T. E, with whom we opened the chapter, held sway. Just occasionally come hints of women’s resistance to men, to the patriarchal society and to the mighty company whose male officers controlled their lives. We saw the resistance of Mary Poole to the court, even though she was ducked for her outburst. Elizabeth Swallow broke the bounds of conventional marriage passivity by giving evidence of felonies committed by her husband in 1687.61 She was involved three years later in another’s resistance when this presumably rather spirited woman was sentenced to 21 lashes for having not only committed adultery with a soldier but having then smuggled him from prison to do it again. The marshal, part of whose duties involved the administration of corporal punishment, refused to carry out the sentence. Sadly for Swallow, he was dismissed and replaced by another without such qualms.62 Resistance came also from the mighty. The company had much trouble with governors’ wives, who refused sometimes to behave with due submission, especially during their widowhoods. Governor Field’s wife seems never to have accompanied her husband to St Helena, refusing to go unless sent in a ‘good convoy’, which was not to the company’s convenience.63 In London, she was

GENDER RELATIONS ON ST HELENA

83

constantly badgering the company for money, with ‘great clamour’.64 Madame Johnson, as the records respectfully style her, widow of the governor assassinated in 1693, remained on land near the fort granted to her husband when a lieutenant on St Helena in 1681. By 1709 this plot was needed for new barracks but the old lady resisted pressure on her to leave and the matter had to be passed to East India House for a ruling.65 Perhaps T. E.’s promise of more freedom for women when they were widowed came to pass for another widow, of Governor Kelinge, had ‘thrown herself’ upon an unsuitable man in 1698, but the company although ‘sorry for her folly … do not know by what laws we can help her.’66 Resistance came, too, from grieving widows—those of the men executed by the EIC after the rebellion in 1684 (see Chapter 7). They prosecuted the company before the House of Commons in 1689 and won their case.67 On the island Grace Colson refused to pay rent for the lease on her land and relating to a property in the town. Her reasoning for such resistance was that she had paid the company too much already, a reference to the execution of her husband. Then she ‘got in a womanly passion … and departed saying you may doe what you will.’68 Resistance also came from the humble and the chapter will close with the behaviour of a woman forced to live her life on the ‘Company’s Island’ at the bottom of the social heap. This was Jenny, slave of James Vessey, a ‘Black wench’, one of the voiceless. Her brief appearance in the records in 1706 does not express her voice except to say that her language was ‘saucy’, but it does identify her vitality, regarding a movement that mutely expressed the defiance that circumstances would have loaded onto people of her race and gender. Jenny had been ordered by her mistress to pull down a fence in Sandy Bay, seemingly belonging to Thomas Gargen. Gargen saw her at work and protested. Witness Matthew Bazzett reported that Gargen then said he would kick Jenny if she continued, ‘upon that she clapt her hands upon her britch as much to say you may kiss there.’69

6 ‘YE ASSISTANCE AND LABOUR OF NEGROES’: Slavery on St Helena

Company colonies were places of work. Ascension Island in the 1920s and 1930s was a work camp with colonial trappings. The British union flag was run up the flagstaff in Georgetown by the Eastern Telegraph Company only when a ship was spotted.1 Places of work need a labour force. Ascension Island, with no indigenous population, drew the company (and colonial) rulers and higher-grade workers from Europe, whilst labourers were brought up from St Helena. By contrast, the Hudson’s Bay Company on Vancouver Island could utilise indigenes for trade and, on occasion, as labourers. At Fort Rupert, a small mining settlement in the north, although relations were usually fraught, the indigenous people might be used as a labour pool, as in 1850 when a party was engaged to drain water from the mine.2 In the colony’s capital, Fort Victoria, in 1853, Governor Douglas reported that the ‘Indians’ were making wooden shingles for the fort, and any surplus could be exported to the Sandwich Islands (Hawai’i) at a large profit.3 ‘Indians’ would be hired to crew canoes at ‘the expense of the Colony’ noted Douglas in 1850.4 On St Helena there were no indigenes to be coerced into a labour force. The struggles to obtain voluntary migrants were detailed in Chapter 3 and, given their limited numbers, there was a demand for alternative sources of labour. Apprentices and indentured labourers were sent, but whilst the English colonies around the Chesapeake the late seventeenth century saw a ‘slow displacement of white servitude by black slavery as the predominant form of labour,’5 in St Helena black slaves were important from the start and were brought in until 1792.6 The EIC’s belief was that ‘it is utterly impossible for any European Plantation to thrive between ye Tropicks upon any place without ye assistance and labour of Negroes.’7 This quote does not use the word ‘slaves’, but the Negroes brought to St Helena were slaves, subject to purchase and sale. The few who gained their freedom were known as ‘Free Blacks’. The slaves’ place in the order of things was clearly identified in the documents reassigning St Helena back to the company in 1673 after the expulsion of the Dutch. The military commander of the island, Captain Keigwin, was instructed to deliver unto the company’s new governor, Captain Field, ‘the island of St Helena with all the forts, ordnance, ammunition, stores, provisions,

SLAVERY ON ST HELENA

85

cattle, negroes and whatsoever else is upon the said island.’8 What depth of meaning may be read into the use of the word ‘whatsoever’; Negroes were property, listed after cattle. ‘12 lusty young Negroes’: the importation of slaves to St Helena It has been noted that Captain Dutton’s voyage of settlement in 1659 was to acquire slaves for St Helena from the Cape Verde Islands. Five or six were to be bought, both men and women, ‘provided they may be had at under 40 dollars.’9 The same year orders were issued to the company’s agents at Fort Cormantine in West Africa to prepare ‘10 lusty young black men and women and what provisions are reasonable,’ the same to be held at the castle, so that Captain George Swanley, who was sailing on to St Helena, ‘may not be put to further trouble in the gaining of them.’10 Governor Dutton formally notified of these arrangements. This notification and the slaves would arrive together on Swanley’s ship, Fruroe, and the message would serve to authenticate the delivery.11 Three years later Fort Cormantine received another order, this time for ‘12 lusty young Negroes, the major part women.’ It has already been noted in Chapter 2 that at least this party ‘may bee such as will voluntarily and without compulsion sail in ye ship for ye named place,’ although the concluding phrase ‘if such may be attayned’, hinted, perhaps, that supplies of such volunteers might be limited and other strategies could be needed.12 The records detail a shipment of ‘two Blacks skilful in planting’ in 1663,13 and in 1666 the Company sent Charles, to ‘the coast’, presumably Fort Cormantine again, for slaves for St Helena.14 Henry Gargen’s report of the 1661 to 1665 period shows that four slaves lived in the governor’s household and that there were another 17, including four children, on the island, probably attached to the company plantation.15 By 1669 the company was struggling to obtain slaves for the island and had had to resort to trying to relocate some from its settlements in India.16 It seems that this policy failed for ‘ye ship George did not bring you Negroes as wee intended’ and Unicorne, Captain Thomas Harman, was ordered to revert to the company’s first source of slave labour and was ‘to touch at St Iago, to take in 24 Negroes, Men and Women, to be distributed amongst ye inhabitants.’17 Only in 1687 was the company at last able to relocate slaves from in India when Shrewsbury, Captain Robert Alford, arrived at St Helena with ten, which Alford stated he had been ordered to leave ashore for the company’s use, although there was some dispute with the governor as to whether this was an official order or just a ruse to enable Alford to indulge in private trade. Russell Miller has generalised that ‘Captains of East Indiamen … were notorious for the single-minded pursuit of personal wealth’18 and such captains had been known to engage in a little slave trading on their own account. St Helena governors had been ordered in 1677 not to buy slaves from ship’s captains, presumably for that reason.19 In the end, Alford’s cargo was accepted and the slaves set to work on the company plantation.20 Another source was the slave ships, which called for refreshment en route to Europe or the Americas. In 1681, it was established that slaves could be taken from these ‘Madagascar ships’ as payment ‘to be employed in taking in more ground for the inlargement of the Company’s plantations,’ as part of the

86

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

constant, but fruitless, quest by East India House that ‘at length we may receive some profit’ from St Helena.21 Permission was granted for another ten slaves to be acquired from Madagascar ships in 1698.22 The company itself also acquired slaves directly from 1670 when returning ships if they touched were to ‘buy at Johanna or Madagascar … a young male and a young female negro and leave them for service at St Helena.’23 In 1684 EIC commander Captain Knox delivered Madagascar slaves to St Helena, along with cotton, wool and yarn, part of a complex trade, which also saw pieces of eight (money) and calico from stores and ships calling at the island given to Knox for him to trade for pepper in the east.24 Another source of slaves was Barbados, 15 were sent over from that island in 1687 to be sold on to ‘our planters’. In the same document it is clear that the EIC was prepared to buy slaves for St Helena from other organisations, mention being made of 60 or 80 from the Gold Coast being obtained from ‘ye Royall Company’ (presumably the Royal African Company).25 In short, it would seem that slaves were not easy to obtain, for no one source dominated the trade and several times plans to send slaves did not come to fruition. ‘Two blacks skilful in planting’: slaves in the workforce Captain Knox’s slaves of 1684 were sold on to the planters at £12 to £14 a head; later that year it was noted that sales could be on credit to ‘poor planters’,26 in 1690 a planter, Richard Stacey, was in court for not having £16 3s, owed on a female he had purchased.27 Slave sales would be officially announced, as at a consultation on 5 August 1686 when notification was given of a sale a fortnight later. Sales seemed to be on an ‘as seen’ basis, a soldier who had bought a slave from a planter asked for his money back as he did not like the boy but lost the case.28 Island tradition has it that sales were held by trees which still stand in central Jamestown (Figure 6.1). A context for the price of slaves may be gained from the fact in 1681 the annual salary of the deputy governor was £40.29 A further indication of their value comes from evidence following the sedition of 1684 (see Chapter 7). One of the prime causes of resentment was the ‘impositions’, a series of taxes imposed on the civilians by an unpopular deputy governor, Robert Holden. There were duties of a few pence on silks, sugar, alcohol and calicos and a poll tax imposed on household members, their cattle and their slaves. The amount was 6d for the family members, the same for cattle, but ’for every working Black slave’, planters had to pay half a guinea (10s 6d) each year (Table 6.1, Appendix 3).30 The high value of slaves was because of the work they did. Agricultural and labouring duties were their most frequent occupations. Thus, in 1666 when Henry Gargen was contracted to manage the company plantation, he was granted his own land and the use of one or two ‘Negro servants’ to help him cultivate it, provided he would feed them.31 In his report of the 1661 to 1665 period he had been scornful of the white planters’ skill with arable as opposed to pastoral activities and pointed out that the slaves who farmed collectively less than one third of a plantation ‘hath 3 times as many beanes. And one of their beanes is worth 5 of theirs, both for planting and eating.’32 In 1663 ‘two Blacks skilful in planting’, along with the plants, roots and seeds with which they were to work had been delivered on American.33 Later, company agents in India

SLAVERY ON ST HELENA

87

Figure 6.1 The trees where it is believed slaves were sold, Jamestown. considered sending two experienced slaves specifically to cultivate rice paddies until advice was received that St Helena would not be suitable for such a practice.34 The slaves’ skills in agriculture were not always fully utilised. By the 1690s, excessive use of fuel to distil arrack from potatoes as well as the length of time it took to boil yams to edibility had combined to create a shortage of firewood, and some slaves spent half their time fetching wood from remote locations where it could still be obtained.35 There is considerable detail available on how the company employed its own extensive holding of slaves. The use of Madagascar slaves to enlarge the company plantation in 1681 has already been mentioned,36 whilst in 1683 slaves were to be sought from India or Madagascar or taken from Madagascar ships for the purpose of enclosing the Great Wood for company use.37 In 1684, soldiers with trades were tasked to teach their skills to the ‘most docile’ slaves on the realisation that the island could never ‘expect to be fully supplied with all sorts of necessary workmen’ from England. ‘Madagascar Blacks’ then in Barbados had been found to be ‘ingenious’ in learning to be smiths, carpenters, coopers, masons and bricklayers and if their fellows learned such trades on St Helena it would be of benefit.38 A full account of the occupations of company slaves was recorded in 1723 (Table 6.2, Appendix 3), shortly after Governor Benjamin Boucher, to the irritation of East India House, had expanded the area of St Helena under direct company control by buying three plantations: Perkins, The Hutts and The Peake. In 1723 most of the 224 company slaves (156 men, 68 women) had undifferentiated labouring work in agriculture at these plantations and the company plantation, which was the largest employer. Fifty-four slaves did not work, 15 being superannuated, past working, including one called Old

88

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Will; 39 were children ‘not fit for labour’. Only a few male slaves working the land had specific occupations—two butchers, several gardeners, plus five young lads whose task was to scare goats. A party of slaves crewed the longboat (under a military coxswain), a vital task since ships did not then (and do not now) tie up at St Helena. Other men were involved in fishing. At the fort were ‘house blacks’ (redolent of the American South), cooks, a candlemaker and a distiller. A reason for the company holding preponderantly male slaves was the demand for labour in the heavy work of improving defences. In 1684 female slaves delivered by Captain Knox were used for planting whilst males were employed under soldiers in building walls or barricades across the valleys and gullies to leeward, the northwest coast.39 Building fortifications was a lifetime’s occupation, nearly 40 years later in 1723 43 of the 170 company slaves with occupations were at the fortifications, of whom just five were women, including a midwife whose work was presumably elsewhere. Some jobs at the fortifications were skilled and the remaining walls around St Helena dating from this period are testimony to those slaves who were stone layers and cutters, carpenters and sawyers and who worked in the limekilns. Female slaves had traditional gender roles. Those with specific occupations worked in the dairy, looked after poultry or made clothes, whilst one was a midwife. The 1723 slave census also recorded their ages. Figure 6.2 is an age/sex pyramid drawn up from this document. In cannot be entirely accurate; presumably there was much estimation in this data set, but it shows two things clearly: firstly that the slave population was overwhelmingly male; secondly that it was young. There were 37 children from under a year to 10, 13 between 10 and 20, with the considerable majority in their twenties. The oldest working slave was only 52, although the 15 ‘superanuated’ slaves may have been older, their ages not being recorded. Two women were both called ‘Old Mary’—they were each 47. The scarcity of teenagers might be a result of a 1699 policy to convey ‘useless Black children’ off the island, at that time to Bencoolen.40 The value placed by the company on the work of its slaves can be appreciated by the charges made to soldiers who took slaves fishing. Fish caught had to be

Figure 6.2 Population pyramid, St Helena slaves, 1723.

SLAVERY ON ST HELENA

89

sold to the company; East India House advised that fishing trips be carried out only by ‘honest soldiers who will give you what they catch.’ The price paid to planters for fish was 4s per hundredweight. Off-duty soldiers would get 2s, given that they were in company employ. If they used company slaves as well, the price was reduced to 12d (1s).41 Further, there was an embargo on slaves being lent to planters—such would be ‘a great crime… robbing us of so much as their labour is worth.’42 When the company had to hire slaves from planters for unloading ships or working on the fortifications, they paid 2s per head per day43—regulations regarding working hours being issued in 1708, ‘to prevent them being lax’.44 The payments, described as ‘sallarys’, of course went to the planters.45 These ‘masters and owners of blacks’ did not always profit, being liable for restitution for ‘any hurt or damage’ their slaves caused.46 In 1684 planters owning slaves who stole money and silver buttons from a family of orphans had to ‘make good and satisfy the principall damage and loss that the sayd Greentree’s orphans have sustained by ye said Blacks.’47 A lesser example was when planter John Luffkin was fined 6s because his slave had been observed carrying a load on the Sabbath by the governor on his way to church—what bad luck!48 The company kept records of not just what their slaves did, but how well they performed. Table 6.3 (Appendix 3), again constructed from the invaluable 1723 document, classifies every working slave. Of the 170, 40 (23.5 percent) were characterised by illness and/or disability, mainly being recorded as ‘sickly’ with two lame and six poxed. Qualitative assessments of their work were recorded for 141 slaves, 73 (52 percent) being good or very good, 54 (38 percent) indifferent (including, sadly, one of the two cooks), the other 14 (10 percent) worse, culminating in Great Sarah, 32, at the company plantation who was ‘very bad and much poxed’. These assessments should be reasonably accurate as the slaves worked under overseers who would presumably have known the qualities of the people they controlled. Perhaps having over half the slaves described positively was a decent achievement, a slave workforce must be difficult to manage; these are not willing recruits or paid workers to be cajoled with metaphorical carrots. Slaves got only the stick—literally. The way in which it was applied is detailed below. ‘Not too cruell’? The treatment of slaves Slaves were property, featuring in the records alongside provisions and cattle. Property benefits from being kept in good condition. So, medical care was provided, if not always by the company surgeon. In 1691 the company surgeon, Henry Manning was dismissed for incompetence. In his place was appointed a planter, John Stevens, who had medical experience in that he had been employed in caring for company slaves ‘and hath had great success therein’, including his treatment of some left by Manning as incurable.49 Regarding feeding, cassava was recommended as suitable for slaves ‘as it will not be damaged by fly and worm, and roots will survive in the ground.’50 Dry fish was to be stored ‘for ye supply of our negroes in case of failure of their provisions by accident or dearths or ill weather’ and ‘horsebeans’ (probably broad beans) and peas were sent down in 1684 to be sold to planters or used as food for company slaves.51 Feeding of planters’ slaves was another matter and in 1706 East India

90

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

House linked the stealing of fowl and cattle by slaves in the country to ill feeding.52 It was another five years until official instructions were issued that they be properly fed ‘for wee hear some of those many who dy’d lately wanted food and … clothes which hastened their end.’53 Accommodation was provided for company slaves, sheds were to be erected near the fort in 1684,54 and accommodation built around 1711 met with London’s approval, although the governor was reminded to be frugal—‘a good husband’.55 It was acknowledged that slaves could be improved by training and that they might work better if overseers were ‘not too cruell’,56 although to use ‘too’ suggests a little cruelty was acceptable. The manager of the company plantation, Samuel Jessey, was criticised in 1711 for allowing the production of yams to decline, for being lazy and corrupt, and, well down his list of faults, for ill treatment of slaves. But at least the ill treatment was noticed and criticised and Governor Boucher was tasked to enquire into it.57 Earlier, John Callin, an overseer of company slaves, was castigated and some of the council recommended he be sacked because he had also abused those in his charge.58 However, Governor Poirier in his last consultation before illness rendered him speechless refused to dismiss Callin as there were ‘private orders’ for what he did,59 and one gets the impression that humanity towards slaves was only to keep them in good condition so they could work hard. As individual human beings they were treated with suspicion and harshness when they came into contact with company authority, although they were not without rights under the law. One case concerns the murder of a slave, Jacob, property of George Carnes, by Covam, slave of John Sacknold. The circumstances were straightforward. On 16 October 1698 Jacob had been stabbed twice in the back with a Dutch knife. He lived five days after the assault, remaining sentient long enough to tell a soldier that Covam had stabbed him. Covam confessed that a dispute had arisen after Jacob told him to go home to his master, adding the gruesome detail that he had stabbed Jacob so hard between the shoulders that he could hardly get the knife out. The case was open and shut and, it involving two slaves, it might be thought that the expense of full legal processes could be avoided. Indeed, some years earlier it had been decided that the ‘best easiest method’ of dealing with slaves was to try them ‘by Governor and Council without any other forme or Processe’ even where a death penalty was likely.60 Covam, however, had a jury trial. Jacob died on 21 October and the next day a 12 man Jury of Inquest was sworn under Orlando Bagley Senior, as coroner. All 13 viewed the body and ruled that the stabbing had caused death.61 On 1 November, Covam appeared before Governor Poirier as judge, and a jury of 12 men was sworn, three of whom having also served on the Jury of Inquest. Covam was ‘sett to the barr’ and his confession entered into the record. Even then others were called: the surgeon, who confirmed that Jacob had died from stab wounds; and two witnesses, one who had heard Jacob’s testimony, the other who had heard Covam explain how he had stabbed Jacob. The jury withdrew and took half an hour to reach a guilty verdict. Covam was sentenced ‘to be hanged by the neck till you be dead’ with the Christian comfort of an appeal that ‘the God of infinite mercy be merciful unto your soul.’ All was recorded and the proceedings sent to London. Only after death was Covam perhaps treated differently from any other murderer, for then he was to have his head severed and his body quartered, the

SLAVERY ON ST HELENA

91

quarters to be ‘sett upon four poles in four several places of this island’ as a warning to others.62 The fate of the head is not mentioned. The protection of slaves under the law saw the company, on occasion, defend them against their owners or other white people. One case from 1687 relates to two women slaves, the property of Martha Bolton, a widow. One had died and Bolton was charged with causing her death by unreasonable and unlawful punishment. Her story was that the slave had absconded and when she returned home she was almost starved and that was the cause of death. Bolton denied ‘unreasonable beating’ but did admit that the woman had often been ‘corrected’ for misdemeanours, including running away. Two planters were tasked with viewing the slave’s body, reporting that there were signs of burning to the back but they could not say if this had caused death. Martha Bolton was ‘strictly admonished’, a somewhat lesser punishment than black people faced for causing injury or death to white people. However, this does not gainsay the fact that Bolton was in court, and that her violent actions towards her slave were unlawful as well as unreasonable. Further, Bolton was ordered ‘to forbear all violence and rigorous usage’ against her surviving slave, who was pregnant. ‘Unmeasurable’ correction or labour or the withholding of necessities for subsistence were also forbidden. Bonds had to be lodged and were to be forfeit ‘if ye said black should miscarry through ill usage’. The impression of care this conveys for the slave community is weakened by the records not naming either black woman and the survivor did not merit the use of gendered pronouns, but those appropriate to inanimate property: ‘it’ and ‘its’.63 There are few records of assaults, sexual or otherwise, upon slave women by white men, but one case from 1706 demonstrates that such practices were not permitted, legally anyway. Betty, a slave of James Vessey, complained against Dr Bode for abusing and beating her. This had been witnessed by the Sergeant of the Guard, who ordered the doctor to ‘forbear’, upon which the doctor struck the sergeant. Dr Bode’s defence was that he had been ordered by Vessey to assault Betty. This was denied, and Bode found guilty. The doctor, presumably of a status too elevated for him to suffer the usual corporal punishment, was admonished by the governor and formally forgiven by Vessey. No compensation was offered to Betty.64 The protection of slaves under the law was not as secure as for white residents. The burden of proof could be relaxed if the accused were slaves. In 1690 George Sherwin’s slave, a man called Johannah (named presumably after the island in the Comoros from which he had been obtained) was accused of killing company cattle and there was suspicion about his involvement in deaths of cattle and hogs belonging to planters. Another slave, Robin, once also Sherwin’s, gave evidence of he and Johannah killing beasts, but there was no other evidence and it was ruled that there was not ‘sufficient proofe to find ye said Johannah guilty of felony’. His life, which had been in danger as killing company cattle was a capital offence, was spared and he was returned from prison to his master. However, the Court ‘judged’ Johannah to be ‘a notorious thief and to have killed several cattell … [and] in all likelihood been guilty of many Heynous crimes.’ So before release, the slave, who had not been found guilty, was punished anyway with 21 lashes on the naked body. Johannah was

92

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

banished from the island and before this could be accomplished Sherwin had to lodge a bond for his good behaviour.65 Slaves were also tortured. Two, one belonging to the company, the other to Sergeant Jackson, were apprehended out of doors one night in 1692. That in itself was not permitted and their story about going fishing was counteracted by the testimony of Prudence Sherwin, the planter who caught them, who thought they were going to steal from her plantation. The slaves were questioned but would not admit that they intended to burgle. The company slave was then flogged in order ‘to extort a true confession’. He so confessed, but in a universal truth seemingly never learned by repressive regimes, ‘after the punishment had been inflicted upon him, he denied all that he had said, saying he said anything whilst under the lash to prevent further punishment.’ The other slave (neither are named) claimed under torture to have been enticed by the company’s man, the ‘said slaves impeaching each other’. In case they had been complicit in a planned burglary, Prudence Sherwin’s own slaves were questioned—and flogged—but ‘nothing being gotten from them’, were released. In a final, cruel twist the two accused were subject to a mock hanging, with ropes placed round their necks. In the end, no more information was obtained from them and the men, doubtless bloodied and bruised, were released.66 Perhaps the saddest example of the differential treatment of black people related to Civill, a boy owned by Mary Jewster, in whose house he lived. His name came up in court on 13 November 1701, incidental to the case of Tom, an adult slave of Jewster, who was accused of stealing money. Robert Finch, who lodged at the Jewster house, denied being given the money by Tom, at which point Tom interrupted to say that he had seen Finch buggering a black boy of his mistress. Mary Jewster was questioned on this and said that Finch had ‘desired her not to say anything of it and [he] would never do so any more’, which sounds like a confession, although Finch protested his innocence.67 A fortnight later Finch was tried for the alleged buggery. Jewster repeated Tom’s accusation and Finch’s demand for her silence, which Finch explained was to protect his reputation. Civill himself was then called and stated that after his mistress had gone to bed Finch had made him get down on his hands and knees, held him fast by the neck with one hand and pulled down his ‘breeches’ (trousers) with the other and then ‘gott upon his bare backside.’ One wonders how Civill would have been able to describe in such detail the act had it not have been inflicted upon him. That, together with Tom’s testimony that he had observed the assault and Finch’s plea for Jewster to keep it quiet, would seem indicative of guilt, but Finch was acquitted, the jury finding ‘no positive evidence against him.’68 Swap the races of Civill and Finch and one wonders if verdict would have been different. Civill was not the only slave to have his testimony rejected. In fact, there is some evidence to suggest that a black person was not allowed to give witness testimony against a white person. In 1706 a planter, Edward Bagley, was on trial for shooting company dogs and letting his goats graze on company land. One witness was Sam, a company slave. The deputy governor, Captain Thomas Goodwin, objected to Governor Poirier about ‘examining a Black against a white man.’ Poirier backed down, saying that he was not taking evidence from Sam, just learning of the circumstances and that there were precedents for so

SLAVERY ON ST HELENA

93

doing.69 There were precedents, too, of slave testimony being accepted. Poirier had been present at just such a case in 1691 when three blacks in the company boat were accused of stealing blubber from a ‘sea cow’, which they had found ashore. They said that the boat’s coxswain, Simon Whalley, had given it to them despite this being company property. After much examination their testimony had been believed and Whalley dismissed, ‘though there was no other evidence of prove [proof] but the Blacks only.’70 ‘In terrorem’: punishment Punishment for soldiers and civilians, including women, was brutal by modern standards. Punishment for slaves was even more painful and often incorporated mutilation. In 1676 it was ruled that ‘any black person who shall raise his hand against his master (or another) white person whatsoever … shall have his right hand cut off.’71 This was carried out, for example on Sattoe, see below. Ears were another appendage at risk. Chapter 4 recorded a slave called Coley having his right ear cut off for laying hands upon a white woman.72 Slave punishments were not always officially supervised. In 1684 planter Richard Parum’s slave had run away and, presumably to feed himself, had killed some animals. At his trial he was convicted of killing a sow and a hog and there was a presumption that he had killed other beasts, too. The planters whose animals were dead must receive compensation. Slaves have no money, so his owner, Parum, had to pay £4 to six fellow planters. Then ‘it is ordered that it be left to the said Parum to punish his said black as he thinks fit.’ That was in addition to the directive that the man be kept in strong chains and transported from St Helena.73 Punishment rarely included execution and when slaves were sentenced to death, there is evidence of hesitation at imposing capital punishment. Take the example of Robin, slave of planter Francis Wrangham. In 1676 Wrangham died through falling whilst out shooting goats—or so Robin claimed. There was an official enquiry—‘wee have suspicion of his black, he being a great surly fellow’—and the scene of the alleged fall was investigated. No evidence of an accident being found, Wrangham’s body was disinterred and the surgeon ruled that it was too clean for a person who had supposedly died in a fall and there were bruises on the throat and a wound to the back of the head consistent with him having been murdered. The court decided Wrangham ‘was absolutely murthered by his black (though he would not confesse it) for which wicked fact and cruel murther we ordered his right hand to be cutt off and to be put to death in sight of his masters house.’ Then comes the hesitation: ‘and if wee have done amiss we humbly crave pardon of ye Almighty … and require your Worships’ [the EIC directors’] favourable Opinion and further instructions in such weighty concerns.’ Wrangham’s widow was granted a company slave in compensation for the loss of husband and slave.74 Robin was sentenced on 15 July and executed on 22 July 1676 before seven witnesses.75 It was to the convenience of the hesitant authorities that the night before his execution Robin confessed in the prison.76 Another execution of slaves also one of the few ‘Free Blacks’ came in 1702 when two slaves, Stephen and Jack, and a ‘Free Black’, another Jack, were sentenced to death for a series of burglaries of spirits, although the most junior of the three-man court dissented from the sentence.77

94

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

The hesitation at executing slaves can be explained from the parallel case of Barbados where Jack Greene recognised that there was ‘a strong material incentive to keep [slaves] alive and well enough to work.’78 Another St Helena example concerned Sattoe, condemned in 1679 for attempting to murder his owner, John Boston.79 Sattoe admitted he had stabbed Boston, but claimed that he did so only when threatened with yet another beating, and that anyway he had been put up to it by another slave, Rowland, who had also given him ‘a smoke’ which had overwhelmed him. Rowland was given 39 lashes and had a pair of iron pot hooks riveted about his neck. Sattoe was sentenced to be hanged, but first must suffer under the 1676 ruling that amputation of the right hand was to be inflicted for him striking a white person. He was reprieved after his master and victim, Boston, appealed to the council that although Sattoe deserved to die, the sentence should be stayed as execution would deprive him of the slave’s labour. Sattoe escaped the rope but not the saw, for his arm was amputated in front of all the other slaves.80 A few weeks later Boston sought compensation since Sattoe with only one arm could now do less work. The council stated that Sattoe had had the amputation ‘ not only as punishment … but in terrorem for all the Blacks on the said Island to deter them from attempting of any violence of their respective masters’ and urged inhabitants, especially those with slaves, ‘to bestow their charitable benevolence’ to Boston—note that the company was not going to pay out.81 A few weeks later Rowland, had his iron collar removed, not on the grounds of humanity or any sense that his punishment had been sufficient, but so he could work more effectively.82 In 1683 the EIC drew the model of Barbados to the attention of their governor on St Helena. Barbados was a crown rather than a company colony, but had similarities, including the fact that it, too, had had no indigenous population when the English and their slaves arrived, in this case in 1627. On Barbados there were ‘50,000 Blacks for 6000 whites’ yet the majority group was kept ‘in subjecon’ by the planters alone, without the aid of a garrison.83 This document does not mention the Barbados slave revolt of 1675, and there were others to come in 1688 and 1692,84 perhaps mention of revolt would have weakened the lesson being taught to the governor of St Helena. The next year the company promised to send down the ‘system of Laws of Barbados’ for governing slaves: working arrangements; times of work; recommended diet; and, on the darker side ‘ye rigour of ye Barbados discipline.’85 How this was managed was revealed a few years later: Upon perusal of ye council book beginning ye 21 June 1686 we approve of ye manner of trying ye Blacks, but think this very meanly of you for ye matter of ye sentence, and wonder ye more how you could be guilty of such weakness as to let these Blacks pass the whipping which a Englishman would have been condemned to die for here by a jury … The English could not keep ye knives from their throats at Barbados if they did not punish their thievish Blacks with far greater severity. The Blacks which you whipped once if you are minded to save their lives for their masters’ sake (which we vehemently suspect) you should rather have whipt six or eight times by intervals, keeping them in ye interim to hand in prisonment.86

SLAVERY ON ST HELENA

95

In 1710 in an example of assigning greater local control to St Helena it was ruled by East India House that offences for which execution was necessary would be ‘as the inhabitants in a General Assembly shall prudently determine’ although guidelines were issued. The third case of burglary was one such situation (as with the 1702 case of Stephen and the two Jacks mentioned above) and death was, of course, ‘absolutely necessary’ for breaking into a powder room or magazine. In other situations ‘severe and lasting corporall punishment and hard labour … might sufficiently deter others.’87 The mention of a General Assembly deciding punishments for slaves presumably emanated from a case a few years before when a slave, Totley, property of James Greentree, had been convicted of assaulting a white man, Edward Smith. The jury found him guilty, but refused to pass sentence and the council, acting as the court, sent the matter ‘to the country’.88 Two days later in what was presumably a significant event, the ‘major part of the inhabitants appeared’ and chose 12 men to ‘add laws and conditions to ye form relating to the punishment of Blacks for their ill mannered behaviour towards white people.’ The discussions led to the specific punishment for Totley and a tariff of punishments for other slaves who might offend in future. Totley was to be branded with the letter R on his forehead and severely whipped. A generation earlier slaves striking whites had had their arms amputated, but that this did not happen to Totley should not be taken as evidence of growing leniency. Far from it. The group had considered having Totley drawn (his bowels pulled out through his anus) as a lesson to others, but may well have rejected that as it would have led to death and, thus, a loss. Then the group produced a series of ferocious rulings for future cases. Totley must have been relieved that they were not applied retrospectively to him. Male slaves of 18 and over found guilty of an ‘attempt to strike or assault any white person whatever correcting him or otherwise for any case whatsoever … shall undergo and suffer the punishment of castration that is to say shall have his testicles cut out.’ If he did die, and one imagines that the possibility of castration leading to fatal infection in the seventeenth century was considerable, the owner was to be compensated, with the governor and council appraising the value. However, if the mutilated slave were to die through neglect of the owner then he or she would not receive compensation. Slaves resisting or opposing a white person, a lesser offence than striking, were to be branded for the first offence with an R on the forehead. For the second case the punishment was to be the same for striking a white person, ‘to witt to be castrated or have his testicles cut out (if a male). But if a female to be severely whipt, both ears to be cut off and branded on the forehead and both cheeks.’ Striking a white person with a weapon was a capital offence. The only exception to this was ‘for those white persons who demean and debase themselves in conversing, corresponding and gaming with Blacks as if they were equalls, which we judge shall have no more beneffite of these laws than the Blacks among themselves.’89 Three days before this document was issued a soldier had been ordered to be lashed once by every other soldier in the garrison for gaming with slaves, so this issue was obviously of current concern.90 ‘Saucy or impudent language’ by a slave to any white person (except the demeaned) would earn to a whipping, either by the master in the presence of the person offended or, if the master could not bring himself to do it, at the fort—21 lashes for slight sauciness, 42 ‘if more aggravating’.91

96

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

‘Some evil designe in hand’: association Slaves were feared. In 1683 when planters were granted permission to buy slaves, creating increased demand, ‘as the Negroes do increase upon the Island it will be necessary for the Company proporconably to increase their Garrison and soldiers for the security of the inhabitants as well as of the island.’92 The company established severe punishments for slaves striking out at a white person, which must have been a considerable deterrent. There was even more concern about slaves ‘caballing together and plotting mischief.’93 The varied spatial origins of the slaves has been hitherto explained as resulting from difficulties of obtaining a steady source of supply from any one place. An additional or even alternative explanation comes from advice to Governor Blackmore in 1684 ‘not to have too many on ye Island of one coast.’94 The implication here is that if the slaves knew each other or at least had a shared language and culture they might be more likely to combine against their masters and/or the company. Concern about slaves acting together had been expressed by Governor Blackmore himself a few years earlier. At a consultation in December 1679 it was observed that the number of ‘Blacks’ on St Helena was increasing every year and that they ‘of late [had] taken to wandering abroad from their masters’ houses and meeting, sometimes with armes or at least with staves, giving great occasion of suspicion that they had some evil designe in hand.’95 A few weeks earlier, on 6 November Henry Kersey had reported to the council at Fort James about ‘rumours … touching the blacks on the Island as if they intended to some riseing, tending to the destruction of their masters and all the inhabitants.’ The rumours were that the guard post in Lemon Valley was to be seized, the soldiers’ throats cut and then the Island was to be taken.96 Tensions had been further heightened by the case of ‘one Black (who was deputed to bee one of the soberest and civilest amongst them)’ who had ‘presumptuously wounded his master and in all likelihood intended to have murthered him.’ This must have been Sattoe, who associated with Rowland, another planter’s slave, who had encouraged him to strike out at his master. Blackmore’s edict was: therefore for the prevention of further mischiefs by the said Blacks, it is hereby ordered and enjoyned that from and after the next ensuing Lord’s Day being the 28th this instant December, noe Black whatsoever doe presume to absent themselves from their respective masters houses and plantations without their leave. Slaves with leave had to carry a ‘token’ from their master proving they had permission to be out. To further minimise association, planters were forbidden to let another’s slave into their houses. Finally, slaves were not to carry arms (except when deputed to kill company cattle) and if they were seen doing so by ‘any white man’ he must take them away.97 In what may have been support for these 1679 ordinances, East India House observed that as there were about ‘80 Blacks already on the island’ no more should be brought or received there without permission from London, for fear that ‘they may mutiny and overpower the English.’98 The law that forbade entry by slaves into another’s house was relaxed in 1682 as there were occasions when this was necessary, regarding some task or message. Slaves with business were permitted to approach, but not to

SLAVERY ON ST HELENA

97

‘presume to enter into any man’s house … by day or night without calling att some distance from the sayd house unto the owners or occupiers of the same and obtayneing leave to have admittance.’ If no one was at home they were forbidden to enter, as they were if only children were present, upon penalty of ‘being most severely punisht.’99 The rule about carrying firearms was not relaxed and in 1683 East India House reinforced this law, specifically forbidding black people even to shoot birds. Indeed whilst the slave caught with a firearm was to be whipped—‘severely’, as always—the master was liable to have the slave forfeited to the company if he ‘did in any way consent or connive thereat.’100 The regulations were reinforced in 1684, when the governor thought that owners had been allowing ‘their slaves more liberty than is agreeable in all likelihood to the peace and safety of the … Island.’ Particularly worrisome was the habit of slaves gathering on Sundays and they were to be restrained ‘from all idle ramblings and wanderings’ on their day of rest. Fines of half a dollar upon slave owners were imposed for neglect of this proclamation and soldiers who found slaves out without leave were to bring them to Fort James and receive half the fine as a bounty.101 ‘Ye fort kept them in awe’? Reaction and revolt The suspicion of the company and planters towards the slaves ‘caballing together’ did have a basis in fact and although the problems may have been lessened by association being forbidden, they were not solved: occasional assaults and rumoured or, once, actual rebellious plots, all took place. When a slave of Hiddulph Eibin, Peter, had poisoned his master by adding ground glass mixed with earth taken from graves to his food, he got away with it but not with an attempt in 1687 to try and kill his next owners, Richard Griffin and wife, in the same way, for the Griffins spotted the glass on their pork. Worse, Peter was accused of encouraging other slaves to do the same or, failing that, to knock their masters on the head with stones. These included Worla, female slave of the gunner, Andrew Phillips, and slaves of Robert Thompson, Deputy Governor Anthony Beale, and Gabriel Powell. Some of these slaves gave evidence against Peter and said that they had thrown away the poison he had given them. One reported that he had seen Peter grinding glass and mixing it with his own blood and sweat in preparation for the attempt to murder the Griffins. That slave also knew Peter had murdered Eibin and he was the only other person punished. Peter was executed, burnt at the stake in the presence of all other slaves who had had to bring a piece of wood for the fire. The loss of his labour was compensated from a head tax on all slaves over 15 ‘towards satisfaction of ye owner of ye said black Peter for ye loss of ye said executed negroe.’102 In 1693 another rumour of rebellion alarmed the authorities. The Council met on 6 September with the following agenda: Information have been given yesterday by James Duffee, Soldier, that John Goodwin, planter has told him that James Rider and Thomas Swallow were discoursuing that the Blacks of this Island were to Rize and Cutt all their Masters’ throats. And to the prevention of any such thing, if it be in agitation.

98

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Duffee, indeed, reported what he had heard from Goodwin, whilst passing his house in the country and that rumour was then traced back via several more men to one John Doroning whose evidence seemed to be that he found the slaves to be more insolent than they had been before. There was also a report of the conversation between Rider and Swallow to the effect that there ‘was a worse thing in hand’ than the murder of Governor Johnson (killed in a mutiny a few months earlier, see Chapter 7) ‘and that by the wrong colour, to which Rider replyed that he did not think it because ye Fort kept them in awe.’ The one fact seemed to be that black people had been seen to gather at the late Matthew Pouncey’s house, which had reverted to being company property and was inhabited by two slaves. Two slaves, perhaps those who lived in the house, were found guilty of association without evidence being given and were flogged. To try and keep tight rein on the situation in case the rumours had a factual basis, the existing regulations forbidding black association were re-issued, having been ‘but little observed and kept’.103 The next two pages in the consultation book held in Jamestown are torn out. Perhaps there was something incriminating there, we shall never know. This 1693 situation may well have been just another rumour like that of 1679, but it highlighted the tense relations between the white and slave populations in the late seventeenth century. Two years later, in December 1695, matters boiled over. To summarise the evidence from the extensive court proceedings it seemed that there was a conspiracy in which the slaves planned first to capture the fort in Lemon Valley, killing the two soldiers on duty. They would steal the weapons held there, return to their homes where they would kill the white people, each his own master and mistress by asking their master to step outside where he would be killed and then rushing into the house to slaughter those inside. The slaves would then gather in Chapel Valley where they would take the fort by setting fire to Madame Beale’s house which adjoined it, capturing the soldiers when they ran out to deal with the blaze. The slaves had learned in ‘shipping time’, the period when the company ships called, of conversations between seamen and planters about slaves taking forts in other places, which presumably inspired them. The fort in their hands, under the leadership of Owen Beavon’s slave, Will, who would act as governor, they would await the arrival of a ship. The slaves planned to dress as soldiers and pretend to be the guard of honour when the ship’s captain paid his courtesy visit and capture him when he stepped ashore. With the captain as hostage, they would take his ship and sail away to freedom. Seizing a ship by holding its captain hostage had been successfully accomplished by soldiers who mutinied in 1693 (see Chapter 7), so the slaves had a precedent. The rebellion was betrayed by a slave, Annah, who knew Jack, Richard Gurling’s slave, who was the ringleader. One might speculate that this was pillow talk Annah was repeating, although an alternative possibility is that she got the story from another slave in her household, Roger. In any event, Annah told her mistress, the wife of Thomas Goodwin. Mrs Goodwin told John Bowman, who was working at her house, and he had the story confirmed by a slave, Fortune, who was working with him. Governor Poirier was informed and the island alarmed. Lemon Valley Fort was emptied of its arms and all the slaves in the island were conveyed by their owners backed up by soldiers to Fort James where they were held.

SLAVERY ON ST HELENA

99

The council convened and took evidence. Annah repeated her story and was rewarded with some tobacco. Other slaves confirmed her evidence, including Fortune and one called Garret. Another witness who revealed much information was Will, putative governor of St Helena. He had been heavily involved in the conspiracy, had recruited others to it and his evidence revealed the details of how the slaves planned to kill their masters and take the fort. He also implicated several others: Poplar, Dick, Ruface, Randall, who was especially keen, Robin and Rasher. Other conspirators—Firebrass, Roger and Ruface—gave evidence too, Firebrass claiming somewhat naively that those whites who had not been killed on the Friday or Saturday would be taken out when they went to church on Sunday, as if the survivors would not have become aware of the other deaths. It might seem strange that slaves were prepared to shop their compatriots, but it became clear that by no means all the slaves approved of the revolt and such were the divisions in their ranks that ‘those blacks who would not side with them [the rebels] were to be put to death.’ Once the plot was revealed, giving evidence, even though a conspirator, might lead to leniency such as being left alive—the slaves must have known that the conspiracy would lead to executions if it failed. The plot had been in the making since as early as August when the ringleaders started to recruit others by individual word of mouth given association was forbidden; thus Will had been recruited by Gurling’s Jack and had himself recruited Roger. This networking was successful in that rebels were brought to the cause, but it also led to its being known by those who would not join, a grave danger to the plotters, as was seen when the revolt was revealed by Annah. Some slaves examined knew nothing of the plot fortunately for them— the networking was still in progress—others knew, but had refused to join. Slaves who knew nothing were released, as was Annah, presumably closely guarding her tobacco. Four who had refused to join the plot but knew of it were flogged for not telling their masters. Eleven plotters were remanded in custody.104 Sentences were passed on the eleven and on Roger at the next consultation on 16 December, the case taking a place on the agenda after a dispute about a cow and a scheme to survey the highways. There was a proposal to execute all conspirators but this would have fallen foul of the need to keep slaves alive to work, so only the three ringleaders, Jack, Will (despite his evidence) and Randall, were executed—horribly of course. The others were to ‘receive great punishment, yea even next unto death, for the deterring of others to act in any such wicked design’ (Table 6.4, Appendix 3). To ensure this message of deterrence got through, all slaves were required to attend the punishments in Fort James, each of them having to carry a load of dry wood into the settlement as a ‘burden’.105 There was no successful slave rebellion, but suspicions remained. In 1707 slaves were even forbidden to go through the fort on their way to work,106 presumably for fear of their taking over the seat of government. These must have been slaves employed at the fortifications who spent their nights locked in the house of ‘Black Betty’, just outside the fort.107 Slaves, household servants only, permitted to sleep in the fort were to be locked up by the corporal every night.108

100

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

‘All ye privileges’? Free Blacks Some slaves tried to escape their plight by running away within St Helena. This was usually only a temporary relief and the records report the return of starving slaves to vengeful owners such as Martha Bolton. Help would not have been easy to obtain, as aiding runaways was a criminal offence. In 1679 a civilian, Peter Williams, who had sheltered runaway slaves for several weeks was fined $8 and given 21 lashes.109 Punishments for running away were severe, in 1700 a proclamation announced that runaways were to wear an iron collar for a year for the first offence; for the second a finger joint would be cut off; a further case would see the loss of the whole finger.110 Stowing away was the only possibility of escaping the island. This can have been achieved rarely, if at all, as slaves were forbidden to go onto the ships and planters and mariners were liable to fines if this rule was broken.111 Further, captains were instructed specifically to search for stowaways, especially black people and soldiers.112 The 1695 plan to seize a ship and sail away to freedom must have failed; even if the slaves had managed to seize control of St Helena, surely the ship’s captain whose capture was so vital would have been suspicious when observing all the ‘soldiers’ were Negroes. Unless sold off the island, slaves were condemned to remain on St Helena once they were delivered or, for those born there, spend their entire lives in bondage, short lives judging from the population pyramid of Figure 6.2. The only achievable escape from slavery was to be granted freedom. One who became free was Black Oliver; that his ethnicity was always attached to his name continued to mark him apart from other free planters. His freedom was a reward for assisting the landing party in the re-taking of St Helena by Sir Richard Munden in 1673 (see Chapter 8): We having received an account from Sir Richard Munden that a certain negro was very serviceable in guiding those of the English that first landed on the Island, in order to its retaking and that the said Sir Richard Munden [bought] him from a portugall [a Portuguese] to whom he was sold, wee have repaid the money to the said Sir Richard Munden and have also paid Mr Colston £18 … for the Negro’s wife and his 2 children and have sent… [them] over to him free people, to live with him and declare him to be a free Planter and doe order that he receive land and two cowes as other planters with all ye privileges as a reward of his service and the encouragement of faithfulness.113 Oliver was free, but still black, and so laws had actually to be amended to take cognisance of this unusual combination. The 1679 banning of firearms being carried by ‘Blacks’ was, it was specifically noted, not to apply to Black Oliver.114 However, Free Blacks were certainly not encouraged to become trained in the use of firearms, for to the instructions regarding duties of St Helena planters to belong to the militia ‘and upon all alarums appear at their respective quarters in arms’ was appended ‘(except the Blacks)’.115 Black Oliver’s freedom was hereditary. He was killed in the 1684 mutiny (see Chapter 7) and in 1686 John Matthews, planter, was to take Jack, one of Oliver’s children, as a servant or apprentice, not as a slave.116 The usual way in which freedom could be obtained was for slaves to become

SLAVERY ON ST HELENA

101

Christians. The Court of Committees in London ruled in 1670 that any blacks who are or shall be sent to serve the Company on that island and become converted to the Christian faith and make satisfactory confession of the same before the Governor, The Council and the Minister, and also evince it by their behaviour, shall after seven years have the benefit of being free planters there.117 This ruling was repeated in 1673 in the instructions that accompanied the resettlement party.118 This was presumably the method by which the 18 ‘Free Blacks’ listed in the 1722 census119 had obtained their freedom, although as most lived in white planters’ households, freedom did not seem to have advanced their economic position markedly. Nor were they free from the usual prejudice. Jack Oliver, free son of Black Oliver, appears again in the records in 1690 accused of ‘offering to ravish a young girl of about 8 or 9 yeares old.’ He was not convicted, but was sent to prison anyway as his ‘bold audacious carriage’ seemed to annoy the court, treatment allied more to his position as a black person, rather than a free person.120 In contrast to Jack Oliver, the white man, Robert Finch, was to walk away free when acquitted of the buggery of the Negro boy, Civill, in 1701. ‘High discontent’? Slave ships at St Helena St Helena, the ‘halfway house in the midst of the great ocean,’ (see Chapter 2), was of potential utility to all ships traversing the Atlantic. Amongst the non-EIC shipping that occasionally called were slavers, at this period usually Madagascar ships. Such arrivals troubled the company from a practical not a moral standpoint. There was often an embargo on refreshing rival English companies’ trading vessels, although depending on relationships between the European powers at any period, sometimes foreign vessels were entertained. Slavers, like all other non-company ships, were treated with caution; in particular groups of armed men from them were not to be allowed onshore. Established policy was formally re-stated in 1681: provided … that the … ship or vessel hath been trading only to Madagascar or the parts adjacent to for Negroes, it shall and may be lawfull to and for our said Governor to give such ship or vessel and unto all and every person or persons thereunto belonging free liberty of trade and of having or receiving any manner of refreshment in the said Island.121 That this policy statement simply reinforced established practice comes from the example of Bridgemate Merchant, which called in January 1681 from the island of St Lawrence (Madagascar) a few months before the formal policy was penned in London. This ship had had a voyage of 11 weeks and was in distress for want of fresh water and provisions. Governor Blackmore first checked that the ship was not carrying trade goods and then perused his instructions from London and determined that a stay of four days could be allowed. Sick persons could come onshore and receive assistance, but proceed no further than the houses by Fort

102

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

James. No other person from the ship could come onto the island. All boats were to be searched. There was to be no trade beyond supplying provisions and water for the weak and sick.122 Three months later another Madagascar ship, Roebuck, arrived. Of its original cargo of 346 Africans, 40 had died as well as many seamen and about one third of the others were likely to perish given the lack of food, water and medical expertise. Roebuck was permitted to stay a week as the governor had to offer relief to Christians and fellow subjects—the archives do not record that the surviving 306 involuntary passengers were presumably neither. The arrangements were the same as for Bridgemate Merchant, including the embargo on trade. Roebuck had brought the planters into town as usual upon the arrival of a ship and upon learning that they could not trade they ‘discoursed high discontent … tending even to sedition or mutiny’.123 ‘Punishment, yea even next unto death’: the paradox of slavery The residents of St Helena’s protests about Roebuck in April 1681 were not directed against the evils of the slave trade made manifest in front of their settlement but against their being unable to profit from it, revealing much about contemporary social attitudes. To the planters, to the company, black people, slaves, were a despised and dreaded Other to be feared, to be controlled by trying to cow them by a regime of strict regulation and harsh punishment. Slaves were often subject to a lesser standard of justice, could be tortured and were certainly punished more harshly than white people. No white person had a limb amputated for being involved in a fight. Slaves’ activities, even in their free time, were strictly controlled to prevent association, for fear there would be a revolt. There were revolts, plans for them anyway, if never put into operation, but there were also mutinies and sedition by soldiers and planters (see Chapter 7). The official contempt for white people who themselves associated with slaves was seen, and these persons were treated differently under the law. Sexual relationships across the racial divide were more than frowned upon—accusing a woman of such an action was the gravest insult whilst in Chapter 5 we learned that a soldier was forced to ride the wooden horse for keeping company with a black woman. The few ‘Free Blacks’ were not equals; compare the treatment of Jack Oliver and Robert Finch after their acquittals upon similar charges, although it must be assumed that the ‘Free Black’ called Jack who was executed along with two slaves in 1702 for a series of burglaries was the same Jack Oliver, so perhaps he was a bad character.124 The presence of slaves caused considerable anxiety to the company, exemplified by the fact in 1683 that when the planters were permitted to buy slaves there was an assumption that the garrison would have to be increased ‘for the security of the inhabitants as well as of the island.’ Paradoxically, this worrisome population element was of crucial value to the ‘Company’s Island’. The utter impossibility of a venture such as this thriving without ‘ye assistance and labour of Negroes’ has been recorded and from the voyage of occupation in 1659 the company imported slaves. Slaves were feared but they were needed, hence the considerations on how to inflict the maximum punishment on malefactors yet keep them alive—‘punishment, yea even next unto death’—so they could carry on working.

7 ‘TENDING EVEN TO SEDITION’: Resistance, Riot and Rebellion

‘The detested Company’ Companies held territory under a charter and people living in company colonies were subjects of the monarch or state issuing the charter, yet were subject to the company. The companies expected—demanded—faithfulness from people whose loyalty may rather have been to their nation or to their own interest. The resultant problems can be identified on Bermuda, where resistance from the civilians to their company masters started almost immediately the company colony was formed. In 1616 a new governor, Daniel Tucker, was met by opposition and ‘somewhat he had to do to bring them all to their workes.’ Indeed, the first case at the assizes that year saw the hanging of one John Wood for sedition, he having threatened the death of Governor Tucker during divine service. Tucker then built himself a cedar house on the best land, which so infuriated a resident that he ‘could not by threats nor imprisonment be … pacified.’ Tucker lasted under three years, ‘his hard dealings so much complained of, caused him … to return, to excuse himself. Matters failed to improve and in 1620 ‘great grief’ was caused by a ruling that only company ships were to trade with the islands,1 one of ‘the injustices practiced upon them [the Bermudians] by the detested Company’ about which Jean Kennedy wrote.2 The grief, the contestation, between company and people went on throughout the Somers Island Company’s 76-year rule. By the mid-1680s the English government had had enough and the company lost its island. Sir Robert Robinson was issued with detailed instructions in 1686 as to how he was to manage Bermuda on behalf no longer of a commercial company, but the crown.3 It is not that crown colonies were not always peaceful; Jamaica had a slave revolt in 1673 and rebellions throughout the eighteenth century. However, there were added tensions in the company colony. John Elliott has written that ‘the very concept of “identity” in a colonial society is itself fraught with ambiguity. Whose identity is at issue and what determines it?’4 Add to the mix of colony and homeland a company and matters become even more fraught. Tensions in the company colonies were worsened by the fact that at least regarding those studied here the geographical situations of extreme isolation and tiny scale added another suite of problems. Colonies of larger scale were troubled in the

104

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

seventeenth century; ‘endemic disorder’ was Horn’s summary of the situation in the Chesapeake, for example.5 It was worse at St Helena. ‘For ye honour of the English nation in those remote parts’: the nation, the company and the island When the EIC received Letters Patent from Charles II in 1661, within the closely spaced text was (retrospective) permission ‘to erect fortifications and establish garrisons and colonies at St Helena.’6 The state’s dominant position in the relationship with the EIC regarding St Helena was thus established. Further, the company had to ask for the island to be returned to its control following recapture from the Dutch in 1673 by a naval squadron (see Chapter 8) and there were frequent petitions from the company for naval escorts for their merchant ships through dangerous waters north of St Helena when there was war in Europe. As the company acknowledged, ‘the truth is that we are intrusted by his Majesty with the exercise of sovereignty and power in that Island as well legislative and executive.’7 His (or Her) Majesty was thus to be respected, so, for example, Thomas Gargen was imprisoned for uttering disrespectful words against Queen Anne whilst drunk at supper at the company table in 1702.8 Priorities were clear. In 1689 when two new councillors replaced men who had been dismissed, their instructions were to use ‘their best judgement and discretion for ye honour of the English nation in those remote parts and for the interests of this company and the peace, commodity and tranquillity of the inhabitants thereof.’9 Note the order: England; the company; the inhabitants. Inhabitants had to look up to the company and above that to the English nation and its monarch. Serving two masters/mistresses, on occasion provoked tension. ‘Animositys and heart burning portend no good’: disputes in council The administration of St Helena was not made easier or more effective by near constant disputes within the ruling body: ‘We are troubled to hear that there should be so much disorder amongst those in Counsell,’10 remarked East India House in 1678. Such a situation was characteristic of seventeenth century colonies; regarding Virginia from 1607, Edmund Morgan noted that ‘while the council lasted, the members spent most of their time bickering and intriguing against one another.’11 St Helena had the particular tensions associated with life on small islands including a lack of privacy and the absence of variety regarding both activities and people. Families in our modern world complain of ‘cabin fever’ on brief holidays; that must have been the perpetual state of the tiny group leading St Helena, ‘shut up in an irksome solitude … having so few opportunities of intercourse with the rest of mankind.’12 When opportunities for novelty arose on the ‘Company’s Island’ they were prized. Governor Stringer would show visitors his collections: ‘Monsieur Stringer sit voir les curiousitez de son cabinet;’13 Governor Coney sought conversation. In 1670 a Spanish priest, Dominick Fernandez Navarette, visited and was entertained by ‘the little governor’, Richard Cung (a mistranscription of Coney), who ‘made much of me that day, forced me to stay all night, gave me a good bed; we discussed upon several subjects,’ including metaphysics and religion, Coney being ‘at some variance with his parson.’14 As a Dutch official in a VOC enclave put it, whilst waiting for the ‘paradise’ of the trading season: ‘every day one meets the same

RESISTANCE, RIOT AND REBELLION

105

people, among whom hate and envy ensuing from former troubles are kept alive for ages, it is like a purgatory.’15 He has ‘withdrawn himself from our community’: Captain Holden and the ‘buffle head’ Other than bleat piously from the boardroom and sack people, there was little the company could do from London to solve these disputes, except get ships’ captains to intervene. Captain Harding was instructed whilst at St Helena in 1687 to ‘make it your busyness to procure a peaceful reconciliation of all misunderstandings between our aged honest Governor [Blackmore] and our faithful zealous Deputy Governor, Captain Holden upon both of them we entirely relie for the well ordering of our affairs in that Island.’16 One dispute between Blackmore and Holden will be described in detail, as an example of initially petty quarrels becoming magnified within the confined society of the small island and also the inability of the company in London to manage events on their distant possession. The parties initially involved were council members Thomas Goffe and the zealous Captain Robert Holden, part of whose role as deputy governor was to oversee financial matters, including customs duties. Goffe had had a cask of arrack delivered for himself aboard Society and it had to be gauged—its capacity calculated—in order for the correct customs duty to be applied. The squabble initially related as to how this was to be done. On 26 February 1687 it had already reached absurd proportions as these two members of the five-man council challenged each other in court. The council ruled that the matter should be resolved ‘hand in hand … making up any breach that may happen amongst ourselves’ and instructed Holden, who had the arrack, to deliver the cask to Goffe who was to ‘pay ye usuall customs due to our Honourable Masters.’ Holden being of ‘wilfull and stubborn disposition’ refused to co-operate. A warrant was then issued advising Holden that if he would not release the cask he would be ‘looked upon as a person Contumacious and a despiser of this Established Government;’ already loyalties were being challenged. Sergeant Henry Jackson took this message and brought back answer from Holden that the ‘Governor and Council might do what they pleased, he had nothing to do with them, he must mind his masters’ business.’17 Matters were now serious as Governor Blackmore’s authority was being flouted, Holden claiming to be serving the higher authority of London. Edward Cannan opined that the clergy, like Holden, ‘being appointed by the Honourable East India Company did not … [consider themselves] answerable to the Governor.’18 Blackmore and the rest of council, escorted by Sergeant Jackson (who later flouted authority himself, see below) and a file of musketeers went to Holden’s storeroom. The sergeant knocked. No answer. The governor himself went up to the gallery and knocked at the window, five times, the detailed records aver. No answer. A young company slave, Holden’s servant, said the captain had made himself safe in the room. The governor called out. No answer. He ordered the doors to be torn off and went in, carrying enough of Goffe’s money to cover any duty and solve the dispute. No sign of Holden was found and all withdrew, making the storeroom secure with new padlocks. Later, given that goods from the storeroom were found to have been thrown outside the window, it was concluded that Holden had been there the whole time.19

106

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

The matter was taken up again on 7 March. Holden had requested to see the minutes of the consultation of 26 February, but this was refused on the grounds that he had ‘withdrawn himself from our community both in council and at table.’ The minutes were to be sent to London and ‘not seen by any others’. After dinner, Richard Kelinge, a writer (later to become governor) with whom Holden had spoken, forwarded a second demand for the minutes, which was again refused.20 On 23 April Holden, through Kelinge, complained that the governor and council ‘had impeded him in collecting ye Customs’, that now the ‘inhabitants would not yield obedience to his orders’ and thus ‘he durst not proceed in ye Execution of his Commission’. The governor denied they had impeded his duties and offered a guard to protect him against affronts.21 On 27 June Holden was asked by ‘Civill letter’ to return to council as customs duties associated with the arrival of a ship, Kent had to be considered, also company revenues relating to land and cattle. Kelinge, took the letter, and relayed a message that Holden would consider it. Some hours later Kelinge was sent back and returned with a scrawl from Holden, which Kelinge signed to confirm he had been given it. The scrawl is bound into the consultations held in the St Helena archives, an unusual circumstance given that these documents on St Helena are normally copies of original material sent to London. The paper is hard to read and one can strongly sense the anger with which it was written over three centuries ago. Holden basically tells the governor to mind his own business, whilst also usefully revealing the manner in which the council operated: We can never live happily when we assume an intermeddling with another’s affairs where the Company do particularly order it not. The Governor as chief to looke to the Civill Government of the Island in keeping the peace of it etc. It is my accounts and receipts of money etc. Captain Field to looke after the Company buildings and repairs etc. Mr Coxe to the Government of ye negroes and plantations etc., And Mr Goffe as supernumerary to give assistance as occasion shall need him … things would proceed well … but as they are we but endeavour one another’s ruine and make our lives uneasy and uncomfortable to us. The council ruled that Holden had not stated that he was to collect the monies owing and so ordered it to be done anyway ‘fearing that many damages & losses will happen by further delays.’ Kelinge was sent back to Holden again to enquire about the customs duties and the planters’ arrears on payments for slaves they had bought from the company. He returned with a verbal report that Holden would perform his duties when he saw convenient.22 At the following Consultation on 18 July Holden was given until the next general payday to collect the monies owing to the company, and if he did not, ‘further consideration’ was to be given to the matter.23 Two days later Holden communicated with the council not about customs dues, rather the copper bars used for currency on St Helena. In this paper is mention of rebellion, raising echoes of Holden’s role as the catalyst of the 1684 sedition (see below). Tellingly, the next seven pages of the consultations are missing, one can speculate that contained material detrimental to the company or its officials.24 One undated page follows, part of a normal consultation about cutting trees and

RESISTANCE, RIOT AND REBELLION

107

killing pigs, and then more pages are missing until 24 October. All those months later, Holden is still refusing to co-operate and council members had not been receiving their salaries. Coxe complained about this on 24 October,25 Field and Goffe on 5 November, when they stated that they had attended Holden, seeking their money, ‘but he had peremptorily refused’. They now appealed to the governor for funds or at least goods from ships in the road. Field was given £7 10s in cash from money in the company’s hands.26 Meanwhile, Holden’s duties as Collector of Customs were being carried out by John Breborne, another writer. It was not going well. The master of Marguerite refused to be examined on shore by Brebourne, demanding to know by what right the young man demanded to search him and threatened to throw the ‘buffle head’ off the rocks. The captain was admonished by the council.27 The next month Holden ended his long period of non-cooperation, appearing again at the meetings.28 One wonders if Captain Harding had by then visited the island and carried out his task of ‘peaceful reconciliation’. The problems caused by Holden’s inactivity and the resultant issue of the planters’ debts not having been collected carried on into the 1690s. Captain Holden was dismissed by East India House on 8 February 1689.29 In April their reasons were revealed: Holden’s ‘exceeding restiveness to our Governor, sometimes with reason, but seldom managed with discretion;’ also ‘lamentable complaints of his enhancing the price of so many commodities so unconscionably upon the inhabitants and all to his own private benefit without any manner of advantage to the company that we can indulge it no longer.’30 It is a moot point whether the most significant aspect of the second reason was the cheating of the planters or the fact that there was no accrual to the company. ‘These unhappy quarrels will never again be revived’ Once Holden had been dismissed, the company disallowed any further discussion about him—‘no more complaints’: We believe our Governor [Blackmore] is conscientious, hath nobody now to controul him and cannot but think himself far from the time of his great account [death]. Captain Johnson [deputy governor for the second time] by his cordial assistance to the Company’s benefit and the assurances of all their orders may reasonably promise himself to be established in the succession and Mr Keeling, we are sure, will … do nothing against your joynt inclination.31 The company looked towards yet another fresh start when matters on their troubled island would be improved, as always, by people being obedient to orders from Leadenhall Street. Within a few months Blackmore was indeed dead, killed by a fall, Johnson did inherit the succession (if only to be assassinated by Sergeant Jackson) but disquiet amongst the council continued unabated under different governors. In an undated consultation held sometime between April and December 1700, the then deputy governor, Lieutenant Thomas Bright and the third in council, Ensign Timothy Goodwin, were reported as having been overheard by Sergeant Field and Corporal Maxwell uttering ‘ill words’ against Governor

108

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Poirier, with many a ‘God damn you’ and disparaging comments about his French origin and his introduction to St Helena as a ‘vinerone’ (grower of vines). Poirier was using the consultation as a conduit to complain to the EIC about his subordinates’ slights and the way they were trying to ‘withdraw the hearts of this island from me’ (note the unusual use of the first person). The record was witnessed by the two soldiers and countersigned by Poirier. Goodwin signed to say that he did not accept the paragraph.32 East India House replied that: We are sorry there should be factions among our councils when there are so few of you. We have too many instances of it as well, viva voce, as your separate letters. To put a stop to which we have dismissed Mr Bright from his station of Deputy Governor [Table 7.1, Appendix 3] and our service, finding too much cause so to do as well as an account of his disobedience to his superiors as other his misbehaviours, so than on receipt hereof he is to receive no further benefit of salary, diet or other accommodation at our charge.’ East India House appointed John Fowles as deputy governor and hoped that ‘he and Mr Goodwin will co-operate with our Governor in all things for promoting our service.’ They reminded Poirier of ‘our continued kindness to him and his family’, with a sharp note that ‘we joyn a council with him to the end our affairs may be transacted with mutual advice and assistance’ and that ‘unanimity and good correspondence’ should exist.33 In the records of a consultation held sometime between May and July 1701 is a story about Bright having drawn his sword on Poirier, perhaps in response to being sacked.34 The company’s plea for ‘good correspondence’ made no difference. Captain Fowles died, to be replaced by Captain Cornelius Sodrington (later sacked), ‘the continuation of your factious dispositions making it needful to send him.’ Other council members, Thomas Goodwin and Edward Edmunds had made further complaints against the governor, but East India House ruled these to be ‘frivolous’, being unable to excuse them ‘for their continued ill carriage and disrespect to their superior, such practices being of ill tendency everywhere but more so in a garrison.’ Poirier did not escape criticism, being informed that: It is not a little surprising to us that when we had show’d our resentment by turning out Captain Bright who had so earnestly recommended brotherly kindness to you and had given you such particular directions for composing any differences between you by amicably debating matters in Council and wherein you could not agree setting down your reasons fairly and sending them to us for our decision. Yet after all this you … let your animosity rise so high as to beget protests and contra-protests and bring the captains of the Men of War to be seconds in your quarrels to the endangering of the very peace of the Island.35 To the barely disguised relief of East India House, Poirier died in 1707, the company looking—again—to a better future:

RESISTANCE, RIOT AND REBELLION

109

one great reason of the animosities that have so much prevailed at St Helena was that the late Governor was a Frenchman and the Inhabitants thought it very hard to be under the governance of a foreigner and Providence has now removed this handle and … these unhappy quarrels will never again be revived.36 They were revived. Just four years later came a familiar refrain: ‘we are sorry the council complain to us one against the other in their Private letters. Such animositys and heart burning portend no good for us.’37 ‘Embark’d in Common Interest’? Loyalty to the East India Company East India House expected those sent to St Helena, from the governor down to the planters, soldiers and indentured servants (if not the slaves) to be focused on the company’s priorities, as they were ‘embark’d in Common Interest.’38 There seemed to be genuine surprise in London when people on the island seemed not to regard this interest as their personal imperative. Problems arose within a short time of occupation; the second governor, Robert Stringer, had problems in asserting his authority, especially over those who had been on the island from the start, would have known him as Dutton’s deputy and, perhaps, that he had been paid only one fifth of Dutton’s salary. ‘It is your part to instruct them’ was the advice from London.39 At this time there was still a sense that the company was trying to achieve unity and obedience through persuasion. Later, attitudes hardened; in 1683 Governor Blackmore was told that: ‘we think you were not severe enough by much in the cases of contemptuous words to the Governor. Such insolences have a tendency to contempt of authority, mutiny and rebellion and therefore ought to be punished severely both in person and purse.’40 The next year came sedition. The company’s problems were more acute when the person not amenable to authority was one of their officials. On occasion, loyalty itself was questioned. One case involved Henry Gargen, sent to St Helena in 1666 as manager of the company plantation and deputy governor. He was dismissed in 1668 (Table 7.1, Appendix 3) as his behaviour had been ‘repugnant to civil and Christian government’; his proceedings ‘turbulent and unwarrantable’ and he had disobeyed those ‘rules which we have given to be observed in our Island.’41 The word ‘scandalous’ was also used about Gargen’s behaviour,42 but that would have had a wider meaning in the seventeenth century than its associations today and was probably again connected with disloyalty. One phrase associated ‘Mr Gargen with those his Confederates’—it seems Gargen and friends were plotting. Gargen was to be secured and sent to London as soon as possible.43 Another deputy governor dismissed for disloyalty was Lieutenant Joshua Johnson who in 1683 had not charged an interloper for refreshment on the grounds of ‘countrymanship’. However the company ruled it ‘unnaturall to let our enemies reap equal benefit with our friends and servants’ and dismissed him, despite the fact that he wrote the company ‘a good letter’.44 Johnson remained as a garrison officer, but did not regain the deputy governor’s position for six years. Governors could also be disloyal. Richard Coney was appointed to succeed Stringer in 1669 when the latter returned home, presumably to retire. The arbitrariness of Coney’s rule was mentioned in Chapter 4. There was also a

110

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

question over his loyalty to the company, with reference to ‘misbehaviour’ on 11 March 1672,45 although he had already been rebuked for letting Frenchmen go fishing at St Helena before then (see Chapter 8). Some months later after his dismissal and return to England, Coney was summoned to East India House to appear before the Court of Committees where the misbehaviour was construed as ‘intending to betray the island to an enemy’. The company ‘did not look upon him as a prisoner’, but there was an issue of whether he could have been trusted to defend St Helena.46 Ironically, Coney’s replacement, Anthony Beale, fled St Helena in face of the Dutch invasion within a few weeks of his arrival in 1672, amidst accusations about people on St Helena being unwilling to fight for the ‘Company’s Island’ (see Chapter 8) and he was later condemned to death for being involved in sedition (see below). Another governor, Gregory Field, was dismissed of his ‘Trust and Command’ in 1677.47 The company also mistrusted those aboard ship, setting up ‘elaborate regulations … to protect the Company from their own crews.’48 The loyalty of those not on the payroll was even more questionable. When the island was handed back to the company by the crown in 1673, the extracts from the charter entitled The laws and ordinances of St Helena identified this lack of trust. The governor ‘shall have full power and authority … in cases of rebellion, mutiny or sedition, of refusing to serve in Wars, flying to the Enemy, forsaking Custom and Discipline Military in as large and ample manner … as any Captain Generall of our army.’49 The distrust of the company towards its people was reciprocated. In 1675 a rumour spread on the island that all inhabitants were to be transferred to Bombay. East India House denied this, ‘it never so much as having been in our thoughts.’50 That the rumour could find credence sufficient for it to require official denial suggests that those making their lives in the company colony felt insecure. Such is not the path to loyalty. One problem concerning relationships between the company and planters was that they did not want the same ends; no ‘Common Interest’ was to be found. The EIC viewed St Helena as a small, if important, part of a much larger whole; the planters as the place where their life was being spent and from which they wished, presumably, to extract as comfortable a standard of living as possible. This contrast was identified readily in terms of differing attitudes to English ships calling at the island that did not belong to the EIC or, during the period at the turn of the seventeenth century when there were two English East India Companies, to the right group. To East India House, such vessels were interlopers and: we do further order and strictly charge and require our said Governor … that he doe not give or grant any such liberty to trade or refreshment on the said island to any English ship or vessel or any person or persons belonging to any English ship or vessel that shall come to the said Island other than such ships or vessels and their men as shall come there in our service. Note the tautology at the start of the extract, emphasising the absolute necessity for the governor to obey this edict. The order went on to insist that ‘none of the inhabitants … do presume to trade or traffique with or any way relieve or supply

RESISTANCE, RIOT AND REBELLION

111

with necessaries or otherwise refresh or accommodate’ any such ship without full authority from the company.51 Under these regulations, the planters could observe in the road a potential market for their produce and supplier of goods they could not grow or make themselves and they were forbidden to trade. That the ship was an interloper or a slaver and thus it was not in the interests of the EIC as a whole for them to engage in trade must have seemed arcane indeed. In 1681 just such a situation occurred with Roebuck, a Madagascar slaver as described in Chapter 6. The ship’s company were not to land and nobody from the island was to go on board, there were no chances for private trade. This ship and others like it would have carried goods not selected by the EIC. Here and at other company colonies like Bermuda and Providence Island where goods were supplied by companies there were questions about quality and quantity. On Providence Island ‘the settlers complained not only that magazines [supply ships] were stinted by the company but also that much of the merchandise was of poor quality.’52 Roebuck, then, was an opportunity. Most of the population came down to the fort upon the alarm of Roebuck’s arrival to learn that they were not to have ‘liberty to dispose of such provisions as they could spare ye said ship for supplying themselves and their families with some necessarys that are greatly wanted.’53 Nor could the planters trade off the island on their own account. John Ovington, chaplain on Benjamin, commented on the impact of the restrictions upon private trade at St Helena in 1689: The people are confin’d to poverty by a solemn Restraint they are under to the Traffick of all Foreign Countries, by being permitted no single Vessell of Burthen, or what’s fit for trade; and are destitute of all Cloaths, but what are transported from Europe, or brought by accident; which makes the Island (to speak the Truth) abate much of the Pleasure of its Habitation.54 In these circumstances it is no wonder that there was illicit trade with interlopers. Given St Helena was an armed camp and had at all times watchers looking for sails, this must have been difficult to achieve, although when it was carried out successfully there would be no records and so we know only about the failures. One case will serve as an example. In 1684 Gabriel Powell, free planter, was prosecuted for ‘conversing with and supplying Captain Alley, Commander of the Lumley Castle, an interloper.’ The first day in court revealed that Powell had agreed with Alley on a previous occasion that he would procure a black woman for him. She had been delivered to Breakneck Valley where she was collected by Anne Cannady and taken to Powell the next day. Meanwhile, Powell was accused of taking punch with Mr Price, mate of Lumley Castle, at Fryar Valley to where another planter, Richard Gurling and his slaves had brought cattle to be taken to the ship. This scheme was interrupted by the arrival of Captain Holden with a party of soldiers.55 At the next consultation, Sergeant Israel Hale reported that when on duty at Sprague’s at the mouth of Lemon Valley, he had observed boats from Lumley Castle go to Breakneck and Fryar Valleys and investigated to find seamen in Fryar Valley gathering purslane, a wild vegetable, and taking water from the stream that runs there. Powell was taking punch and also trading tablets of butter wrapped in yam leaves with Price, whilst

112

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Gurling and his men brought down the cattle. The crew apprehended Hale and his party, but presumably they were released after Holden’s arrival with a superior force. Powell was fined £10 for illegal trade, another £5 for bringing in the slave. Gurling was fined £10 for trying to trade the cattle.56 Later that year, perhaps incensed by his treatment, Powell was one of the planters involved in sedition, for which he was condemned to death, escaping the noose by stowing away. Another bone of contention regarded taxes. In response to a communication from Governor Blackmore, probably relating to the 1681 unlicensed gathering of planters (see below), East India House replied: You say our Planters are not able or willing to pay us taxes. It hath been our care and our cost to make them up to what they are now as it shall be to raise them to a better condition. But whether they are willing or not they must be reduced to such a form of Civil Government and Expense for their Protection and preservation as is necessary to all societies of mankind … What do we maintain a government for but to compel them to do what is fit and reasonable.’ Blackmore was advised to fine ‘those that are refractory and levy your fines till they are reduced to better order.’57 The company always knew best. In 1687 the visiting Captain Harding was tasked by East India House not just to settle the dispute between Blackmore and Holding but to converse with the planters and ‘trie to make them a sober, considerate and rich people,’ giving advice also that the company could achieve this end for them ‘in a regular way’ and the planters’ ‘vain, fantastical, licentious manner’ would not work.58 Almost forty years later similar sentiments were expressed by a new governor, Edward Byfield, who advised his generation of planters that ‘your only study and ambition will be as it ought to approve yourselves faithful and obedient to this government’s most generous and publick spirits for the good and welfare of this island.’59 In sum, there was no common interest; East India House may at one time have had utopian ideals, but the company had often to back up such appeals as Byfield’s with legislation, sometimes repressive and backed by force. Even then success was not to be had, as the following sections will demonstrate. ‘Intire obedience to our said Governor’? Sedition and mutiny Sedition and mutiny are terms used to indicate rebellion against authority, the latter having associations with the military. However, when East India House wrote to Governor Blackmore that ‘we take great interest in what you wrote concerning the mutiny of the planters,’60 perhaps they were viewing the planters as being subject to military control and, thus, their activity had indeed been mutiny rather than sedition at the armed camp that was St Helena. The worst thing that can happen to a military post, particularly one so isolated, is for the commander to lose control. East India House was very conscious of this and when the list of laws were issued to St Helena in 1681 (see Chapter 4), there was an section ‘for the better preserving of the peace … and keeping all persons [in] due subordination and securing the island against enemies.’ The first paragraph

RESISTANCE, RIOT AND REBELLION

113

forbad anyone to imprison or lay hands upon the governor; the second dealt with soldiers neglecting their duties. Much of the rest was concerned with mutiny and sedition: if any Captain officer or soldier or mariners that have entertained themselves in the Company’s service in or at the said Island or any Inhabitant thereof or any person or persons that shall come to the said Island shall raise sedition and make or abett any mutiny or shall contrive or indeavour either himselfe or to entice or corrupt any other officer soldier mariner or other person being thereof duly convicted by a Jury shall be sentenced to suffer death and to forfeit and loose all his estates to the use of the Company.61 That death was the penalty indicates the seriousness of the offence, although execution was not always applied and, as will be seen, when it was carried out it proved to be controversial. Two mutinies and one case of what, despite the company’s definition, was sedition will be studied below. ‘Soe, we re-established Captain Richard Keigwin againe’: the 1674 mutiny A mutiny occurred on St Helena in 1674 during the brief period after the island had been recaptured from the Dutch before the voyage of resettlement had arrived. As Chapter 8 will demonstrate, the naval squadron under Captain Richard Munden that had taken the island left it to chase Dutch prizes. Captain Richard Keigwin, who no longer had a ship, his fireship Eagle having been abandoned on the way to St Helena, was left as governor under the king’s flag. He commanded between 160 and 200 soldiers, a few sick people abandoned from the ships and some of the established inhabitants who had not been evacuated when the island was lost. It might have been expected that a having a military preponderance within the island community would have seen a period of calm on the so-often troubled island. It did not. Captain William Bass of the East Indiaman London arrived at St Helena with other ships on 22 April 1674—cautiously in case the island was in Dutch hands—to find that the English held it. His pleasure at this was presumably short-lived for he ‘found soldiers and some of the old inhabitants in a mutiny without government.’ Governor Keigwin had been seized, stripped of his rapier and arms, shut up in a country house, forbidden to speak to anyone or write any messages. Captain Gregory Field, Keigwin’s deputy, had been offered the post of governor by the mutineers, but loyally had refused and the position had been taken by a Lieutenant Curd.62 Complaints against Keigwin were that he had spoken against the EIC, was not prepared to defend St Helena—he would ‘leave the island by the first ship that came be it friend or enemy’—and that he was ‘a detached person and had abused ye soldiers very much and for no cause.’ Bass felt it was his duty to restore order. He dined with the ‘new, deputed’ Governor Curd and, the following day, had a meeting with Keigwin, which was attended by Sergeant Taylor, a Scot who had led the mutiny. Taylor presented a list of complaints against Keigwin, which Bass and the other captains took ‘out upon ye bastion to be privat to ourselves and having thoroughly perused ye charges against ye late Governor could find nothing material against him.’ Then

114

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

a meeting was held in a house between the leading mutineers, Keigwin and the ships’ commanders with soldiers outside listening through the windows. The charges were presented to Keigwin, but he claimed that all could be explained away under the articles of war, which gave him extraordinary powers. The soldiers now became restless; one ‘put ye mussel [muzzle] of his musket to Captain Brown’s brest,’ several crying out that Keigwin should not be restored and they would take him back into their custody. One might have expected leadership from Lieutenant Curd, but he ‘being very drunk could not say a word for himself but cryed like a child.’ Bass warned the soldiers that their conduct was mutinous, that they could be hanged for it and took Keigwin back to Fort James. The next day the ships’ commanders met ‘to consult about leaving this island in some settled government and not in mutiny,’ fearing that such a state would leave St Helena vulnerable ‘if an enemy should come against it.’ They agreed to stay to defend the island until matters were settled and that they would try to restore Keigwin by persuasion, failing that by force. Curd was summoned and told to relinquish the government. He, ‘fearful of us’, acquiesced and an announcement was made in the fort’s yard to this effect against the beat of a drum. The mutineers were instructed that Keigwin was their lawful commander until any orders to the contrary were received from England. His rapier and small arms were restored and Keigwin made an announcement to the effect that all that had happened was freely forgiven. With one of those insouciant English comments, ‘soe, we re-established Captain Richard Keigwin againe,’ Bass moved on in his journal to the next business, accompanying the ‘re-established’ Governor Keigwin on an inspection of the fortifications. The following day Curd was ordered to surrender ‘his mutinous commission and it was burned by ye Marshall at ye foart.’ Keigwin was advised not to be ‘to [sic] harsh in his command and to moderate his passion and govern with love and meekness.’ London and the other ships sailed the following day, 27 April, carrying some Dutch prisoners also Lieutenant Curd and Sergeant Taylor;63 ironically, there was a mutiny on board.64 Keigwin went on to serve the EIC at Bombay, where he was involved in a further mutiny from 1683 to 1684.65 The 1674 mutiny would have been a serious matter for the EIC only if an enemy had arrived during the leaderless period. The military involved were not EIC forces and so no blame can be attached to the company. Indeed the company came out of it well, because it was an East Indiaman’s captain who restored order. Things were much worse for the EIC regarding the next serious unrest. ‘Dangerous consequences’: the 1684 sedition Roots of the 1684 unrest can be identified in the dissatisfaction of residents with company rule, mirrored by the distrust of civilians (and, on occasion, soldiers and council members, including governors) by the company. In 1681 matters worsened when between 50 and 60 inhabitants gathered on open land without leave of the governor: whereas were several things agitated and discoursed of dangerous consequences tending to division and making of parties and factions, particularly some of them did enter into a combination and engagement in

RESISTANCE, RIOT AND REBELLION

115

writing and others were persecuted or threatened to sett their mind thereunto whereas Mr John Greentree and Mr John Colson, two of ye Council were observed to be by their example and practice most active. Greentree and Colson were dismissed from the council as was the former governor, Anthony Beale, now deputy governor, for allowing his house ‘to be a rendezvous for contriving much of the trouble.’66 From that time council meetings were to be held behind locked gates at the fort, ostensibly to protect the proceedings from the ‘disorder and inconveniences found by experience of late by Freemen and Inhabitants coming in great numbers into Fort James particularly on such days and times as the Governor and Council meet.’67 A few weeks later came the incident over Roebuck mentioned above when the consultations record the word ‘sedition’. Another incident evidencing restlessness was in August 1684 when Thomas Sault, who had relinquished his position as minister, was brought before the council regarding his ‘going about the country since his said resignation, to gett subscriptions to a paper’ about which there were fears of ‘dangerous consequences’, the second time that phrase was used and which must refer to sedition.68 Sault’s disrespectful treatment of the governor and council at this point was detailed in Chapter 4. The unrest was known to Leadenhall Street and on 26 November 1684 a warning was issued to company ships likely to arrive at St Helena that ‘some of our planters are mutinously inclined.’69 The use of the present tense and the date of the document being a little over a month after sedition had actually occurred, identify the prescience of the warning and that it was issued before the company had become aware of what had happened that October. When they did learn of it, they confirmed they had ‘long since a foresight’ of the problems.70 The November letter had gone on to order captains to ‘give your utmost assistance with your respective ship’s company to our Governor and Councill of St Helena for securing ye said Island to his Majestie and ye Companies use against all traitorous rebellions or mutinous persons whatsoever.’ Captains were given permission to stay at St Helena longer than usual if their presence was necessary, with the company paying the ships’ owners (many ships were chartered) any extra demurrage charges.71 The 1684 sedition was a reaction to a catalyst that boiled up this long simmering resentment against the company. The catalyst was a petty dispute between the unpopular deputy governor, Captain Robert Holden, and a soldier, which engendered a bloody conflict concerning the competing loyalties of those living in company colonies between their company and their sovereign. Holden’s later dispute with the council in which he served has already been discussed, identifying his combative nature and his imperative to serve the goals of the wider company rather than the people with him on St Helena. Holden’s duties brought him into frequent contact with the planters and garrison, both groups finding offence at some of his actions, particularly in the case of the former regarding raising taxes upon land, slaves and possessions (see Table 6.1, Appendix 3), also for sharp dealings relating to the purchase of cattle and the sale of goods. He was ‘a man of very evil reputation amongst all who knew him,’ according to a group of planters.72

116

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

On 8 October 1684 a soldier, Allen Dennison (or Deneson), declared ‘openly and publiquely … to all the officers and soldiers in Armes present at a Muster or Exercise‘ that some weeks earlier at the company storehouse Holden had stated that ‘wee are all not his Majesty’s subjects but the Companies.’ The men had argued after Dennison, wanting to take some of his pay in tobacco, had approached Holden at the storehouse to ask for it. Holden was busy stamping copper bars that were the currency on St Helena in preparation for payday and told Dennison to return on the Saturday. Dennison, not wishing to wait, used ‘reviling language’ against the company and ‘abusive speeches’ against Holden himself, at which he was instructed by Holden on the relationship between the company and the king from which he constructed the allegation uttered at the muster. Holden counter-claimed that his statement had been to the effect that the company’s ‘power and authority … was the king’s’, acknowledging the ultimate authority of the sovereign, although certainly there had been a reminder to Dennison that it was the company from which he drew his ‘maintenance’. Holden further stated that he ‘doth absolutely deny to have spoken the words alleged nor ever had any meaning in what he spoke of the least disloyalty or dismissing his gracious majesty’s power and prerogative over all his subjects particularly over the said Honourable Company and all those who are upon this island.’ He characterised Dennison as an ‘audactious villane’ and a ‘wretch’. The court, sitting without Holden, agreed with their deputy governor, who was ‘a man of much worth, loyalty and sincerity to his Majesty and his Government.’ Dennison, by contrast, was a ‘malitious, vile person’ condemned for his scandalous accusations about Holden’s loyalty. Dennison was cashiered and put in prison in irons. When a ship arrived he would be sent to England ‘to answer this, his great affront of calumny and slander.’73 Dennison’s imprisonment on 13 October inflamed relations between some of the garrison and its leadership. At the trial after the sedition, the council wondered if there had been ‘a secret designe to incense ye soldiers against the said Captain Holden and to stir them up into some mutinous motion.’ Further, and this is what points this incident towards sedition not just mutiny, there was an accusation that Dennison had been ‘influenced, encouraged and sett on by some of ye most active discontented Islanders.’74 Matters climaxed on 21 October with an attempt upon Fort James.75 There was substantial civilian involvement, but soldiers were in the vanguard and the first trials—on 23 and 24 December 1684—for ‘Mutiny and Rebellion to government and attempted riot and under arms to breake into and take Fort James’ were of four privates: William Bowyer; Joseph Clarke Jnr; Robert Moore and Joseph Orseman. Bowyer was the ringleader. He had been promoted to corporal in June 1684,76 but within a few weeks was in court for having gone on board Society without the governor’s leave, also for ‘his hasty promising to marry the widow Simms before the circumstances of his condition and obligations to the Honourable Company (Our Masters) could be considered in Council.’ He had been imprisoned and reduced to the ranks, whilst the cattle, which would have come to him by reason of marriage to the widow, were ‘secured for the use of the said Honourable Company.’77 These actions may well have engendered personal resentment by Bowyer towards the company. That he was able to find many others to act with him, civilians and soldiers, even if incensed by the treatment of Dennison,

RESISTANCE, RIOT AND REBELLION

117

suggests, however, that antipathy towards the company must have been widespread. The trial, a court martial, was held before a military jury consisting of six officers from a visiting ship, Royal James, including the captain, James Marriner, and six members of the garrison: the gunner; his mate; three sergeants (including Henry Jackson who himself later mutinied) and the senior corporal.78 It identified that there had been had been some preparation for insurrection in that gunpowder and shot was found in a chest at Bowyer’s lodgings, also in the cupboard of another soldier, James Johnson. On 21 October Bowyer had been seen to go from the house of planter Leister Sexton to that of John Colson, both of which were in Jamestown, called Fort (or Forte) Town here, and head towards Fort James with a musket on his shoulder and a sword by his side. Joseph Clarke Junior and Joseph Orseman marched on either side of Bowyer with drawn swords part of the ‘neare 20’ soldiers involved. Some of these later claimed to have been inveigled to join in against their better judgement by Bowyer and Robert Moore. Then came ‘many freemen in the reare of them to about the number of 20 or 30.’ Amongst these men, unarmed, apart from the staffs they normally carried, were Thomas Bolton, John Colson, William Cox, Edward Gardiner, Job Jewster, John Luffkin, Matthew Pouncey, William Rutter, John Sich and Robert Soames. Colson was the council member who had been dismissed in 1681 (his colleague, John Greentree, had died before 1684); Cox was the man who had aided the Dutch invasion in 1673 (see Chapter 8). Another of the party was a deserter, Richard Hancock, who was on the run on St Helena. He had carried ‘a flag they had made in imitation of the Union Flag to signify that they thought themselves still ye King’s subjects.’79 There is an indication that slaves were also involved. Bowyer led his battalion past Sessions House to the upper mount at the fort where they were confronted from within the walls by Governor Blackmore and ordered to stand, but they pushed on to the sally port upon which Bowyer ‘struck, beate and bounct … with his musket’ to smash it open. Clarke tried to break the door down with his sword and by kicking it, being helped by Orseman. The intention was to break in to the fort, imprison the Governor and Council and ‘wholly to alter the Government’, or such was the accusation at the trial; a later civilian petition to the English parliament had the intention being rather ‘to desire the Governor to discharge Deneson and secure Holden.’ In any event, Blackmore ordered them to be gone, but they persisted upon which the governor instructed the guard to open fire, with both great and small shot. Three of the party outside the fort were killed and 14 wounded. After that the survivors did disperse. One of the documents from which this account was prepared has a list of 11 names that, although not stated as such, seems likely to be a record of some of the 17 victims, probably those who were black, they having only one name, some, like Neptune, of the classical origin typical of slave names. Island historians have said that Black Oliver, the former slave who received his freedom for aiding the English in the 1673 re-invasion, was amongst those killed. The list, unfortunately, is obscured by an ink stain, but it is probable that one of the partially concealed names is indeed Black Oliver.80 Bowyer, Clarke Junior, Orseman and three other soldiers were the next night arrested at Bowyer’s house at which the rebels were attempting to make a stand

118

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

or, alternatively, were peacefully sleeping according to which account is consulted. Blackmore had sent an armed party and when they knocked, its leader, Sergeant Maurice Hunt, reported that they heard a cry from inside of ‘to arms, to arms’ at which they fired into the house, killing one and wounding another before taking their prisoners. Only the petition to parliament adds that Bowyer was clapped in the heaviest irons for declaring himself before Blackmore that he was for ‘King’ rather than ‘no King’. Several witnesses at the trial of the four soldiers told versions of this same story and, after separate hearings, each of the accused was found guilty. Sentence was passed on 30 December when Bowyer, Clarke Junior, Moore and Orseman were condemned to be hanged on 2 January.81 The four appeared in court separately on what was to have been their day of execution and were asked ‘why the sentence of death should not be passed?’ This is presumably a formulaic question, and from Clarke Junior, Moore and, Orseman it received the expected answer of a plea for mercy. Bowyer, by contrast, ‘thereupon sayd that he had read the King’s Charter to the Honourable Company and that he found not such power mentioned or given to them therein.’82 This was a direct challenge to the authority of the governor by reference to the ultimate authority of the king and, although the records make no direct mention of this, Bowyer’s declaration seems to have cast doubt into the minds of the governor and council for the soldiers were not executed that day. In fact, three days later in what might be seen as an excuse, their death sentences were postponed on account of Governor Blackmore’s wife being ‘brought unto death’s doore’. For this and, intriguingly, ‘some other weighty reasons and considerations’, the marshal was to suspend the executions until further order.83 On 15 January Moore and Orseman had their sentences reduced to banishment to Barbados on John and Mary, along with Allan Dennison, ‘the first open Mover and Instigator to the late horrid insurrection and mutiny.’ They were never to return to St Helena, upon pain of death.84 Then two more soldiers were called to trial, Joseph Clarke Senior and James Johnson. By this time Royal James must have sailed, for the jury was composed entirely of members of the garrison, except for the surgeon, Henry Manning, although he had once been a company soldier. The two accused confessed and were replaced by two other soldiers, Thomas Browne and Henry Collis, who pleaded not guilty, notwithstanding that they had previously confessed. Given the confessions, witnesses arranged against them were not called. The jury withdrew for 15 minutes and returned a verdict of guilty upon all four.85 The following day they were sentenced to death, but Clarke Senior and Johnson had their sentences commuted ‘after serious consideration’ to banishment to Barbados on John and Mary along with Dennison, Moore and Orseman. Browne and Callis had not been pardoned,86 but on 26 January 1685 the marshal, Ezekiel Taylor, was instructed to stop the executions of some persons, which must have been these men.87 By contrast, at the same consultation a warrant was issued for the execution by hanging of William Bowyer and Joseph Clarke Junior on 31 January, which sentence was finally carried out. Bowyer’s reading of the EIC charter presumably had by then been deemed to be fallacious. His house and land were forfeited to the company. East India House later criticised Governor Blackmore for pardoning soldiers who had been sentenced to death and forbade any further appeals over the head of the

RESISTANCE, RIOT AND REBELLION

119

company to the king.88 Richard Hancock, a sailor on Charles II who had escaped after being sentenced to be held in irons for desertion in January 168489 and who had emerged to carry the flag in the insurrection had then disappeared again. In August 1685 a soldier was sent to prison for entertaining Hancock, probably under duress,90 and Hancock remained on the run for 22 months before being captured at the end on that year.91 ‘Bloody and grave oppressions’: civilian executions The company’s warning of sedition on 26 November 1684 mentioned above was quickly followed by a ‘humble petition’ to the king acknowledging that what had been feared had happened.92 It seems certain that the company then put pressure on the king’s ministers to allow it to take severe action against the rebels. James II, through his minister Lord Sunderland, issued a personal instruction in April 1685 naming Bolton, Colson and the other civilians listed above (the soldiers involved had already been dealt with by this time), demanding that they ‘return to their obedience’ or put themselves at ‘utmost perill’. They were to obey orders issued by Blackmore as well as others from ‘our East India Company’ who governed ‘our island of St Helena’—it was not the ‘Company’s Island’ to the king. The civilians had 24 hours to comply after the publication of ‘this our Royall Command’ on St Helena. Refusal would see them regarded as ‘Rebells & Traitors according to the utmost demerritt of their guilt.’93 East India House sent Sir John Wybourne on New London to carry out the king’s, rather their, wishes on St Helena, en route to Bombay where he was to become deputy governor. He was to convey the news to St Helena that the company would no longer rule with ‘lenity and compassion’.94 If rebels were found to be in control of the island when Wybourne arrived, company and naval forces were authorised to recapture it. Wybourne also carried with him all the petitions the planters had sent to England, which had been rejected with helpful animadversions in the margins to explain why. The script from King James was issued almost six months after the sedition and it would have taken another lengthy period for it to reach St Helena, illustrating once again how difficult it must have been to manage the colony from England. A second letter bearing the name of the king was addressed on 14 April 1685 to Blackmore and his council. The same list of planters is given, but their position seems to have worsened for now simply returning to obedience would not be sufficient. This second ‘Royall Command’ was for St Helena itself to be ‘reduced into a state of obedience’ and others ‘deterr’d from ye like events for ye future’ through—significantly under the operation of martial law—the execution of those proved ‘to have been active, aiding abetting or assisting in the late treasonable rebellion.’ The martial law declaration was necessary for civilians to be subject to a court martial at which they could be sentenced to death. Those ‘seduced and drawn into the said Rebellion by ye specious pretences of ye ringleaders’ might be forgiven, but not the ringleaders themselves, who were named. Also named was Captain Anthony Beale, the governor at the time of the 1673 invasion (see Chapter 8) who had returned as deputy governor at re-occupation.95 Beale had been dismissed in 1681 after that earlier case of sedition.96 The company later removed his name from the list of ‘excepted persons’, that is those who were not subject to the king’s pardon and

120

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

who were to be executed.97 Sir John Wybourne became a temporary member of the council at St Helena, whose membership, which included Holden despite his involvement in the matter, pronounced the sentences of death. The petition to the House of Commons claims that when the relatives of those to be executed appealed to Sir John ‘to spare their lives he answer’d them “’Twas not in his power for they were judg’d, condemn’d before he came out of England”.’98 The 14 planters so condemned are listed in Table 7.2 (Appendix 3), which shows that not all were executed. Some civilians, not named except for William Cox, were instead exiled to Bencoolin as free men in 1687, where they were to receive the pay of a soldier and 40 acres of land.99 Cox, now implicated in his second attempt to replace the EIC government on St Helena, was perhaps fortunate to escape execution. Matthew Pouncey was exiled to Bombay in 1690;100 George Sheldon had died in prison, stifled in the airless heat of the hole that was the underground dungeon in Fort James; Gabriel Powell had escaped by stowing away on Rochester. However, five civilians were hanged in October 1685, including John Colson who had been on the island since the voyage of reoccupation, had been a churchwarden101 and had served on council until dismissed after the 1681 incident. Another person implicated was the company’s writer Bennet Delines, who had applied for leave to resign and to return to England on 13 October 1684.102 However, the governor and council having then ‘received many informations’ that he was ‘not only privy to ye late conspiracy … but was also with ye conspiritors att their consults before it brake forth and hath since kept company with some of them,’ permission to return was rescinded. The consultation is completely open as to why—because he might ‘convey fals storyes for the vindication of their rebelling and mutinous actions … [and] represent the Governor and what he did in discharge of the duty for the defences in odious and black colour.’103 Perhaps Delines was one of the 30 people whose punishment was to have halters placed round their necks, be forced to kneel; say ‘God save the king’ and bless the Honourable Company.104 Some civilians had their day in court, perhaps in connection with a different offence, but involvement in the sedition was remembered and used against them. In February 1685 Leister Sexton was reported to the court—‘information being received’—for using scandalising words about the company and governor. Given ‘how active busy and forward he hath bin in promoting and carrying on ye late Insurrection, and since,’ Sexton was sent to prison, fined 20s, bound over for six months and received 21 lashes. The next case that day was against Thomas Trewsdale who during the sedition had been heard to say to some soldiers, ‘God damme your king and you, too’ or it might have been ‘a plague on your king’. Either set of words was treasonable and Trewsdale, ‘a turbulent spirit’, was fined, bound over and sent to prison for three months ‘and at the end thereof any longer tyme the Governor shall think fitt.’105 Trewsdale’s case especially illustrates the complexities of the multi-layered loyalties St Helena’s citizens were obliged to demonstrate. The sedition was conceived by some actors as a stand for the king against the company; yet here is a man involved in the action who was punished for damning the king. Widows and orphans of the executed rebels were allowed to stay on the property of the dead men, but land and houses were sequestered to the company

RESISTANCE, RIOT AND REBELLION

121

and the families had to pay rent.106 Grace Colson, who remained on St Helena playing the role of the martyred widow, held land in the country and a house in ‘Chappell Valley Town’ and in 1690 was brought to court for non-payment of this rent. She refused to pay and stormed out of the court saying ‘you may as well hang me as you did my husband.’107 Hanging Mrs Colson’s husband caused the EIC more difficulty than its governor having to face down an irate widow on St Helena. In May 1689, over three years after Colson and the others had been hanged, a petition by Martha Bolton, another widow, was lodged with the House of Commons in London seeking ‘condign punishment’ for those responsible for the execution and redress for herself and her children. The petition was accepted and the EIC was ordered to appear before the House with the documents relating to the matter. Mrs Bolton’s petition was immediately followed by that of Dorothy Bowyer, whose husband, William, was one of the soldiers to have been executed. Her petition was granted also. The enquiry, which opened on 20 May 1689 focused on the royal command of the king issued in April 1685, which announced martial law on St Helena, the declaration of which was investigated as being a criminal act. The company was reluctant to produce relevant documentation, but the enquiry obtained a copy of the order from the Privy Council Office. Another issue was related to any stock that King James, now deposed, might have had in the EIC. It transpired he had £3000 invested, his own money, and there was mention of another £7000 which he had gifted the company. There was a close relation between the EIC and the monarch, with the implication that King James might have been persuaded to do the company’s bidding in the suppression of the sedition. Matters were obviously difficult for the company and an official, Mr Cooke, was accused of using threatening words to the petitioners at the door of the Commons. Another subject for debate was the fate of the man who had been stifled to death at Fort James, Martha Bolton’s brother, George Sheldon. He, it was claimed, had been ill when put into the dark, windowless hole and had begged on his knees for the door to be opened to allow in light and air, but this was denied and he was dead inside five hours. During the enquiry a further petition, this time from Grace Colson and her children, was allowed, this claming that John Colson’s execution had been murder.108 The petitioners summed up the process of justice after 1684 as ‘bloody and cruel oppressions’ and demanded that Blackmore and Holden be ‘call’d home to answer for their crimes.’109 This did not happen but the House of Commons committee did rule that the establishment of martial law on the island had not been lawful,110 and so those executed under it must have been unlawfully killed. ‘Vicious or rebellious inhabitants’: the impact of 1684 John Keay concluded that the discontent about the EIC in England exemplified by this House of Commons enquiry provided the opportunity for rival merchants to petition William III to permit the establishment by charter of a competing organisation, the New East India Company in 1698,111 which led to four years of unbridled competition, ‘ruinous’ to both companies until they merged in 1702.112 On the island itself, whilst the stricter approach by East India House and Fort James to the population of St Helena mentioned in Chapter 2 can be dated to a little before 1684, it was associated with fear of sedition, and

122

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

once it had happened authoritarianism became evident. Individuals heard expressing disloyalty, like James Wakefield who uttered disparaging remarks against the governor, could be punished—he was bound over and ordered to beg Captain Blackmore’s pardon,113 whilst the company remained suspicious of St Helena’s planters collectively. For a time civilians were not trusted to do the watching and warding and soldiers had to man all the lookout posts. To lessen this increased burden on the garrison, two young islanders were appointed as soldiers in January 1685.114 Six months later a proclamation was made that any ‘assemblies or meetings of people on ye island’ would be deemed to be seditious; the planters were now being treated almost as suspiciously as the slaves. Exceptions were made for church services, the market in Chapel Valley when a ship was in the road, for mending the highways or the performance of other public duties when ordered. Otherwise, to avoid charges of sedition, meetings had to get the leave of the governor and at least two councillors.115 The same year, East India House instructed that the planters be disarmed, forbidden even to shoot at fowl, unless on their own property.116 Civilian interaction with soldiers was to be reduced, with instructions that the garrison should lodge in ‘Barox [barracks] within the fortifications’, which would prevent ‘their being corrupted by any vicious or rebellious inhabitants.’117 There were greater restrictions on the group directly implicated in the sedition, as in April 1685 when they were forbidden to go on board ships.118 Fear of sedition remained. In 1706 William Swallow was remanded in custody after being overheard saying that he wished the French ships that had lately seized Queen and Dover from the road had taken the island, too.119 There was discussion about Swallow having verses assumed to be seditious, but at his trial it was ruled by the jury that he had been talking out of bravado rather than malice and he was freed.120 Earlier, in July 1693 when the civilian militia had proposed that rather than being officered by the garrison, they should choose their own officers, this was disallowed as being potentially subversive.121 Matters regarding military affairs were then sensitive again for three months earlier St Helena had suffered another mutiny. ‘We are minded to take the ship and what treasure is on the island’: the 1693 mutiny On the evening of Friday, 21 April 1693 Sergeant Henry Jackson was on guard at Fort James. He had determined that night to mutiny. One can find little reason why he had decided to do this, other than simple greed. Unlike some soldiers involved in the 1684 sedition, there is no evidence for Jackson having cause for particular resentment against the company. He had been on St Helena probably for more than 10 years and had been made corporal in June 1684,122 with rapid promotion to sergeant before the end of that year when ironically he served on the jury enquiring into the 1684 sedition.123 He had sufficient income to own slaves,124 and was a trusted member of the garrison, having been appointed to serve on the jury for the court sessions less than a month before this night’s mutiny.125 On duty with Jackson were four other conspirators. When the rest of the guard and those who lived within the fort were asleep, they admitted a further nine soldiers who had arranged to come down from Prosperous Bay, Banks’s

RESISTANCE, RIOT AND REBELLION

123

Battery, Rupert’s, from Francis and Mary then in the road or from their quarters if they were not on duty. They also freed from the prison Isaac Leach, who joined the conspiracy having nothing to lose, being under sentence of death for murdering a soldier, John Smith, after a trial four months earlier following a long history of court appearances on a variety of charges including abusing the governor in 1682; contempt in 1683 and sexual misconduct in 1685.126 Jackson and the others were to display ultimate resistance to the company that employed them in that they were ‘to plunder the fort and the valley of all treasure that might be found therein … and afterwards to seize the ship that was in the road and so to make their escape.’ A group of 15 would have been rather small to accomplish these designs, so they asked others to join the conspiracy. John Vernon, a soldier, was in his quarters at the fort when between 11.00 pm and midnight Jackson came to his door and invited him to come and take wine. Vernon had been disturbed earlier by the noise of the dungeon being opened but had been reassured then that Jackson had been asking the prisoner for a flame, the light in the guard room having gone out. Vernon got up for the second time that night and went along to Jackson’s room, there to be asked by Jackson and Thomas Gantry to join the plot: ‘if he should be true to them, he should not want anything.’ In what must have been a highly charged discussion, Vernon observed the conspiracy could not be accomplished that night given that they would need daylight for plundering. He was told that they would complete the scheme in the morning after they had secured the governor and that they could not back down now, ‘it was too far gone’. Vernon refused to join and was thrown into the dungeon from which Leach had recently been released, the noise from which had disturbed him. In the cell were others who had declined to join, including the doctor, John Stevens. Stevens had also been invited to take wine with Jackson. He had been unwilling but was importuned and went. There was no wine; just the conspiracy: ‘we are minded to take the ship and what treasure is on the island and runn away with it, and you shall go with us.’ Stevens would not and claimed that Jackson then threatened to kill him, but was dissuaded by Gantry. The doctor had been allowed to go and get his clothes, and back in his room made a play for his sword but had been overpowered by his escorts and put in the dungeon. At dawn Jackson came to warn the prisoners that they would all be killed if they made any noise. Too late—Governor Johnson came out. Some commentators have him leaving his quarters as normal to give the keys to the Sergeant of the Guard, but he may well have been aroused.127 Thomas Gargen, a soldier, had been offered a place in the mutiny in its formative stage by another plotter, Henry Fogg. Gargen had reported this to the governor who had ‘made light’ of it, yet willed Gargen ‘to associate himself with them’ to learn about the matter. Johnson must have spent his last sentient moments wishing he had taken the intelligence more seriously, for rather than being properly prepared, he now stepped out alone into the early dawn to confront a group of armed mutineers. There was a scuffle and three shots. Jackson was wounded in the arm but the governor fared worse, being shot in the head by Henry Fogg. He did not die immediately and was dragged to the guardhouse steps. Surgeon Stevens was fetched out of the dungeon to dress Jackson’s arm, but was not permitted to

124

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

tend to the governor for a couple of hours before being allowed to carry him to his chamber with the aid of Mrs Johnson, her slave, Black Bess, and another. Stevens’s examination of Johnson discovered that he was mortally wounded. After the scuffle with the governor, the plotters guarded the routes leading from the country into the settlement and secured the rest of the people in the fort, as well as soldiers and anybody else coming in, including the armourer, Andrew Rooker, who had arranged to go out to Francis and Mary early that morning, and had entered Fort James with her captain, Thomas Pitts. They resisted, but were clubbed and kicked until they jumped into the now overcrowded ‘hole’ that was the prison. Also imprisoned were people spending the night in the settlement, such as John and Elizabeth Luffkin, who were tricked into entering the fort on the pretence that the governor wanted them. Thomas Gargen, the erstwhile informer, had refused one last chance to join the conspiracy and was one of about 30, including some slaves, crammed into the dungeon, ‘almost stifled with the heat’. The plotters then plundered the fort and stole all the company’s money— described romantically as ‘treasure’, this was the age of piracy and the money was stored in a chest. To protect themselves, the mutineers spiked the cannon at the fort and tumbled those at Munden’s Mount and Munden’s Point from their carriages. Next they seized Francis and Mary by taking out her commander, Captain Pitts, as their prisoner, any resistance from the crew being minimised by the ship being undermanned. According to a contemporary report Francis and Mary had been bound for Madagascar but had been forced to put into St Helena as too many of the crew had died for further progress to be made.128 The mutineers also took four hostages from the dungeon, including Deputy Governor Kelinge, to ensure their security against any attempt to prevent their escape. Before he went on board, Pitts received from Kelinge a signed affidavit stating he was acting under duress. The ship secured, hostage John Luffkin was transported back to shore with the keys to the dungeon. Those released went to the governor to find him at his last gasp. A note was written to Stephen Poirier who was at the company plantation out of the settlement and who, with Johnson murdered and Kelinge abducted, was now senior man. He rushed down with his sons and eight of the labourers in his vineyard, to take charge and ordered the guns to be repaired, although he was unlikely to have fired on the ship for fear of killing Kelinge. The mutineers, upon observing the armourer start work on the guns the next morning, took Francis and Mary out of range anyway. Another hostage, Thomas Goodwin, was sent from the ship with a demand for provisions, which was met, and then Francis and Mary made ready to depart. The remaining hostages were returned safely to the shore by four of the conspirators: George Lock; Isaac Slaughter; Joseph Davis and Richard Evans. Presumably these four were supposed to row back to Francis and Mary but must have been seized for the ship sailed without them. It is not known to where. The hostages later reported that most conspirators wished to stick together, although Thomas Gantry had wanted to be put off at Ascension. Captain Pitts, who remained most unwilling for his ship to be stolen, had mentioned Virginia. Barbados would have been another possibility. In any event the ship departed and was not heard of again.

RESISTANCE, RIOT AND REBELLION

125

On the Monday an inquest into Johnson’s death was held. The coroner’s jury found that ‘Joshua Johnson Esquire, late Governor’ had been ‘wilfully murdered by a shot in the head or his face near the temple by Henry Fogg … under the rebel command of Henry Jackson.’ Jackson and all those helping him were guilty of murder.129 However, the only people who could be prosecuted were the four who had rowed Kelinge back. They were tried on 4 May, found guilty of treason, murder, burglary, piracy and robbery and were sentenced to death by hanging. There was nobody on the island who was prepared to carry out the sentence, so Joseph Davis, adjudged to be the least guilty, had his life spared provided he execute his fellows. The possessions of the other conspirators were seized.130 The ramifications of the events for the EIC were less than they had been after the 1684 sedition. This was a mutiny, all were military personnel, no civilians other than a condemned criminal had been involved and none but soldiers executed, so the unwelcome publicity caused by hanging civilians would not be repeated. Another significant difference was that the majority of the mutineers had sailed off without trace, so other than those already executed there was nobody to punish. No decisions had to be taken as the matter was concluded by the time an ‘imperfect account’ of the event was received in Leadenhall Street in early 1694 upon which the company wrote to Richard Kelinge to acknowledge receipt, mentioning ‘the Barbarous Murder of our late Governor Captain Johnson.’ For once the use of capital letters mid-sentence seems justified and the matter was in paragraph 1 of the letter. That said, the letter quickly moved on to business matters; paragraph 2 was about bills of lading. Kelinge was confirmed as governor in paragraph 3 but even here there was a business connection as the sentence appointing him concluded with ‘and likewise store keeper pro temporo until we shall otherwise dispose of that employment.’131 The rest of the letter was on company business matters as usual. Here was the commercial imperative writ large, perhaps those words deserved capital letters, too. ‘Born free and not to be made Subservient’: the challenge to the company colony Like a number of other chapters, this one has seen the EIC struggling to impose its will on St Helena. Early hopes for the development of a mannered community ‘embark’d in Common Interest’ foundered on the realities of life on this small, remote island. East India House was rarely able to achieve unity amongst even its ruling group on St Helena. The Holden case in 1687 highlighted three matters: that the authority of the governor could be flouted by appeal to the higher demands of the company; that the council did not operate smoothly, despite what seems to have been a logical division of responsibilities, perhaps because of these stresses of island life; and that the authority of the company was liable to challenge from both visiting seamen—the ‘buffle head’ incident—and the people of St Helena. It is telling that Blackmore offered Holden an armed guard to enable him to carry out his duties amongst the civilians. That the civilians were not reliable and certainly not in tune with the company’s imperatives is clear throughout—the 1684 sedition was only the most significant example of resistance. That this was partly predicated by divided loyalties to king and company highlighted a problem of company colonies.

126

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Another cause of discontent amongst the planters seems to have been the heavy hand of the company restricting their economic opportunities. This chapter’s title is ‘tending even to sedition’, which was a phrase used to describe the planters’ response to being forbidden to trade with the poor pickings of Roebuck, a slave ship whose crew as well as its sad cargo were starving.132 The contemporary observation by John Ovington that ‘the people are confin’d to poverty’ because of restrictions placed on their trading activity was telling. The sedition itself was put down bloodily with Blackmore’s hasty decision from within the safety of the fort to use great and small shot against a group of men with only a few muskets, swords and staves. Then came the harsh punishments against first the soldiers and then the civilians, backed up by the authority of the king and shareholder, James II, an event that led to the company being harshly criticised in the House of Commons. After the sedition, a repressive regime developed, with a number of people brought to trial on the word of informants. This rebellion was probably more important than the assassination of the governor in the 1693 mutiny, Sergeant Jackson’s people had not planned to kill him and rather than trying to change the governance system they were just out for personal gain. The anonymous writer in the Ancaster papers summarised well the inherent tensions within the company colony system. The civilians were only in the aspirations of East India House ‘embark’d’ on the company’s interest, rather they were ‘abounding with ye long observ’d Spirrits of English Men, as certain they are born free and not to be made Subservient to any interest farther than is consistent with their own and the publick Good.’133

8 ‘I BESTOWED A BROADSIDE ON THEM’: Defence and the Imperial Imperative

Introduction: ‘Man the bastions’ Company colonies represented two strands of colonial endeavour. They were part of the overseas possessions of their company’s countries, if at a remove; they were also commercial assets of their company, the product often of considerable private investment. Imperial possessions, company assets: both were worth protecting. Regarding those colonies that were small islands, such protection might be in vain, for islands are vulnerable to military attack; throughout the ages there have been examples of their falling to invaders. Malta may have resisted the Great Siege of 1565 and the German blockade of 1942, but results favourable to islands are not typical. Against a determined enemy an island usually loses, for whilst the sea might be seen as a protective barrier around an island, it can also serve as a highway, enabling the attacker to bring to bear forces to overwhelm any resistance an island is able to mount. This was the case even in recent battles for islands as in the Falklands Conflict of 1982. This vulnerability was recognised from the start of the company colony experience. The first settlers on Providence Island in 1631 were to build their own strong houses and then turn their efforts immediately to the building of the principal fort, Warwick Fort, and the others. Despite this, English company settlement ended with Spanish attack in 1641.1 Bermuda’s first company governor, Richard Moore (1612 to 1615), ‘felt it was pointless to clear the land and plant crops if all the colonists’ hard work could be swept away by a Spanish flotilla,’2 and so he focused on fortification. New settlers were to improve the defences and the consequent neglect of agriculture led to a famine, but the benefit of the policy was shown in 1614 when a Spanish attack was driven off by two shots from the new battery on Castle Island—the Spanish were unaware that the defenders had only one shot left. John Smith listed 52 pieces of ordnance on ten forts and platforms before 1625,3 and on a 1630 map of Bermuda, eight forts and castles defending entrances to the waters around its first capital, St George’s, are located.4 In 1661 a paper entitled ‘The importance of the Sommer Islands for all services upon the West Indies by his Majesties fleetes’— identifying the relationship between company and state endeavour—reported that Bermuda was:

128

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

of a most exquisite natural strength as being on all sides utterly nonaccessible with any shipping save by two most intricate channels leading into their two harbours, the mouths and narrow entrances whereof are conveniently well flanked with diverse forts raised without either the care or cost of that Company (which att the present hath the ordering and government of them).5 Fortifications were expensive in terms of labour and materials and how any particular company colony was defended depended upon local circumstances. Vancouver Island in the 1840s was not fortified against outside attack, the island was too large and the Hudson’s Bay Company presence too small for that. Fort Victoria, founded in 1843 as a trading post a few years before it became the colonial capital, had a stockade with octagonal bastions, not for protection against foreign forces, but against the indigenes on the island. Roderick Finlayson, the early leader, displayed a muscular attitude to those who attacked in 1844: ‘a shower of bullets fired at the fort with a great noise and demonstration on the part of the crowd assembled, threatening death and devastation to all the whites. I had then to gather up our forces and man the bastions.’6 A whiff of grape shot fired from a nine pounder at an empty lodge as a demonstration won the day for the company. In extremis the Hudson’s Bay Company could and did call upon the British navy for military assistance. Similarly, the Neu Guinea Compagnie called upon the German navy in 1893, when shells fired from S.M. Cruiser Sperber killed one rioting native, ‘paralysing another with fear’.7 St Helena, like Vancouver Island, was vulnerable to its own residents through insurrection and mutiny as was seen in Chapters 6 and 7 and, like Bermuda and Providence Island, it was in danger against foreign intervention. ‘The times being troublesome and dangerous’: St Helena as a strategic asset David Smallman opined that the EIC ‘hung on to the island when it provided no profit to its shareholders’ because of ‘a strategic importance that could not be evaluated in a simple profit and loss ledger.’8 The EIC’s original and continuing interest in St Helena was partly because it was a strategic rendezvous for its ships returning to England. For example, company merchant, Francis Rogers described how on 8 June 1702 his ship, Arabia, made the island, ‘the general rendezvous for our English shipping homeward bound from India, both for water and refreshments, and convoy in war time.’ His ship waited with others until the middle of July, when it was deemed that ‘no more ships could come from India that season,’ and the nine ‘India ships’ gathered in the road left together under the command of Captain Tolbett of the man-of-war Kingfisher, sent down to protect the fleet. They made Kinsale in Ireland on 3 October, and were refreshed, before convoying on to London.9 The size of these merchant fleets could be substantial; Table 8.1 (Appendix 3) identifies 13 company ships that traded to the east in 1710, based on a list sent to Governor Roberts to enable him to make preparations.10 The rendezvous was especially important in time of war or when war was feared. Thus in late 1664 in the build up to the 2nd Anglo-Dutch War of 1665 to

DEFENCE AND THE IMPERIAL IMPERATIVE

129

1667 (see Appendix 2), East India House petitioned Charles II to send a naval escort to St Helena by the following March to await the expected ten East Indiamen who would touch there ‘as usual’ for refreshment and ‘come home with them’. The request was designed to appeal both to the king’s patriotism and his purse, note being made of the company’s mission ‘to increase the trade and navigation of His Majesty’s Kingdom’ and the ‘increase of his customs’ should the navy safely deliver the merchantmen.11 The king’s response, received the same month, was that two navy ships would be sent, but he wished the company to send two further vessels at its own charge. The company, never profligate, agreed to fit out one vessel of between 60 and 100 tons.12 The company’s fears were real; there was worry in 1665 and 1666 that St Helena had actually been taken by the Dutch. Later, fears were renewed in the build-up to the next round of the conflict, the 3rd War of 1672 to 1674, for in 1671 commanders of company vessels were warned to ‘keep their ships always in a good posture of defence’ and so prevent any attempt at a surprise, especially on arriving near St Helena.13 The Dutch took the island in 1673. The French were another enemy at various times, in 1695 East India House informed Governor Kelinge that four of their ships and two interlopers were taken by the French when nearing home. However the company was determined to carry on trading if reliant more than ever upon the English navy and that season four navy ships were to meet East Indiamen at St Helena.14 English vessels not belonging to the company calling at St Helena were not welcome: ‘we do … strictly charge and require our … Governor … that he do not give or grant any such liberty to trade or refreshment … to any English ship or vessel … other than such ships or vessels and their men as shall come there in our service.’15 The rules regarding slavers were strict, as was seen in Chapter 6. Suspicions were especially acute regarding foreign vessels. At times politics would dictate that merchantmen from France or Holland could be served— ‘whilst our nations are at amity’. Even then, such vessels and their men were to be regarded as potential adversaries: ‘though wee are friends one yeare, wee know not what another may produce.’16 Governor Coney was told to treat Europeans who called with civility ‘but be carefull that you permit them not to land with any great number of persons, or to suffer them to view the island or ye strength of fortifications.’17 When Coney was replaced by Anthony Beale, in the copy of Beale’s instructions next to a marginal note reading ‘a recital … given for the security of the island,’ were orders not to allow more than one boat to come ashore ashore at any one time and that containing not more than ten strangers.18 Richard Coney was already aware of the dangers of foreign ships. In 1670 the Spanish priest Dominick Fernandez Navarette noted that ‘the little governor was afraid they were going to assault him, he ordered the French should not come within his fort arm’d and that they should come but two at a time.’19 Two Frenchmen could not take the island but they could make useful observations. Perhaps it was during Navarette’s visit that Coney allowed two Frenchmen to take a boat out fishing. They did not land at the usual place under the guns of the fort but elsewhere and came overland to the fort. East India House’s reaction was that:

130

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

the Governor of the island should be written to and told not to permit this in future, and when any French, Dutch or other foreign ships come to the island, to cause a good watch to be kept and not suffer anyone to go with boats to any other part of the island.20 A year later, after Coney had been replaced following suspicion about his loyalty, Beale lost St Helena to the Dutch who landed not at Chapel Valley but at a remote place from where they made their way overland to the fort, rather as East India House had feared. After the resettlement, the watch, at least from the distance of Leadenhall Street, did not relax. ‘We doe again renew our Order that you be very careful that no strangers doe come, either into our Fort, nor on shore armed upon any pretext whatsoever’ wrote the company in 1676.21 A reminder came two years later: ‘The times being troublesome and dangerous we enjoin you in more than ordinary care in ye watching and circumspection, especially when shipping of strangers are in the Road that none rome on shore armed and but four at a time unarmed.’22 The company’s fears were not unfounded. In 1680 there was a case regarding Nicholas Matthews, a sailor left on St Helena from Caesar because he was ill. He lodged with Andrew Wilson, a cordwainer, who reported Matthews to the governor for saying that when he had been a French prisoner he had been offered 100 guilders to reveal a place on St Helena he knew ‘where he [i.e. the French] might unseen land.’ Matthews had added ‘that if he might have such a reward he would do it… bound with an oath swearing by God his maker Englishmen were as bad as Turks… [He] wanted to kill some of those Englishmen that he had been att sea with for about 5 years.’ In court Matthews denied all, but was sent in irons to the company plantation, there to work for his food until he could be exiled on the next ship.23 The French continued in their quest. In 1701 as the War of Spanish Succession was beginning Governor Poirier was informed that ‘all Europe was arming’ and he received a severe rebuke for having allowed French people—his countrymen—to go about St Helena ‘on pretence of shooting’. He was accused of ‘complaisance’ and instructed that that practice ‘must never again be allowed to any foreigner.’24 The validity of this rebuke might be judged from the fact that in 1706, M. Desauges, the commander to whom Poirier had ‘been so wondrously kind … so much better than to any of our own commanders, [and had] suffered his boats to sound round the island and his men to survey it ashore under the pretence of a shooting party’25 returned and captured two ships (see below). Further evidence of French spying comes from two maps published in a French atlas by Jaques Bellin in 1764: one of the island (Figure 8.1); one of the settlement, la fortresse et bourg, in Chapel Valley (Figure 8.2).26 The maps bear no date, but they depict the 1659 fort, not its 1709 replacement. The island map has relatively little detail on settlement and the topography is somewhat stylised, but there is much information about coastal features, including fortifications, numbers of cannon and water depth, data of interest to an enemy trying to take the island. The plan of the fort with the location of the batteries and other military particulars would also have been useful. A French map of 1781 by a colonial engineer called Lafitte was a later blueprint for any military engagement at St Helena.27 East

DEFENCE AND THE IMPERIAL IMPERATIVE

131

Figure 8.1 St Helena, Jacques Bellin, c. 1700. India House was thus right to be concerned about French people being allowed to traipse about St Helena under the pretext of shooting or fishing. ‘Able and civil men’? The company’s garrison The experience of having lost the island to the Dutch made the EIC determined to withstand future aggression. The organisation of the garrison was spelt out in orders sent on the voyage of re-occupation. The soldiers were to be formed into two companies, one under the governor, Captain Gregory (sometimes Richard) Field, the other under Captain Anthony Beale, re-assigned to the island as deputy governor. Lieutenants, ensigns and sergeants were to be nominated and appointed by the governor and council. The soldiers were to keep watch along with the planters, help erect fortifications and ‘assist in the work of planting when they can be spared.’28 A few years later when John Blackmore replaced Field as governor the system of having two companies was confirmed, but the appointment of lieutenants had become a matter for London, the governor and council appointing only ensigns and sergeants. The ‘“inferiour officers” and soldiers were to be exercised frequently, according to the practice of military discipline, and so become expert in the handling of arms, and to be kept constantly on the watch and to their duty whilst in the Company’s pay.’29 Later, in a way doubtless confirmed by military units the world over, it was discovered that of considerable importance, especially in the ‘exercise’ of the ‘young and raw

132

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Figure 8.2 ‘Plan de la forteresse et bourg de l’Isle de Ste Helene’, Jacques Bellin, c.1700. soldiers’, were corporals and three more were appointed.30 Soldiers were usually selected for St Helena because they had some additional useful trade and their responsibility in passing on these skills to the slaves was mentioned in Chapter 6. Regarding planting, whilst they were not permitted to own plantations, there are occasional references to soldiers producing food. In December 1674 when the company planned to reduce the garrison to 50 from an earlier decrease in April to 75 as matters settled down following the reoccupation, those retained were to be ‘able and civil men, and industrious in planting’, for soldiers ‘who, because

DEFENCE AND THE IMPERIAL IMPERATIVE

133

they are provided with plenty, neglect planting.’31 This civility of the garrison might be called into question following the evidence of frequent law breaking in Chapter 4 and the mutiny in Chapter 7. Reducing the garrison was always kept in mind as an economy measure, but there was a realisation that it could be a false economy if conflict was expected. In 1678 a sergeant, two corporals and six soldiers petitioned the new governor, John Blackmore, to return to England, they having served six years. Permission was refused because of the ‘dangerous condition of affairs in the Kingdom of England (our native country) in reference to peace or warr with some neighbouring nations. And not knowing what ill consequences it may be to this island in case there should be a Warr to lessen the number of souldiers.’32 A few months later the strength of the garrison was listed in a consultation and the ranks of the 81 soldiers are given in Table 8.2 (Appendix 3). The company could strengthen the garrison slightly from recruiting within the island, either the children of planters or men left off ships. In 1686 four soldiers had stowed away, so the governor was willing to enlist Samuel Jervey, a fifteen year old whose planter father had also stowed away and whose family were now responsible for the debts he had left to the company. Poor Samuel was enlisted on one-third pay until the debts were cleared.33 One duty of the garrison was to inspect visitors coming ashore, although for those from company ships this was largely ceremonial. John Fryer, a company surgeon returning to England in 1682 after service in Bombay, describes how after the salute—the mutual firing of guns on ship and shore as a mark of respect—the shore party were received by Governor Blackmore on the stony beach and ‘passed through Rows of Soldiers called to their Arms.’34 The St Helena garrison were professional soldiers, part of the EIC’s extensive military forces; the ‘means of violence’ in the development of ‘armed trade’ as Miles Ogborn has put it.35 As such they were subject to the usual requirements to keep to the legal and moral code imposed on the island (see Chapter 4), especially given that many were billeted amongst the civilian population. There were also specific military laws, best identified in the long screed sent from Leadenhall Street in 1681. That relating to mutiny was discussed in Chapter 7; in addition: If any Captain, Officer or souldier in the Companies Service in the said Island shall neglect his duty, sleep upon or be absent, or depart from his watch or station, or make any quarrel or disturbance whilst on the Guard and be thereof convicted by the testimony of two witnesses upon oath, he or they shall be fined by the Governour to the use of the Company not exceeding one months pay and shall also suffer such corporall punishment (not exceeding the taking away [of] life and limb) as the Governor with the advice and consent of the Major part of his Military officers shall adjudge the matters to deserve.36 One example from a number of soldiers who offended is that of Corporal Robert Swallow, who was dismissed for being found lying down in a house when he was supposed to be on watch and an alarm was raised. He had to carry six muskets around the town and spend two days in prison.37

134

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

‘All ye planters be taught and instructed in the exercise of Armes the better to doe Service when occasion shall require’ The garrison was supported by the civilian population, which was organised into a militia. There was little about this in Dutton’s instructions, but in those to Stringer in 1660 it was ordered that planters ‘repair armed under the direction of the Governour if any ship appear.’38 A few years later he was told that ‘for security, at beat of drum or spreading of flag all persons to repair to the fort with their short arms to receive orders.’39 Another early order was to ‘keep all the inhabitants well disciplined and their Armes allwaies in good repaire.’40 Since there are no records of consultations from before the invasion, there is little detail of the early organisation or operation of the militia. Certainly it was not effective for come the day when the Dutch did land there was limited opposition and a quick surrender of the ‘Company’s Island’. After this embarrassment, the EIC needed better to train and organise its civilian militia. It was noted above that upon re-occupation the garrison was told off into two companies and ‘all planters be by the Governor listed under either of the aforesaid Commands; or such officer as the Governor and Councell shall think fitt, we may exercise and trayne them to go in Armes at least once in two months to qualify them for the Defence of the Island.’41 Thus the company in its usual cost limiting way obtained double duty out of planters by requiring them to be part-time soldiers, minimising the number of professional soldiers they would have to employ. And what better for time-expired soldiers who had been in service on St Helena than to turn planters, thus saving the company the cost and trouble of finding new migrants to come down. Furthermore, these new civilians came ready made with the military expertise planters needed. These issues were seen well in a communication from East India House in 1680: On every 20 acres there be a man maintained able to bear armes that may in turn serve on the Guards as occasion shall require, and we hope that as our soldiers turn Planters, such will be the prosperity of the Island that we shall not need be in the charge of sending more, but that the planters in their turn may be sufficient. But you must introduce them to this service by degrees that it may be the more easy and less burdensome and you must take care that all ye planters be taught and instructed in the exercise of Armes the better to doe Service when occasion shall require.42 There were two tasks for the militia: to keep a lookout for ships (see below) and to respond to alarms. Upon re-occupation, the new population were instructed that: particular places or posts be assigned by the Governor whereunto all and every of the said Planters may repair and have a rendevouz when thereunto required by the Governour, for though we do not hereby require the planters to keep constant watch as soldiers … yet doe hereby strictly require in case of the appearance of any shipping and especially upon discovery of an enemy or any Generall Alarme that they doe repair to their respective posts and receive such orders in a way of Military discipline according to their respective officers shall be directed by ye

DEFENCE AND THE IMPERIAL IMPERATIVE

135

Governor and Councill for the safety and defence of our aforesaid Island, it being one of the conditions on which we have granted them their lands and other accommodations.43 Planters could be instructed in their duties at a general rendezvous such as that on 12 August 1678 held to ‘take account of alarms’ based on detailed instructions, the equivalent of a modern emergency plan, prepared by the council: • • • • • • •

Lieutenant Jonathan Tyler was to take 20 men to East Ridge ‘to secure and defend the same.’ A corporal and three soldiers from the fort were to take six men to Banks’s. ‘Correspondency to be held’ between East Ridge, Banks’s and Rupert’s and men could be transferred if necessary. Lieutenant Joshua Johnson was to take 20 inhabitants to West Ridge. The two lieutenants were to transfer men as necessary and were to take the colours, a drum, powder and shot, although powder was stored at Banks’s, Rupert’s and Sprague’s (Lemon Valley). John Greentree (a planter on the council), accompanied by a sergeant and six men from the fort was to take 12 inhabitants to Lemon Valley. All others in arms were to guard Fort James, its batteries and guns and nearby fortifications on Munden’s Mound and Point.44

Military plans for St Helena were periodically reviewed. In 1689 the island was alerted when a visiting captain repeated rumours he had had from other ships about a potential war between England and Holland. Prince William of Orange, it was reported, had landed an army in England. This was the Glorious Revolution in train and that there was no need to have worried thereby is a view taken with the luxury of hindsight. To Blackmore the news of invasion was a signal to prepare his defences, ‘not knowing wither friends or enemies may approach.’ All the valleys, especially to leeward were to be surveyed, batteries were to be repaired; all ordnance checked, ramrods, sponges and worms put in place and, if missing, replaced (ramrods tamped in the powder and shot to the muzzle-loading cannon; worms scraped out the residue from the barrel; sponges extinguished any remaining sparks and cooled the barrel). Shot of the relevant size was to be stored besides each gun; powder, matches, flints and small arms readied; flags for signalling were checked and mended or replaced if necessary. Great guns were requisitioned from company ships; all arms in the armoury ‘fixed, flinted and marked’ and, with shot, issued to the planters. The duty of each soldier and member of the militia was told to them. Planters were to bring their slaves to help upon alarm; company slaves were to assist crowbar parties readied to roll rocks down the cliffs onto any attackers; 24 new crowbars were to be made.45 By 1693, the emergency plan reveals how Governor Kelinge tried to cope with the military duties of his unexpected command a few months after the assassination of Governor Johnson, and it also indicates the spreading of the

136

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

defensive curtain of St Helena to its windward side, with the inclusion of Sandy Bay. The late defection of our Garrison having much disordered our several posts that some are totally deficient should an alarme happen ’Twas thought convenient that at the rendezvous that all persons on the said island be new posted and instructions for every post according to ye exigencies of affairs now stand. Prosperous Bay Four soldiers, two planters and any slaves belonging to the white men to watch out for any ships trying to anchor off the east of the island and to alert the Deputy Governor Poirier and Governor Kelinge. Until an officer comes they are to ‘act by mutual advice, assisting each other.’ Two Gunns or East Ridge Deputy Governor Poirier, a sergeant, corporal, 11 soldiers and 14 planters, also as many slaves as the white men can bring. If they see a landing made at Flagstaff, Sugar Loaf, Banks’s, Rupert’s or James Bay they are to go and challenge them. Lemon Valley Fort Lieutenant Morris, with Richard Gurling (second in command), two soldiers and five more planters and any slaves the planters have to guard valleys, including Fryar (Friar’s) Valley and Plantation (Young’s) Valley, to hinder access. To have iron crows to lever rocks down. Horse Pasture Thomas Box, one of Poirier’s sons, two vinerons, nine planters and any slaves they have to watch out for landings in the valleys there, Tombstone Valley, Old Woman’s Valley and Lemon Valley, with crow bars. To reinforce other parties as necessary. Sandy Bay James Rider and 7 other planters, to be reinforced from Horse Pasture if necessary, whereupon Thomas Box is to command.46 Upon alarm then, planters in the militia knew, or at least had been told, their duty. Indeed, East India House expected the planters ‘except the [Free] Blacks’ to ‘instantly upon all alarums appear at their respective quarters in arms.’47 This confidence may have been misplaced, many planters were not keen militiamen, would not sacrifice themselves for the EIC and would have been unlikely to be an efficient fighting unit. In 1678 there were complaints of planters not reporting for duty upon alarms. Various excuses were given and were accepted, ‘neglects to be passed by’.48 Fifteen years later the militia came up with an idea to improve their morale and, presumably, discipline and proposed to Governor Kelinge that ‘they might chuse military officers of their own to govern them at all times of Exigency and upon all Alarmes and not be under the disciplin of the officers of the Garrison.’ Rather than being helpful, the governor saw this as establishing an armed camp amongst the civilians and potentially subversive. Accordingly, far from granting the request, he enlisted more men into the garrison and made them all swear an

DEFENCE AND THE IMPERIAL IMPERATIVE

137

oath ‘against all unlawful endeavours for ye subversion’ as well as against ‘the French King’s Interest or any other enemy to the Crown of England.’49 Planters also had labour obligations to the company, which were often used for military purposes. In 1678 two soldiers were killed by a rockfall at the Crane Battery, by the landing place. It was decide to erect a timber frame to protect the battery and inhabitants of the Eastern Division of the island were responsible for this. For the next few weeks the consultations make reference to the slow progress on this project.50 Planters in the west had to help build a battery at Sandy Bay. ‘Keep sentry on the hills constantly to look out that none may surprise you’ St Helena was at risk from the sea. To be able to prepare his defences and put emergency plans into operation, the governor needed to know as soon as possible when a ship was in the vicinity. Thus ‘keeping a carefull watch’ was an order from early in the St Helena story.51 ‘Keep sentry on the hills constantly to look out that none may surprise you’52 was a later instruction. The lookout posts selected from the many possibilities on this mountainous island had to be manned—the gendered language is appropriate here, women were not involved—and this was a joint task of the garrison and militia. An order in 1672, just before the invasion, emphasised that the only men excused this tedious duty were the governor and deputy governor.53 In 1678 when arrangements on the island were being re-organised with the arrival of a new governor, John Blackmore, it was noted that watches had formerly been maintained in Rupert’s, Banks’s, Flagstaff, Prosperous Bay and Spragues alias Lemon Valley (Figure 8.3). These were ‘to be kept and continued’ and an additional watch established on High Peak, which would provide outlook over Old Woman’s Valley where the Dutch landed on 1 January 1673. Watches at Flagstaff, Prosperous Bay, Spragues and High Peak were to be maintained by the militia, three men at Flagstaff, two at the others ‘to be performed by Freemen in their turn so 10 freemen be on watch from a total of somewhat above 90 freemen.’ Duties lasted a week at a time and Lieutenants would show up to check the watch was being performed.54 The garrison was responsible for manning Fort James, its batteries, magazine and storehouses, also Munden’s Mount, Rupert’s and Banks’s. Soon after, in 1679, it was decided that High Peak was not necessary as a look-out point and it was ‘taken off … [as] noe ship can without much difficulty approach the Leeward side, being the Westward part of the island.’55 Sailing ships had to come from windward on the southeast trades and approach the road from the north. Those going directly to St Helena from Europe had to loop round the Atlantic to be able to do this—see as a later example Figure 8.4, which was prepared from the log of a voyage in 1799 to 1800 by Captain William Bligh (of Bounty fame) to escort East Indiamen back from St Helena.56 High Peak could also have been dropped as a response to complaints that one week’s duty in nine was overly burdensome. Additionally, the garrison took over the post at Spragues, leaving the militia only the tasks of watching at Flagstaff and Prosperous Bay.57 These posts were distant from the garrison’s base at Fort James, but one might still question the wisdom of leaving them to civilians given that shipping could be soonest spotted from them.

138

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Figure 8.3 Fortifications and lookout points, St Helena. Civilians were not always keen on tedious military tasks, nor were they necessarily well-performed. In 1679 Phoenix, fortunately a company ship, arrived without alarm being raised. The watchers excused themselves by claiming it was foggy, but were blamed and one spent a day in prison.58 In 1682 a planter was flogged for missing his duty,59 and the next year an enquiry was held as to why so few had bothered to turn up at a General Rendevous. A series of excuses were trotted out: being sick, lame, having unavoidable business. Three planters were fined: one whose non-appearance was because his arms needed repair; another because although he claimed to be ‘disabled in his limbs’ he was seen to go on board a ship; the third because he admitted to having a grudge against the company.60 By that year planters with 20 acres, the usual ration, were expected to watch and ward for two months of the year, one week in six, notwithstanding the recognition of the burden of watching one week in nine a few years earlier which had led to an obviously temporary alleviation. Planters were increasingly escaping their obligations by hiring substitutes to do their duty, even though complaints were made that this led to inadequate performance. In 1681 it was forbidden to send ‘young ladds and boys’ to do it. Substitutes had to be over 16, of a strength to bear arms and to have been trained and planters could lose the right to send substitutes if the duty was not done properly.61 There seemed to be a standard charge for substitutes—‘such as do hire their duty to be done for them pay 40s per annum for it’—and the company ‘thought fitt that the said 40s

DEFENCE AND THE IMPERIAL IMPERATIVE

139

Figure 8.4 Chart of voyage to St Helena by HMS Director, Captain William Bligh, 1799-1800. upon every 20 acres of freehold land shall thereafter in mony be paid to the Governor yearly and the Planters discharged of such constant watching and warding in Arms.’62 This policy, basically a tax upon landholders to pay for watching, seems not to have been applied immediately, for in December that year there were fresh complaints that planters had been neglectful of their duties and had missed the arrivals of another two ships. Some had to appear in court

140

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

where they were fined as their excuses were deemed to be ‘very frivolous’. The council was then moved to issue a general statement about the planters’ notorious neglect and carelessness … sometimes there have not been any att the said place to looke out … ships hath come hither within sight of Fort James and into the Road before any alarm hath been made from either of the said posts [Prosperous Bay and Flagstaff] soe that the whole island hath bin in danger of being surprised. The system was overhauled. Planters would no longer be trusted to make their own way to their posts at Flagstaff and Prosperous Bay, but were to meet at the north end of Hutt’s Plain at 10.00 on a Monday morning where an officer would escort them to their posts and collect those whose week on duty was completed. The practice of hiring others to watch was to be regulated, from experience that those hired could be ‘insufficiently careful’. No planter could thereafter hire another to do his duty without licence from the governor. Action to be taken upon spotting a sail was reviewed. At Flagstaff, where there was indeed a flagstaff, if watchers saw a ship they were to hoist the flag and one of the two militiamen was to come down to Fort James to raise the alarm. From the more remote Prosperous Bay, upon spotting a ship a planter had to ‘hasten’ to East Ridge ‘all the way hallowing or otherwise signifying an alarm.’ There he was to fire the alarm gun, assuming that it had not already been sounded. A General Rendezvous was organised, presumably to communicate this new system to the populace.63 Abuses continued, of course. The next year a former soldier, Ralph Spires, with duty to watch at Flagstaff had got another to do it ‘who he thought would have carefully lookt out.’ The substitute had not and Spires was committed to prison during the governor’s pleasure.64 In 1691 upon war with France, there was further need to reinforce the lookouts.65 Flagstaff was to have an extra man and was to be made more convenient with a room built to shelter the watchers and to store their arms. An extra man was also assigned to Banks’s and another four to Rupert’s, these being the first forts a ship would come to, rounding the island from windward to approach Chapel Valley. Putting extra men in Rupert’s especially threatened to weaken the main guard at Fort James; so further fortifications were to be built there to protect the passage from the landing rocks to the fort. It is the subject of fortifications to which we now turn. ‘Make that island (as far as human prudence can provide) impregnable’ The Portuguese never built fortifications on St Helena. Such defence as the island had was provided by visiting ships and, as was seen in Chapter 2, there were firefights as ships and nations competed for the island’s resources or for plunder. The situation changed when the EIC annexed St Helena. John Dutton was to keep St Helena safe for the company’s sole use and it was realised from the beginning that it would have to be defended by land-based fortifications. In 1658 when arrangements were being made at East India House for his voyage, ‘certain Committees are entreated to confer with Captain Dutton concerning what is necessary to send to St Helena and to provide provisions and all things needful for fortification.’66 In 1661, specific permission was granted by the king

DEFENCE AND THE IMPERIAL IMPERATIVE

141

‘to erect fortifications and establish garrisons and colonies at St Helena,’67 but this was post-facto permission for the EIC had already instructed Dutton and Stringer to build fortifications. Dutton was to have ‘with all speed’ fortified the most suitable place in Chapel Valley to defend the island and ‘offend any enemies that shall come into or neare the Road.’68 Dutton’s triangular fort with its three bastions (Figure 8.5) was the dominant building on the island from 1659 until replaced from 1708. The fort was central to the defensive strategy and there was a rebuke for Governor Coney in 1671 from London when the EIC directors learnt that it was ‘much out of repair and in a decaying condition.’69 Some years later when barracks were being built inside the fort, the western bastion, which had presumably been affected was to be ‘speedily repaired’.70 However, Fort James, sometimes called the Great Fort, was not sufficient by itself. Whilst it, with associated batteries, could and sometimes did ‘offend’ enemies in the road, there was always the fear that invaders would simply land elsewhere and take the fort from the land, as indeed happened. Thus in 1666 Governor Stringer was to make provision ‘for ye purposes of well fortifying of all landing places.’71 Also there was a realisation that it would be useful to try to attack enemy ships prior to them reaching the road by having subsidiary forts elsewhere, particularly at Banks’s, Rupert’s and Munden’s Point to the east of the anchoring place in the road, past which enemy ships would almost certainly have to sail. In 1672 the 3rd Anglo-Dutch War broke out. The company feared, correctly, that St Helena could be affected. When Sieur du Bois, a French traveller, called at St Helena on 2 November that year Governor Coney made anxious enquiries if there was war with Holland.72 There was, but Coney would not have to cope with it for he had already been dismissed, partly for having endangered the safety of the island. Coney’s replacement was then only a fortnight’s sail from St Helena on Humphrey and Elizabeth, whose captain, Robert Medford, had been commissioned by Charles II to use ‘all due diligence’ to deliver the new governor, Captain Anthony Beale, reinforcements for the garrison, artillery and ammunition. Further, Medford and his crew were ‘to assist in bettering and furthering the fortifications there.’73 This use of ships’ crews to work on the island’s defences was not unusual, similar orders had been presented to Captain Robert Bowen of London when he took Dutton’s party in 1659,74 and a general instruction to use men from ships on fortifications was issued in 1703, ‘giving them gratuities for the work they do therein.’75 A map published soon after the actions of 167376 gave the location of fortifications as they existed then and this information has been placed on Figure 8.3. In addition, a visiting company captain, William Bass of London went on a tour of the fortifications on 25 April 1674 and his journal, together with the map, present a detailed picture of the defences which had just yielded twice to invaders with a few months, invaders who as well as blasting away at the forts from their ships sent men to land at places, albeit difficult, where there were no fortifications. Near ye Sugar Loaf a platform built for 5 gunns with a guard house and a place for ammunition but upon it noe more but 3 gunns. It goes by ye name

142

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Figure 8.5 Fort James, St Helena, Hermann Moll, pre-1708. of Bank’s Platform. In same valley a platforme for 7 guns built but upon it but 5. It goes by ye name of Rupert’s Platform. At ye next towards Chapel Valley is a platforme and 2 gunns on it goes by ye name of Munden’s Point. In that which was formerly called Chappil now James Foart a platform of 16 guns, at ye Crane or landing place 3 guns on ye two bastions, In ye fort 5 guns. Upon parsley bed ridge 2 guns at ye head of ye same valley to alarum ye people when any shipps was seen. At Lemon Valley known by ye name of Sprigg’s plattforme 5 guns with a guardhouse and Ammunition house. Three of those guns are on ye sides of ye hills and ye other two on ye platforme below.77 At re-occupation the commission to Governor Field required that the platforms (for the guns) were to be strengthened, using material sent down and that a magazine be set up in the centre of the island for the easy supply of all guard posts.78 When Field was dismissed his successor, John Blackmore, was instructed to strengthen the fortifications with the aid of material delivered. East India House was then particularly concerned about Lemon Valley, which was seen as a possible landing place.79 Two years later came another missive detailing instructions to build platforms for the guns, sent along with tools and materials, including 20 tons of lime.80 In 1684 during a period of peace, Blackmore was reminded not to neglect work on the fortifications, peace being ‘an opportunity as to make that island (as far as human prudence can provide) impregnable’, especially regarding the building of walls or barricades across all the valleys and gullies to leeward. Figure 8.6 is a modern view east from the mountainside overlooking Jamestown’s western edge showing the capes and bays from Munden’s Point to Sugar Loaf Hill on St Helena’s northeast corner. The topography shows why only walls across the valleys were deemed necessary. Captain Knox, whose ship carried these 1684 orders, also delivered slaves to help build fortifications. If an enemy observed the island to be strongly fortified, it was hoped that a landing might not be attempted. Alternatively, such defences, it was surmised, would require an enemy still determined to land to employ scaling ladders or try and beat the walls

DEFENCE AND THE IMPERIAL IMPERATIVE

143

Figure 8.6 Northwest St Helena. down with cannon fire. The fortifications would at least delay entry to St Helena, reducing any element of surprise and enabling the defenders ‘at worst … [to] … have time enough to be in arms upon ye hills before an enemy can steal up hither in ye same manner by which that Island hath twice been surprised.’81 The 1684 instructions were not to put into full effect because of the sedition that year, and in 1689 Blackmore announced that:all avenues, Valleys, Mouths and Landing Places (especially to the leeward part of the island) be presently visited and carefully surveyed in order to the doing of what is most needful and necessary to prevent the landing of an enemy … as many of the Right Honourable Company’s lustiest Men Blacks as can possibly be spared be immediately set about fortifications.82 Two years later a visiting mariner, William Dampier, reported that St Helena was ‘secure enough against the Invasion of any Enemy,’ he being particularly impressed by the fortifications at Chapel Valley.83 However, in 1695 Governor Kelinge began to extend the fortifications at Banks’s towards Sugar Loaf (Figure 8.7) and mounted two guns to ‘damnify and annoy an enemy at their first appearance towards the leeward of this place.’84 It seemed not to be enough. At the turn of the century East India House employed an experienced consultant to advise them on fortifications. This was Captain Robert Holden, the former deputy governor who had been dismissed in 1689. His report was drawn up after having ‘discours’d’ with his ‘old neighbours of the island,’ and concluded that ‘if that place (so important) is not put under a better guard and conduct, the first

144

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Figure 8.7 Banks Battery, the older part is at sea level. enemy that assaults it takes it.’ Holden repeated anecdotal evidence that above 60 Frenchmen at a time had been allowed ashore with swords ‘and if they would might have seized the fort’ and bragged that ‘in the condition as tis now, I could easily surprise it with 150 men.’ He then went on to point out that he had once advised the company about fortification—which must have led to the 1684 instructions discussed above—but that ‘the Revolution [the 1684 sedition] extinguished this progress and my fortune there.’85 He enclosed a plan now for ‘making the island impregnable,’86 which he had drawn up in 1698 (Table 8.3 (Appendix 3); see also Figure 8.3). The plan and a copy of the report with its barbed comments about Frenchmen with swords were included with orders sent down to (the French) Governor Poirier the following month. Holden’s plan specified ‘walling and fortifying’ and there was a separate instruction from the company regarding what were presumably to be priorities, further works at Munden’s Mount, Freyer (Friar’s) Valley and Sandy Bay,87 where a battery had been built in 1695 with the public having to drag two great guns across from Chapel Valley and also help the company mason, John Bowman, build the platform.88 With the exception of these places specified, elsewhere, in typical company style Poirier was instructed where possible to provide not Holden’s expensive walls, but to seek a low-cost solution by tumbling rocks down from the hillsides into the mouths of the valleys: ‘could you arrive at the way of blowing up your rocks, there needed little more than the bare labour to make that island impregnable.’89 The claim a couple of years later that the company was ‘not willing to spare any reasonable cost for the fortifying and security of our island’ was not altogether convincing,90 as was further evidenced by the refusal in 1706 to let Governor Poirier increase his slave numbers by another 50 to work on the fortifications.91 Figure 8.3 indicates that most of Holden’s

DEFENCE AND THE IMPERIAL IMPERATIVE

145

proposals were ignored. Rolling rocks down the slopes was also a strategy upon invasion and crowbars were available to assist the defenders’ weapon of gravity should the need arise. Seventy-six crowbars were held on the island in 1701 to manage the guns and to topple down rocks at Horse Pasture, Prosperous Bay, Banks’s, Rupert’s and Lemon Valley.92 Rocks could also be rolled onto the beaches and put in the water to impede landing, the defenders ‘leaving only such a space as you can see convenient for the landing of our own ships’ boats and raising a battery to defend such landing places.’93 A passing merchant wrote in 1702 about the ‘fine Line or Battery of 40 stout guns, besides a small fort,’94 but in 1703 came fresh demands that fortifications be given priority: ‘you must give no rest to your thoughts and endeavours till the island be made not only tenable against the invasion of any enemy whatsoever but also able to defend our ships in harbour there,’95 a prescient remark considering that three years later the French captured two company ships in the road. A quarryman, William Marsden, was sent down in 1704 to help in the work, the importance of his position being identified by him being appointed to serve on council.96 An engineer, James Laoust, had been hired as deputy governor in 1706 and to work on the fortifications, the building of which had been harmed by Governor Poirier withdrawing labour for the gardens in Jamestown.97 In the event Laoust did not come as he ‘would not answer the character first given of him,’ but another engineer, Christian Vogell, was engaged and sent to St Helena with two masons.98 Company sensibilities regarding defences were heightened in 1706 by their loss of the ships and East India House’s exasperation with Poirier on this issue was exemplified in April 1708. The account of what still remains to be done after so many years writing to you to use the utmost diligence to complete all is far worse considering how many ships you have had lying at the island whose Commanders, at least some of them, were able and we doubt not that they were also willing to advise you and to supply you with hands if you had desired it in a becoming manner. Send us by your next an exact draught of all the fortifications, where they are, what strength each is of as to the height, thickness and length of the walls and the number and bigness of the guns mounted thereon, where it is the walls are made in the severall valleys and of what length and whatever else is proper for our notice.99 It is to be doubted that Stephen Poirier would have followed these instructions; he ignored most demands made upon him. This time, at least, he had an excuse, for he was dead, succumbing to dropsy in November 1707, months before this latest, last, criticism was penned. The company for the first time since 1678 appointed as governor a man who was not already on the island, presumably seeking a fresh start. Captain John Roberts was chosen as ‘he has assured us he will studiously endeavour to hasten and complete the fortifications of the island now in hand and which have been unhappily delayed, notwithstanding our repeated orders.’ He was instructed to take soundings round the island checking on possible anchoring places and the need for batteries and also to send the draft of fortifications and what remained still to be done that had been asked of

146

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Poirier. He would receive a substantial gratuity of £150 upon completion of the fortifications. 100 Roberts arrived on St Helena on 24 August 1708 and held a consultation that day. Amongst the plethora of regulations declared that afternoon were that $100 would be paid to any person discovering lime on St Helena to enable mortar to be produced more easily, the better to construct fortifications. The engineer and gunner were summonsed to report on fortifications, and to ensure more effective warning of approaching ships a simple reward scheme was instigated, one dollar (six shillings) to the first person, planter or soldier, to spot each ship.101 Two days later Roberts ordered that the Great Fort be replaced and ‘it is resolved and agreed that a new fort of 130 foot square be immediately gone about in order of a better and stronger defence of the island.’102 That decision saw the start of the present castle, a building that with more recent additions and alterations continues to dominate the lower part of Jamestown. Figure 8.8 shows it in 1787, looking towards the fortifications on Munden’s Point. The company had finally had found an active governor who was properly defending their island but still criticised him for the way he had funded the reward for finding lime, for overpaying labour on the fortifications, for the site of the guns at Banks’s, which was, they had been told, too high. However, Roberts was praised for building a low level battery at Munden’s Point (Figure 8.9) that would help protect Rupert’s Bay and defend better the route into the road. John Roberts, the cleanest sweeping of new brooms, was surely not in need of the final remarks in the letter, but they indicate, once again, the significance of the fortification of St Helena to East India House: ‘We would have you daily employ your care and endeavour to get the place sufficiently strengthened with proper forts and batterys that all our ships there may be protected from the attempts of an enemy and that the island may be secure from their insults.’103 However, even Roberts’ progress was slow as he was handicapped by a lack of fuel to burn lime, which had been found, although he gave much thought as to how to increase the wood supplies on the island.104 Roberts’s successor, Benjamin Boucher, became the latest governor to be tasked with finishing and preserving the fortifications.105 Efforts being made in 1723 were noted in Chapter 6 with 38 of the 128 male slaves of working age employed at the fortifications (Table 6.2, Appendix 3). ‘Discover ye strength of ye Roade’: St Helena under attack St Helena’s fortifications were necessary; there were several engagements on and off the island in its early period as the tiny, isolated rock became caught up in struggles between the warring nations of Europe. ‘To St Helena to looke after the English East India ships’: the 1665 Dutch threat The Dutch had declared St Helena to be theirs in 1633 (see Chapter 2) and contested ownership with the EIC throughout the mid-seventeenth century. The editor of the journal of a contemporary traveller, John Fryer, wrote in a footnote that St Helena had been taken ‘on two occasions, (1665 and 1673) [when they] managed to expel the forces of the East India Company.’106 John Ovington’s editor made a similar remark107 and the history of St Helena by John Melliss in 1875 also had the Dutch capturing the island in 1665.108 The source for this

DEFENCE AND THE IMPERIAL IMPERATIVE

147

Figure 8.8 ‘View of the Governor’s House with Munden’s Fort in the Island of St Helena 1787’, Oziah Humphrey

Figure 8.9 Fortifications on Munden’s Point

148

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

belief may have been a history of the EIC from 1600 to 1708 by John Bruce in 1810 which stated boldly that the Dutch took St Helena in 1665 and were expelled the same year, although, unusually, Bruce gave no footnote to a source for this statement.109 There was certainly a threat in 1665. The English agent at The Hague had written to Henry Bennett, Secretary of State at Whitehall that year to warn him that once a Dutch expedition led by de Ruyter had finished its work in Guinea it may have been planning to proceed ‘to the Cape and to St Helena to looke after [i.e. to intercept] the English East India ships’ before sailing to Barbados to see what might be acquired there.110 Around this time Samuel Smith, captain of Charles, was informed that St Helena may have been taken. He was given lengthy instructions as to how he should approach the island, watching out for other ships and their location. If anchored under the guns of the fort they could be assumed to be under its protection; if anchored out of range, they would be enemies of those holding the island. Smith was to send a boat to investigate, if necessary putting two men ashore away from the fort to try to discover who held the island. Only when the boat had reported back that all was well was Charles to be put at anchor and the supplies and migrants on board be offloaded. This author has found no mention of the island actually being captured in 1665 in the contemporary record. Further, a French visitor, Souchu de Rennefort, who left an extensive account of a visit and his dinner with Governor Stringer in 1666, made no mention of any expulsions in 1665 and one would have expected reference to have been made to recent military action had any taken place.111 ‘They embarked … spiking the guns and went to Brazil’: 1673 action (i) loss to the Dutch There is no doubt St Helena was lost to the Dutch East India Company, VOC, a few years later in 1673. A squadron of four ships, Vryheyt, Zuydtpolsbroeck, Kattenburgh and Swaentje, fitted out by the governor of the Cape of Good Hope and led by Jacob de Gens left the Cape on 13 December 1672.112 They captured the island within a few days of their arrival in late December. East India House reported the news on 26 May 1674 when narratives of the proceedings were read from the governor, Captain Anthony Beale, and the chaplain, William Noakes who were amongst those who fled the island. The same afternoon the company wrote to the government an account of the affair: Last July our Company sent out a man of war [Humphrey and Elizabeth, Captain Robert Medford] of 36 guns and 400 tons, with 120 seamen and 75 soldiers, carrying 40 barrels of gunpowder, 30 great guns and 150 muskets to fortify the island, with ironwork, timber etc. She arrived there November 16 last, and about December 20 appeared four ships, which proved to be men-of-war belonging to the Dutch East India Company, which left Amsterdam in April 1672 for Cape Bona Speranza, where they took in some soldiers. The Admiral had 40 and the others 36 and 32 guns and a pinnace of 16. They immediately attacked our man-of-war and castle, who defended themselves with much resolution and forced them to leave the Road. Two days after they went to another place [possibly Lemon Valley] and landed some men and were there twice repulsed. In

DEFENCE AND THE IMPERIAL IMPERATIVE

149

the meantime arrived a French ship [Vautour] of 22 guns from India, and another of the Company’s of 26 guns [Surat Merchant], but their men were so sickly and weak they added very little to our strength. The Dutch continued their daily alarms and landings for ten days, till our men were quite harassed and tired out for want of rest, so that on New Year’s Day they landed 400 men [at Old Woman’s Valley], and took one of ours [William Cox] prisoner who confessed to them the strength of the island. We, having not above 170 fighting men, were forced to retire to our fort which they doubted they could keep, so they embarked [on Humphrey and Elizabeth and Surat Merchant], both men, women and children, and carried away what provision and ammunition were in the fort, spiking the guns and went to Brazil.113 One historian has described this as a ‘very circumstantial account … the Company no doubt recollecting that questions were likely to be asked how so strong a possession came to be abandoned.’114 A report of Dutch accounts of the action has their squadron arriving on 29 December, nine days later than in the company’s version, when, owing to the weather, they were unable to land before their only incursion at Old Woman’s Valley, which consisted of 300 not 400 men. They were not opposed and when they reached the fort, guided by Cox, who had been a willing accomplice not a prisoner, the English all fled.115 John Fryer also imputed some lack of backbone amongst the defenders when he wrote that: it is yet fresh in the memory, that the Dutch landing on the backside of the Island gained the top of the hills and invading the island, drove the English from their fort, for all they had two Ships in the Road at the same time which did no further service than to carry off the inhabitants, leaving the Dutch in possession.116 Captain William Bass, at St Helena soon after its recapture, also commented bitterly at the lack of resistance. He noted that when the Dutch landed their forces they left in their four ships only 130 men and in the road were two EIC ships and the French ship with a total firepower of 100 guns, but there was no attempt on the Dutch ships then or resistance at any time after the initial salvoes.117 In a later letter to Governor Blackmore, the company, not concerned then about awkward questions, admitted that the Dutch invasion had been aided by a signal being lit on the island by William Cox to guide them to Old Woman’s Valley and resistance was hardly aided by ‘ye intemperancy of the inhabitants many of them being found drunk upon the guards.’118 After the Dutch victory it was not possible to warn company ships at sea of the loss of the island and so four East Indiamen who had left Surat on 13 January arrived at St Helena on 22 April 1673 to find it in Dutch hands. There was no Dutch ship there, but Fort James engaged them, the guns having been repaired, and after answering them with their own guns, the ships left, unrefreshed, for Barbados.119 The Dutch did not make any great attempt to immediately secure their prize. de Gens and the squadron had left shortly after the capture, leaving a garrison of about 100 under a commander, Johannes

150

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Coon, who soon died,120 and the new governor and reinforcements did not arrive before the English navy had done so. ‘Holdfast Tom’: 1673 action (ii) gain from the Dutch The naval frigate Assistance, Captain Richard Munden, (a fourth rate of 46 guns) left England on 18 January 1673 accompanying a fleet of ten EIC ships on the first part of their voyage to the East, Assistance heading to St Helena to escort returning company ships back, it not being known in England at this time that the island had fallen. Assistance was accompanied by three hired ships pressed into naval service: William and Thomas; Mary and Martha; and Levant Merchant— described by Munden in his log dismissively as ‘Merchantmen of Warr … which [sail] very heavily’—also two fireships, Eagle and Castle.121 The convoy held together until 3 February when the merchantmen parted. Munden’s log contains occasional snipes at the seamanship of other captains and a brief description of action against Dutch ships in the Cape Verde Islands, before a contrary wind allowed them to cut their cables and escape, ‘soe we lost our Expected Bounty.’ The English took on water at St Iago and repaired William and Thomas, which had a ‘leake in her bowe’. They sailed again on 13 February, ‘refreshed and at reasonable cost’, but were then troubled by heat and calm: ‘God of his mercy send us a Gale that may put us out of this unwholesome weather for our Poore men’s sake, for wee have a very Sickly ship.’ The weather did break, so much so that one of the fireships, Eagle, lost her maintopmast. Another was erected but came down again and the ship was declared unserviceable and abandoned on 17 April, her captain, Richard Keigwin, and men taken into other ships. On 4 May Munden spoke with a ship the squadron hailed when about 12 leagues from St Helena. This was a small Portuguese vessel hired in Brazil by the refugee governor, Anthony Beale, who was on board with two mates from Humphrey and Elizabeth cruising windward of St Helena to warn English shipping of the enemy having taken the island. Munden, usefully commanding a substantial naval force, decided to try and recapture the island demonstrating an understated, typically English attitude, ‘we having noe other business too doe.’122 First, to ‘discover ye strength of ye Roade’ he sent Captain Keigwin to investigate ‘with a Black’. This was Oliver, always called Black Oliver, who had worked on St Helena and had been bought by Beale from an Englishman in Brazil because of his knowledge of the island and placed aboard the Portuguese vessel. Keigwin reported early the next morning that there were no ships at the island, which eased the task of recapture. Munden decided to land 350 men away from Fort James and sent them off under Keigwin in Castle with the Portuguese ship to try to affect a landing in Prosperous Bay, and, with Black Oliver as guide, make their way overland to Chapel Valley to attack the fort from the rear. The landing site is known, Keigwin’s Point. This is a most precipitous spot and island legend has it that a nimble sailor called Tom was sent up the cliff with a long ball of twine. Upon reaching the top he let the twine down, a rope was attached, Tom pulled it up and tied it off so the rest of the party could haul themselves up. Some evidence for the story comes from a place name atop the cliff, relating, it would seem, to an instruction shouted at the sailor—Holdfast Tom. Philip Gosse, who is frustratingly sparse in his use of references and footnotes in his St Helena history, makes mention of a soldier who took part in the landing settling

DEFENCE AND THE IMPERIAL IMPERATIVE

151

on the island being ‘often heard to say’ that 20 men atop the cliff could have held off the invasion simply by rolling boulders down.123 Meanwhile, Munden in Assistance reached ‘Sth Valley’ where he was ‘saluted’ by their five guns. He ‘bestowed a broadside on them’ in return. Sth (presumably South) Valley is not a St Helena place name—Munden was later criticised for not using the standard place names in his report.124 Sailing ships usually came to Chapel Valley from the northeast and so would pass Banks’s and Rupert’s Valley first, but that does not tie in with ‘Sth’ if that is assumed to be a direction relating to Fort James. However, Munden wrote that he was sailing on a ‘prosperous gale at ENE’ in his final approach to the island and the pamphlet recorded he was coming from ‘windward’, i.e. the east. This would suggest he had been travelling in a westerly direction, coming to the road in the usual way. Perhaps ‘Sth’ was chosen as he would just have rounded the island’s most northerly point and would have had to change course to the south and this valley was thus Rupert’s. After the broadside at this valley Assistance arrived at the road at about 12.45 and anchored in the middle of the bay from where Munden engaged Fort James with its 29 guns, but was unable to ‘doe them damage that otherwise we might, having butt 74 in number on board.’ Munden was criticised for opening the attack with only one ship since Mary and Martha and William and Thomas did not arrive until about 14.15. Further, when they came, through poor seamanship they adopted a position too far to the west ‘so that though they did offend ye enemy they tooke no shot from us’ (i.e. the Dutch did not fire at them, only at Assistance). Munden had ordered Captain Hobbs in Levant Merchant to engage ‘Sth Valley’. Iain Mackenzie writes of Levant Merchant threatening Sandy Bay,125 but whilst certainly south, this is on the opposite side of the island and was not fortified at this time and as three guns were fired at Hobbs that is evidence for the action being elsewhere. Confirmation that South Valley was Rupert’s comes from Figure 8.10, reproduced from the Pepys papers,126 a vivid, contemporary depiction of the battle showing a ship attacking Rupert’s, which must be Levant Merchant, the location of the other five being known. Castle and the Portuguese vessel are depicted off Prosperous Bay on the north coast and to the west of Levant Merchant, Assistance, Mary and Martha and William and Thomas are bestowing broadsides on Fort James, with the two ‘Merchantmen of war’ in their poor positions almost in front of the next valley. In the late afternoon, troubled by being shorthanded, taking casualties and fearing for the safety of his ship, Munden ‘cutt’ the cables and had Assistance towed by the ships’ boats to anchor by Breakneck Valley, the next bay west, and he planned to warp William and Thomas back to sit before the fort to be ready for action the next morning. However ‘they no sooner saw us lett goe our anker again butt they came off with a flagg of truce and surrendered their Isle upon condition that they might not be stripped of their cloathes.’ That guarantee was given and Munden sent ashore Captain Thomas Piles of William and Thomas ‘with ye King’s colours to take possession of ye fort.’ Piles’s companions included a trumpeter to convey the news to Captain Keigwin’s landing party that the island had been taken ‘to prevent any injury that might be done to ye isle by our soldiers.’ A contemporary pamphlet noted that the Dutch surrendered when Assistance anchored as this meant that ‘we did not intend to leave them,’127 that

152

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Figure 8.10: The retaking of St Helena, 1673. the action by the substantial squadron was to continue—another case of a small island’s defenders being unable to resist a powerful attacking force. It may be that the Dutch had also learned of Keigwin’s landing by the late afternoon and that was a factor in their decision to yield. At Rupert’s, the Dutch also struck their colours (i.e. surrendered) and Hobbs proceeded to land and plunder the fort rather than reporting the surrender to his commander: ‘This I imputed to ignorance and obstinacie which he and some others usually practice’ wrote an irate Munden. The next day Keigwin’s soldiers entered the fort, whilst aboard Assistance Munden learned from some English prisoners of the Dutch he had had brought out that a VOC fleet and Dutch men of war were expected immediately. Munden went ashore and arranged for damage to the fortifications and guns to be repaired ‘that wee maye be in readiness to receive an enemy’ and the following day the Portuguese vessel was sent out to cruise to windward hoping to spot approaching ships and rush back to St Helena to give warning. Over the next few days the English ships were readied and positioned for a fight and further expeditions were sent to windward. However, it was from the land that sails were seen, flags being raised and struck three times to signal three ships from the lookout point on ‘Peak Hill’, another of Munden’s new place names. Geoffrey Kitching in his account of the action128 has this as Sugar Loaf (see Figure 8.6), but this is probably incorrect as Flagstaff was the usual lookout post, being considerably higher with a better view to windward from where the ships would come and the Pepys painting (Figure 8.10) shows flags on Flagstaff, not the smaller Sugar Loaf to the left. In the event it was but two ships and they were not Dutch but East Indiamen, Rebecca, and Barnadiston, which increased the English firepower. The following day, 11 May, a Dutch ship Europa, which was carrying van Breitenbach, the new Dutch Governor of St Helena, arrived and was attacked upon rounding Sugar Loaf. After cannon fire killed four men Europa yielded. It took the English some days to get Europa under control and towed to a place of

DEFENCE AND THE IMPERIAL IMPERATIVE

153

safety after which the ship was taken up to Ascension Island. A week went by with the English repairing ships and fortifying the island, with ships’ cannon being transferred to the batteries at Lemon Valley and Munden’s Point (that place name of Captain Munden has been retained). Another East Indiaman, Loyal Subject, arrived on 16 May. It was not until 21 May that the main VOC fleet arrived. Assistance flew Dutch colours but the Dutchmen were, rightly, not convinced of their safety and a chase ensued. Assistance, Barnadiston and Rebecca pursued four sail; Castle and William and Thomas gave chase to others. Loyal Subject joined in. Assistance captured its prize, Alphen, the following morning and another, Wapen van der Veer, was also taken. All rendezvoused at Ascension along with other East Indiamen and convoyed up to Europe where they anchored at Kinsale and Baltimore in Ireland on 13 August.129 The good news was sent to the Navy Office in London by the local agent, Thomas Chudleigh, two days later: ‘St Helena is retaken by the above said frigates and the Dutch prisoners brought away. All which I humbly make bould to acquaint your honours with.’130 The Court of Committees in East India House read the dispatches on 22 August 1673. Immediately the company made arrangements to inform ships’ commanders, but they were ‘to be very cautious (unless they are in company together) how they touch the island, as it is not known what further attempts the Dutch may make against it,’131 although a few weeks later the Court of Committees seemed confident enough, reporting that Munden had left there a governor and 200 soldiers. However, perhaps that confidence was being overstated since at that meeting the Directors were drafting their letter to Charles II asking ‘whether it is His Majesty’s pleasure that the Company shall again possess’ St Helena.132 The Committee met the following day to be given a verbal assurance that ‘His Majesty was graciously pleased to declare that St Helena is to be continued to the Company as formerly.’ Lord Arlington was to draft the official orders, but it was made clear at this meeting that the EIC had to make provision ‘for securing the island from again falling into the hands of the enemy.’133 Hence the demands for improved fortifications discussed above. In 1674 Munden and the other captains were awarded substantial gratuities from the company for restoring St Helena (Table 8.4, Appendix 3). Munden was also knighted for his services and awarded £2500 from the state.134 Later a payment was made to Richard Keigwin, military governor of St Helena from the recapture until the arrival of the notice replacing him by his deputy, Gregory Field, paid despite Keigwin losing control of the island during the mutiny of April 1674 (see Chapter 7). The company, acting upon a list of names from Munden, instructed its Shipping Committee ‘to consider what is fit to be done for the relief of the widows of those who were killed, and for the wounded.’135 Black Oliver was granted his freedom and a planter’s estate and his wife bought out of slavery to join him. Not ‘under the command of our guns’: the 1706 French capture of Queen and Dover St Helena was to be subject to military action once more in its early period. Queen and Dover two company ships were in the road on 5 June 1706 when the alarm gun from Two Gun Ridge was sounded, signalling the approach of two large ships of 70 guns. These were flying Dutch colours and were deemed to be friendly and Fort James fired one gun in salute, receiving a five-gun salute back.

154

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

However, a short time after, one of the ships sailed up to Queen with malicious intent and was answered with a broadside, but to little effect as the foreign ship came alongside and sent some men aboard to cut Queen loose and capture her. Meanwhile, the other French ship ‘stood directly to the Dover who immediately struck.’ Only then did the ‘Dutch’ ships run up their French colours. Upon observing the activities the shore batteries engaged, attempting ‘not only to destroy our enemies but to sink their prizes,’ and received several broadsides in reply. As the English captains had anchored far from the shore, the garrison ‘had the misfortune in a very little time after they had cut the ships loose to see most of our shot fall short.’136 East India House felt the culpability for this loss belonged to the despised French governor, Stephen Poirier, who was ‘infinitely to blame’. In the years leading up to his death in late 1707, the company’s exasperation, especially at his failure to submit reports and carry out instructions reached considerable heights and to lose two ships to the French earned him ‘severest censure’. Bitter reference was made to the fact that the commander of the French raiders, Desauges, was the same man Poirier had let wander round the island, supposedly fowling, in 1701. Also ‘should he not have commanded both ships to berth themselves in this time of warr as neare the shore and as much under the command of our guns as they could?’ At the guns there were not enough matches to fire them and the sponges were not fit for purpose. It took too long to get powder to the guns when the French revealed their intentions and the powder must have been allowed to decay for whilst the French shot was reaching well inland; that from Fort James fell short of the ships. Freemen in the militia did not all respond to the alarm call.137 In Poirier’s defence, it should be recalled that he was originally sent to St Helena to make wine. He failed in that, too. Following the 1706 loss, ships were instructed to wait at Munden’s Point and not clear Chapel Valley until they had sought and obtained the governor’s permission, by sending an emissary ashore by boat. Once permitted in the road, ships should anchor close in to be under the protection of the shore batteries.138 A maritime equivalent of a stable door was being shut behind Dover and Queen, the bolted horses. ‘Securing the island’: conclusion Considerable efforts went into fortifications from the late 1650s to the end of our period, with the new broom of Governor Roberts symbolised by nothing better than his rebuilding of the original fort. Building fortifications continued for lifetimes more. A proper line walling up Jamestown was begun with the works on the new fort. Entry today into Jamestown from the landing steps requires passing through this line. Banks’s Platform was extended; the wall across Rupert’s Valley was finally put into a satisfactory state in the late eighteenth century and batteries were cut into its hillsides to give added protection; the works at Lemon Valley were considered inadequate and had been badly damaged by floods in 1753 and all were replaced by a great curtain wall built at huge expense. Sandy Bay was walled in the mid-eighteenth century. Batteries were scattered about the island during the Napoleonic period. In that nineteenth century the island’s most dramatic fortification was completed, the

DEFENCE AND THE IMPERIAL IMPERATIVE

155

inland High Knoll Fort, commenced in 1790. A fort was built on Ladder Hill on the coast above Jamestown to the west. In the twentieth century, 6-inch guns were positioned on Munden’s Point and Ladder Hill to protect the anchorage. Only after the end of World War II was the garrison withdrawn and all fortifications unmanned. Under company and crown control since 1659, except for those few months in 1673, St Helena had been defended actively by soldiers and guns and passively by the fortifications, some of which, especially at Sandy Bay, are eroding away. Ken Denholm from whose article these details have been taken calls his piece ‘St Helena, South Atlantic Fortress.’139 However, if one evaluates the effectiveness of the island as fortress in the early years on which this book focuses, it was found wanting. Impregnability was the stated aim of East India House, but when the island’s defences and defenders were tested in late 1672/early 1673 they failed, with invaders scrambling ashore at undefended spots; to say nothing of Sergeant Jackson being able to mutiny, murder the governor and abscond with a ship in 1693. The French in 1706 stole ships from in front of Fort James, its bombardment uselessly falling short of the action. The company colony could not actually defend itself, for all the utility of fortifications and batteries in dissuading enemies so perhaps protecting company assets, including the ships in the road in this indirect way, which was one of the stated strategies of 1684. The island was returned to company possession only courtesy of a young naval captain (Munden was 32 in 1673) ‘having noe other business too doe’ and a displeased king whose ministers, probably frostily, recommended ‘securing the island from again falling into the hands of the enemy.’ This required the civilians to help out as involuntary members of the militia. Many tried to escape from their duties by one means or another, to avoid the monotony of spending a week at a time atop Flagstaff gazing out at an empty sea. This was yet another aspect of life that caused irritation to residents and worsened the relationship between the company rulers and their often surly subjects.

9 ‘THE DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS INHERENT IN THE EXERCISE OF SOVEREIGNTY CANNOT BE BORNE BY A PRIVATE COMPANY’: The Failure of Company Colonies ‘The island has been handed over to me’: the establishment of company colonies Company colonies were a minor component of the colonial endeavour, although companies themselves were of considerable importance in colonial trade, commerce and in the opening up of territory to European influence. Companies could become overwhelmingly dominant in economic and social life, especially of small places, as with Williamson, Balfour and Company on Rapa Nui (Easter Island) from 1903 to 1946 and the Falkland Islands Company on that archipelago from 1852 until the late twentieth century. Douglas Porteous described Rapa Nui as a ‘company island’,1 but neither this island nor the Falkland Islands were company colonies since the territories remained under at least the nominal sovereignty of national governments, Chile and the UK respectively. Companies ruling territory directly were unusual but the company, or what Herbert Osgood termed the ‘corporate’,2 colony as a specific governance type was to be found in many parts of the world from the seventeenth to the twentieth centuries. The most prominent example was the East India Company in India, but, as explained in Chapter 1, this case does not form part of the analysis here, nor does the Hudson’s Bay Company control in northern and western Canada; the book focuses on the other, smaller places. However, the issues identified in the foregoing chapters and below certainly resonate in India and Canada. Company colonies failed in every case. The Virginia Company started to rule its territory in 1606 but had to have ownership transferred to the crown in 1625. Despite this lesson, other company colonies were set up later that century such as Massachusetts Bay in 1628 and Providence Island in 1630. They failed, too, as did Bermuda. In the nineteenth century others were founded, on Vancouver Island in 1849; German New Guinea in 1885 and the Marshall Islands in 1887; the twentieth century saw the establishment of a new company colony with the Eastern Telegraph Company’s rule over Ascension Island from 1922 until World War II: ‘the island has been handed over to me,’ wrote a company official.3 That a failed system of governance continued to be replicated is not surprising. In

THE FAILURE OF COMPANY COLONIES

157

each case there were national and commercial imperatives that made the granting of territory under charter to a company a logical step. The British needed to establish a presence on Vancouver Island to prevent its possible loss to the Americans when boundaries in western Canada were being negotiated, and granting the island to the Hudson’s Bay Company (under a separate charter from that issued to the company in 1670) was the easiest way to achieve this. In the late nineteenth century Germany was striving to become a player on the international scene and the utilisation of private companies to help extend its imperial presence into the Pacific seemed to the Reich an appropriate and lowcost way to proceed. In the case of Ascension Island, in 1922 the British crown no longer wished to maintain the base they had had since 1815, whilst the communications company already operating the submarine cables that made a mid-ocean landfall there wished to remain and so was sub-contracted the role of colonial government. It is not the reasons for the foundation of company colonies that is of the greater interest; it is the reasons why they failed. ‘Continued endeavours’: trying to make money The obvious difference between a company and a state as a colonial ruler is that the company had to make money. Some companies held territories as part of a wider portfolio and could cross-subsidise their colonial endeavour as with the Hudson’s Bay Company and Vancouver Island; others were engaged in a single enterprise and if that failed, so would the company. One such was Jaluit Gesellschaft, which exploited copra in the Marshall Islands. Coconuts are still the principal product from the archipelago, and it was the Great War that ended German interest in the islands, Japanese naval forces taking them in 1914. Other companies struggled to find a cash crop. In German New Guinea, ‘continued endeavours have to be made to produce profitable crops by cultivation of the soil, on which the success of the whole enterprise chiefly depends … the initial failure of experiments must not deter … repeated efforts.’4 Copra, guano, tropical and European fruits and vegetables, cotton and other fibres including hemp and kapok, tobacco, coffee, cocoa, timber, caoutchouc (a rubber) were amongst crops tried, with varying success. This range of endeavours mirrored the experience of earlier company colonies—on Providence Island ‘colonists were hit with a veritable barrage of advice and instructions about the products they should grow.’5 On the other hand, problems might arise if settlers were not realistic about the tasks necessary to develop a sustainable colony. Edmund Morgan details how in the Virginia Company they neglected basic agriculture and thus the colony struggled mightily for its first few years;6 it ‘oscillated incessantly between the libertinism of the first planters and the brutal leadership thought necessary to contain it.’7 Matters improved when tobacco became a cash crop and some colonists achieved individual economic success, but the late development of the industry was not sufficient to overcome the Virginia Company’s problems: the in-migration of too many ill-equipped settlers, its sharply differentiated society, high mortality rates and a massacre by indigenous people in 1622. The company lost its charter.

158

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

‘Business and Colonial matters’: tensions and the company colony Another major problem was the tension between the company and the people who lived under its rule. On Bermuda, a cash crop early developed with the production of tobacco. However, the company and the planters were constantly at loggerheads over marketing the crop, taxes imposed upon it and the monopoly the company held on trade. Carla Pestana observed that a: continuous refrain was the problem with trade. The company ship did not arrive at the most propitious moment for shipping crops, or it failed to bring the goods the colonists needed or to sell these at affordable prices. The imposts placed on tobacco exports were so big that the planters reaped no profits. As the result of the trade monopoly, settlers were indebted to the company and thus unable to leave the island.8 Resentment of settlers towards the company was a major reason for the failure of this company colony in 1683. Karen Kupperman noted that on Providence Island, ‘the colonists spent much of their time in seemingly pointless, self-defeating wrangling. More energy was spent on settlers’ resistance to Company demands that they contribute their and their servant’s labour to construction of the public works, particularly the fortifications, than on any other issue.’9 This illustrates a general point, that company colonies had the difficult task of meeting the individual demands of those living in the colonies, especially settlers not on the payroll, whilst meeting the perhaps different demands of the company. On Providence Island not only did planters have to labour unwillingly on public projects, they were ‘never given the control and security (over land) that would have made real success possible,’ the handful of gentlemen and aristocrats who controlled the company insisting that settlers remain tenants, the island ‘utterly lacking in machinery for popular participation in government.’10 Ironically, Providence Island and the company’s other settlement on Association Island failed not because of the internal tensions but because of military action by Spain. There was particular conflict of interest involved in the administration of justice when the judge represented the company whose financial or other interests may have been affected by the cases that came before him. James Horn wrote that in the English Chesapeake colonies, including Virginia, in the seventeenth century ‘justices were for the most part recruited from among the gentry, prominent mercantile families and large landowners,’11 so people were judged, if not usually by social equals, at least by fellow colonists. In smaller company colonies the governor might well have been the sole judge and this created resentment over impartiality, especially if the accused had offended against the company. When for a short period from 1889 in German New Guinea the ruling company arranged for judge to be a state appointment, rather than a company employee, this answered ‘an objection raised … by many settlers.’12 Matters were not eased by the pressures on the judge, the manager, the colonial administrator. The Neu Guinea Compagnie recognised the ‘unsatisfactory nature of the double role’ of their administrator [equivalent of governor] in: ‘the proper exercise of the sovereignty entrusted to [the company]

THE FAILURE OF COMPANY COLONIES

159

… [and] the will to do justice to that aspect of the work which is necessarily directed towards profit.’13 This double role was simply too much for one person. James Douglas of the Hudson’s Bay Company and the Vancouver Island Colony wrote in haste and frustration that ‘my time is much occupied at present with business and Colonial matters.’14 Companies were aware of the demands placed on their senior men; witness this statement from the Neu Guinea Compagnie: The qualities which an Administrator must possess in order to discharge his office adequately—integrity of character, energy, legal and administrative knowledge, commercial training, practical skill in the management of productive enterprises, particularly of plantations, together with the physical stamina capable of withstanding the effects of the climate—are in fact rarely to be found combined in one man, and if they are, it is even rarer for the fortunate possessor of these qualities to be prepared to assume the responsible and exhausting office of Administrator without appropriate remuneration and guarantees for his future, which the Company, with its limited resources, is not in a position to provide.15 Kupperman’s comments regarding Providence Island applied generally: ‘many of their [the Company’s] specific instructions were far beyond the capability of any governor in a new settlement.’16 Internal tension was married to that between the companies and the state that issued their charters. This was not seen in some other colonial situations: ‘For the descendents of the French settlers, Canada was a home because it was a society that was largely of their own creation after they had refashioned the institutions provided them by the French metropolis to serve their own purposes.’17 The Massachusetts Bay Company, chartered in 1628, is an example of a company colony that could not so ‘refashion’. It was a puritan society but was not permitted to develop along this path it wished. Disputes with England arose over allegiance to the king, especially after the ending of the Commonwealth in 1660; also because of discrimination against Anglicans, and the use of religious rather than property qualifications for voting. The company violated the terms of its charter, ignored instructions from the crown, even operating its own mint. The Massachusetts Bay Company charter was revoked in 1684. Massachusetts Bay became a crown colony along with Plymouth and Maine as Massachusetts in 1691.18 ‘Overstrained’: the company as the state In their colonies, companies had to expend money, time and effort to perform state functions. The Neu Guinea Compagnie struggled partly because as a commercial concern ‘the Administration did not have at its disposal adequate resources to police the sea and the coastline.’19 It could not quell native disturbances, particularly in the offshore islands under its nominal control and could not impede illicit trade carried out by the British. The story of this company illustrates the problems of the company as the state. The north east of New Guinea was annexed by Germany in 1884 and the Neu Guinea Compagnie was chartered by the Reich (the German state) with ‘sovereign powers’ on 17

160

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

May 1885, its ‘responsibilities of management’, inevitably containing both commercial and legislative necessities: Apart from the regulation of its own internal legal affairs as required by the Imperial Charter, the management of the company has the task of establishing itself more firmly in the aforesaid territory of which only a very small part was as yet known; of exploring it more closely with a view to its utilisation for settlement or cultivation; and of establishing regular communications with the closest land mass reached by European transport services. It was also necessary to organise a local administration and take the measures indispensable for the establishment of the rule of law.20 Within a short period the company was looking to income from fines to help defray the cost of running the court system and by only its third year the company had transferred to the state the tasks of political administration, including justice. The company refunded the salaries of the officials but were freed from the costs of making appointments, of transporting the officials to New Guinea and from contributing to their pensions.21 The following year an imperial commissioner arrived in the colony to supervise these duties. This arrangement lasted only from 1889 to 1892 when the Neu Guinea Compagnie re-assumed complete sovereignty as a cost saving measure when its commercial operations had contracted owing to the Astrolabe Company taking over some of its plantations. Reassuming sovereignty also ‘removed the source of friction’ between the ‘political head’ and the ‘chief representative of the economic interests of the Company.’22 Within two years this reversion to the original arrangement was again deemed unsatisfactory: Experience has demonstrated convincingly that the duties and obligations inherent in the exercise of sovereignty cannot be borne by a private company which, in order to survive, must also devote its energies to operating commercial and agricultural undertakings. By combining the two functions in one body not only are the financial resources and staff of a private company overstrained … but due to the intrinsic conflict of interests, obstacles are placed in the way of fulfilling both functions, making their achievement much more difficult—in fact impossible in the long run.23 Agreement was reached in 1898 for the Reich to assume control at the start of the following financial year, 1 April 1899. The Neu Guinea Compagnie, which had amalgamated with the Astrolabe Company in 1895 continued to trade. German interests in New Guinea ended when the territory was taken by Australia in 1914. ‘“They” knew best’: St Helena as a company colony This book has principally been about the East India Company’s colony of St Helena. So far there has been no mention of St Helena in this final chapter; instead the problems inherent in the company colony situation have been

THE FAILURE OF COMPANY COLONIES

161

exemplified with reference to other places. This points up the generalities, to build on the seven chapters that largely focused on the specifics of St Helena. The issues raised above were all expressed on St Helena, with the exception of having to deal with an indigenous population, although the importation of slaves to the island soon established an ethnically separate Other. The struggles to find a cash crop were seen in Chapter 2, although St Helena was one of those places mentioned that benefited from being cross-subsidised, because its company was involved in a wider enterprise. Tensions associated with the company colony, including its trade monopoly and ruling in the interests of the company, not the people, were seen throughout the book and were the focus of Chapter 7. The costs and problems of the company as state can be found in Chapters 2 and 4. The problem of finding personnel with the range of skills necessary to run a company colony were certainly seen on St Helena, the inadequacies of Governor Poirier need no further rehearsal. The ‘refashioning’ issue, which seemed a problem in company colonies as compared to at least the French in Canada, could be recognised in the discussion of the development of St Helena’s law and social mores in Chapter 4. The Neu Guinea Compagnie’s difficulties in controlling its territory militarily were mentioned; for St Helena the problems of the militia, the garrison and the occasional bout of warfare formed the subject of Chapter 8. In addition, the earlier chapters looked at concerns that colonies, not just company colonies had to face: population development in Chapter 3; gender issues in Chapter 5 and slavery in Chapter 6. The chance to plan a new society on an uninhabited island—the paper utopia of Chapter 2, and its subsequent shredding—was unusual, although there were other cases of islands not being populated when Europeans arrived, including Barbados, the Falkland Islands and Mauritius. There were also matters related to St Helena being an isolated, small island and, of course, issues regarding particular people and events occurring during the study period—every place has its own story. In most regards St Helena as a company colony was more successful than the others only in terms of longevity. Simply because it was able to refresh shipping, the EIC held onto the island (except in 1673) from 1659 to 1834 when the British crown took it, well beyond the period studied here, which took the story only to the 1720s. The island remains a crown possession as a British Overseas Territory. Apart from a few decades in the twentieth century when the growing of flax to make string supported St Helena, it has never had a strong economy and presently awaits its latest, perhaps last, hope of economic security, the building of an airport, which could aid the development of tourism. During the period studied, the EIC failed to make money from St Helena; gave up attempts to establish that ‘levelling constitution’ and did not develop a society in which either women or slaves were treated with decency. It failed even to provide responsible clergymen. The company could not protect St Helena against attack and had the humiliation of having to ask the king for it to be given back after naval forces had recaptured the island from the Dutch in 1673. The slaves revolted; the civilians engaged in sedition; the garrison mutinied, assassinating a governor. However, the company claimed, even after the sedition of 1684, that St Helena was better regulated than other ‘foreign plantacions’, the colonies under the crown, which were ‘indisputably subject to his Majesty’s despotical

162

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

power.’24 Perhaps this was just another example of what a modern, crown, colonial governor has seen as ‘arrogance on behalf of the [EIC’s] Court of Directors’, and he concluded this sentence thus: ‘early evidence of the phenomenon of London believing that “they” knew best.’25

Appendix 1 ‘EXHORTATION, ADMONITION OR REPROOF’: Sources for the Study of Early St Helena Prior to the annexation of St Helena by the East India Company in 1659, the principal sources for the island are the accounts of travellers, many of which have been published, often by the Hakluyt Society. Several of these have been used in the book, especially in Chapter 2, along with accounts left by visitors after annexation. After 1659, the travellers’ tales are joined by the voluminous records of the East India Company: ‘written communication assumed an overwhelming importance in the company’s organisation, and the painstaking recording of all decisions and economic transactions was a natural consequence of this operating framework.’1 Miles Ogborn has recently confirmed the importance of such writings in trade and in wider European expansion.2 Material on the first 19 years of the EIC settlement of St Helena is not to be found on the island, the earliest records there date from 1678 with the arrival of Governor John Blackmore. However, there is material elsewhere, despite St Helena’s early historians seeming to be unaware of this. For example, John Melliss wrote in 1875 that for the period 1665 to 1672 ‘no written accounts … are forthcoming and from tradition only it is gathered that the place was governed successively by…’ and he then gives a list of governors.3 In fact, there is a considerable amount of original material for those and the other years prior to 1678 in the Oriental and India Office Collection of the British Library in London, principally copies of the correspondence with the governors and others involved with St Helena by the EIC. These run from the orders issued in connection with John Dutton’s voyage of occupation of 1659 and continue into the nineteenth century. Geoffrey Kitching in his survey of St Helena sources said of these letterbooks that their contents were: ‘exhortation, admonition or reproof, and sometimes an appropriate sermon, in a style telling the Governor what they thought of him of whom they were completely the master.’4 Another fallacy comes from writers who have claimed that the EIC left little about the island—‘it is but occasionally that the company’s records furnish any information on St Helena’5—but again this is not the case. Not only are there the letterbooks, but the company’s minutes, which were edited and published over several decades in the twentieth century by Ethel Sainsbury.6 The third principal source is the consultations, records of the meetings of the St Helena council chaired by the governor, in which are written down all the affairs of a small English community living far from their homes, the local events of interest, the arrivals and departures

164

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

of ships, the epidemics, the alarms and the calamities. The whole constitutes a rich record of the social life of the time as well as the frailties of mankind in a sterner and ruder age.7 There are also a number of other St Helena records held in archives across England, including the National Archives, the Bodleian Library, Lambeth Palace Library, the Pepys Library at Magdelene College, Cambridge, the National Maritime Museum and the Lincolnshire Archives. These can be traced via James Pearson’s guide to manuscripts relating to Africa, which includes St Helena or Brian Smith’s guide to St Helena manuscripts.8 In sum, ‘the richest and most fascinating primary sources on St Helena are the island’s voluminous official and unofficial archival records’.9 In theory, there should be two copies of most of the company’s manuscript records regarding St Helena; one in England and one in St Helena as both London and the island kept copies of what they sent to the other. In fact, relatively little material is duplicated and it is normally that which was sent away that has gone missing, so a full survey of original archives relating to St Helena requires the researcher to work in London as well as in Jamestown. In particular, in England there are few of the consultations, although the British Library does have copies of some from 1675 and 1676, two to three years earlier than the start of these holdings on St Helena, which commence in 1678. But then the British Library holds no more until 1682-85, then another gap until 1694-96. Some extracts from the consultations have been published, especially by Hudson Janisch who compiled a volume therefrom, with commentary, during his period as governor in the 1880s.10 He had not completed this work before he died and he ‘continuously moves between quotation and calendar, as a result of which his Extracts is often not as valuable as one would like it to be.’11 Gill and Teale have also reproduced selected extracts from the consultations and other records in their chronological catalogue of St Helena events.12 The publications of extracts are only partial but they can support other research as in Richard Grove’s analysis of environmental degradation of St Helena in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.13 Further, it is better to use the published extracts than to rely on early historians of St Helena for Kitching long ago identified a tradition of St Helena writers to ‘continue to repeat the errors and misstatements that have hitherto prevailed.’14 This repetition of misconceptions has continued in St Helena studies and it is only recently, for example, that Alexander Schulenburg in his PhD thesis demolished the long-held and oft-repeated notion, originally from the history written by a St Helena Government Secretary, Thomas Brooke,15 that St Helena was populated by refugees from the Great Fire of London in 1666.16 Schulenburg also provides a critique of the various published histories and accounts of St Helena, concluding that ‘by and large, existing studies of St Helena are more antiquarian that anything else.’17 It is generally agreed that the most worthwhile is that by Philip Gosse,18 but he can be criticised, Schulenburg asserts, for his ‘narrative licence’, the enlivening of the story by creating details that cannot possibly be known from the archival sources.19 Published works and books of extracts such as that by Janisch have their uses but it is better for a researcher to interrogate the original sources in England and St Helena rather than use another’s choice of what was of interest

SOURCES FOR THE STUDY OF EARLY ST HELENA

165

from these originals as well as relying upon the accuracy of their transcription. That has been the approach adopted in this book, as the endnotes attest. In addition to St Helena, this book uses some primary data from other company colonies. The Vancouver Island material comes from the Hudson’s Bay Company Archives held within the Provincial Archives of Manitoba in Winnipeg and from other documents in the British Columbia Archives in Victoria; that for Bermuda is mainly from the National Archives in Hamilton. The Annual Reports of the Neu Guinea Compagnie which ruled northeastern New Guinea and offshore islands at the end of the nineteenth century have been translated by Peter Sack and Dymphna Clark.20

Appendix 2 ST HELENA TIMELINE

Appendix 3 TABLES

Table 1.1 Source of imports by value, London, 1622 and 1700. Source 1622 1700 Europe 93% 66% Asia 6% 16% America 1% 18% Source: adapted from Horn, James, Adapting to a New World: English Society in Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake (University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, 1994).

170

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Table 2.1 First mention of produce together with products recommended (or sent) by the EIC for St Helena to 1698. Codlings 1659 Beans of all sorts Currents Beere (a wheat) Filberts Cassava Gooseberries Grains Medlars Lemons Mulberries Nuts Nectarines Oranges Parsnips Peas Peaches Plantains Plums Potatoes Raspberries Roots Roses Yams Vines 1661 Cabbages Walnuts Carrots 1679 Rice Cattle 1681 ‘Sea cows’ Cauliflowers (manatee) Indian corn (maize) 1683 Cinnamon Onions Cloves Turnips Cedar 1662 Apples ‘Cyprus’ trees (for Lettuce masts and boards) Melons Nitre Parsley Nutmeg Pears Olives Pineapples Pistachios Pomegranates Saltpetre Sugar cane 1684 Aloes Quince Betel 1663 Poultry Coconuts 1666 Beetroot Iron Dairy produce Molasses Grenadines Pepper 1669 Deer Rum Sheep Salt (from pans) 1671 Colewort Salted Fish 1672 Indigo 1689 Brandy 1673 Cotton Mint Figs Purslain Ginger 1694 Artichokes Tobacco Asparagus 1676 Limes Barley Physic nuts Pumpelnoses 1678 Apricots Tamarinds Bayberries 1698 Gum Trees Cherries Chestnuts Source: East India Company.

TABLES

171

Table 2.2 Goods supplied to St Helena aboard Johannah, Captain Bendall, 1678. Agricultural production Dairy equipment Cheesecloths etc Churns Sieves Seeds Cabbage Carrot Colewort Onions Parsnip Parsley Turnip Trees and plants Apple Apricot Bayberries Cherry Chestnut Codling Current Figs Filbert Gooseberry Medlar Mulberry Nectarines Peach Pear Plum Quince Raspberry Roses Vines Walnut Tools Fowling pieces Hoes Shovels Spades Wheelbarrows Fishing line and hooks Rat poison Books and stationery English primers Religious books Writing books Paper Ink Quills Building materials Chalk (ten tonnes) Deales (planks) Fir baulks

172

Clothing

Clothing production

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND Nails Oak timber Pitch Tar Bodies [bodices], women’s and children’s Hats Shoes Stockings Waistcoats Black felt Cotton yarn Linen cloth Linsey woolsey Serges Haberdashery

Shoemaking Hardware

Household goods

Military supplies

Axes Carpentry tools Gimlets Hinges Locks Mallets Staples Spikes Turners’ ware Wire Beds Coal Combs Knives Lamp oil Pillows Rugs Soap Sheepskins Cartouch boxes Calf bags Drums, drumheads and snares Flags and colours Flints Fustians

Buttons Cottons Needles Tapes Threads Lasts and tools Shoemaker’s thread

TABLES Halberds Match Muskets Ordnance

Miscellaneous items

Tinware

Foodstuffs for consumption

Pikes Powder Stocklocks Swords Chemical preparations Chirurgery (surgery) one chest amounts to £20 Pieces of eight Lamps Pots and kettles Pots and pans Pans and pothooks Barley

Beef Biscuit Brandy Flour Peas Salt Suet Sweet oil Wheat Vinegar Source: adapted from SHA, EIC 4/1, pp. 77-88.

173

Musket and drop shot 7 Falcons 280 Round Shot

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

174

Table 3.1 Henry Gargen’s population narrative, St Helena, 1661 to 1665. Name Occupation Family Notes Robert Stringer Governor Wife, 3 children, son-in-law, 2 maids, 1 manservant, 4 blacks Alexander Second [Deputy Wife, child, servant Butler Governor] John Coulson Free Planter Wife, children Plantation, head of Chapel Valley John Wood Free Planter Wife, children Plantation, Fryar Valley Thomas Harper Free Planter Wife, children Plantation beyond Wood’s John Wayly Free Planter Wife, children Plantation beyond Harper’s William Fox Militiaman Wife, son-in-law Keeps cows on High Peake John Evans Militiaman Wife, children Keeps cows on High Peake William Young Steward Wife, children Thomas Holton Wife 18 single men No occupation 1 left from a ship, recorded 1 deserted garrison? 13 other black Slaves 4 children Had a small, people productive plantation A. Families English 30 (2 boys) 13 10 53 B. Population totals

Men Women Children Total

English

Stowaways 3

Black slaves

0

Drownings 2

Natural Causes 1

Black slaves 17 Men and women 4 21

Left 1 woman, Gargen, wife and children 0

2 2 C. Deaths and Removals Source: Gargen, Henry, A Narrative of ye Island St Helena for the Planting it & Soile of ye Island & how the Inhabitants Imployed &c from anno 1661 to 1665, Bodleian Library, Oxford, Rawlinson Papers, MS Rawl, C843.

TABLES

175

Table 3.2 Passengers ordered on board the two ships for St Helena, 1673. Head Captain Anthony Beale, Deputy Governor Mary

Wife Elinor

William Gates John

Bridget

James Eastings

Anne

John Walls John Greentree

Bridget Mary

James 1 Black William Swindell, Minister Thomas Smoult Alice Wallett Richard Mosely, Armourer Thomas Collins Robert James William Young

John Fuller Richard Swallow

Children Richard 7 [unnamed] William Elizabeth Palmer Thomas James

Servants

Anne Jeff Dorothy Draper

Elizabeth Anne 1 maid

John Wharmley Anne

Ann Elizabeth

Ann Margaret

Elizabeth

John Richard Robert Phillip 1 Child Margaret Martha

Fran [sic] Rutter Sarah Butler

Richard Wallett

2 maids

Abyas Betts, single woman Margaret Griffin

2 Negroes

12 Negro company servants

Francis Rangham

Anne

John Coulson

Grace

Abigale Cox John Younger

1 Negro Sarah

Mr Francis Moore, Chyrurgion

Mary

John Amps John Kennedy

Others

Samuel Mary Francis Nathaniel Elizabeth Martha

Mary Bennett Mary Plowright William Dufton

John Barbara Francis Ephrath Mary

Elizabeth

Source: BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 41v-44v.

Elizabeth Lewis

John Harding Sarah Gray

Anne Perry Sarah Trainor Richard Hall 1 maid

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

176

Table 3.3: Population counts, St Helena, 1659-1722. Date Military Civilians ‘English’ Slaves 16591 40 6

Total 46

16652

74

16723 1673 16784

30 male; 23 female 400 81

17069

105

172210

120

Expulsion Also ‘single men, servants and blacks’ and family members

90 freemen

1680s c.16947 16968

21

82 (planters) 90 (planters) 398 (including 18 ‘Free Blacks’

Notes Voyage of settlement

Not exceeding 5005 600

200 (adults)6

500

406

924

Sources: 1. A Court of Committees for the New General Stock, 15 December 1658, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc of the East India Company 1655-1659 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1916) and BL, IOR E/3/85, ff. 94-95v. 2. Bodleian Library, Oxford, Rawlinson Papers, MS Rawl C. 843. 3. Fryer, John, A new account of East India and Persia being nine years’ travels, 16721681 (Ri Chiswell: London, 1698), Volume III. 4. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 21-24, 30 September 1678 and pp. 3-4. 5. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 89v-98, 1 August 1683. 6. SHA, 1/2, pp. 392-95, 12 December 1687. 7. Lincolnshire Archives, Ancaster papers, 3 Anc 9/21/1. 8. SHA, EIC 1/4, pp. 287-300, May 1696. 9. BL, IOR G/32/3. 10. BL, G/32/118 no. 38.

TABLES Table 3.4 Population census, St Helena 1722. Population category Soldiers, officers and their servants Men [white] Women Youths Maidens Boys to 13 and 14 years Girls to 12 and 13 years Total Free Blacks Black men [slaves] Black women [slaves] Black boys Black girls Total Overall total Source: BL, IOR G/32/118, no. 38.

177

Total 120 50 79 5 40 99 107 500 18 186 67 90 63 424 924

178

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Table 4.1 Criminal offences and punishments, St Helena, 1681. Offence Jury Punishment upon conviction Trial? Profane the Lord’s Day No First offence: admonition. Further offences, fine up to 5s. Swearing and taking the No First offence: admonition. Further offences, fine up to 1s. name of God in vain Intemperance and No First offence: admonition. Further offences, fine up to 5s. drunkenness ‘Persons of quality’ pay more than those of ‘meaner rank’. Fornication, uncleaness Yes Agreeable to the nature of the people, and adultery not contrary to English law. Theft Yes Restoration of property. Fine 3 times the value of goods stolen. Property forfeit. Pilloried, whipping, imprisonment. Exile considered. False witness Yes The punishment the injured party would have sustained (except death). Counterfeiting Yes Satisfaction to the injured party. Fine the same amount. Pilloried. Wounding Yes Satisfaction to the injured party. Fine up to 20s. Murder Yes Death, the manner agreeable to English law. Striking an officer on Yes Treble damages to the officer as jury duty decides. Fine up to £5 or whipping or imprisonment. Notes: fines were paid to the company; being pilloried was not a metaphor, there was a pillory; English mariners and officers visiting St Helena could serve on juries; the use of juries was curtailed in 1683. Source: BL, IOR E/3/89, ff. 272-76v, 10 March 1681

TABLES

179

Table 4.2 Service on eight St Helena juries, 1685 to 1698. Name Addis, Robert Bagley, Edward Bagley, Orlando Bagley, Orlando, Jnr Bodley, Hugh Bowman, John Bowman, William Cannady, John Chappell, Daniel Cleverlees, John Coales, Henry Cottgrove John Dixon, ? Edmunds, Edward Field, John Fox, William, Jnr Francis, Henry Fuller, John Gates, William Goodall, Thomas Goodwin, John Goodwin, Thomas Gurling, Richard Haile, Israel Haslebury, ? Hayes, William Isack, Sutton

Occupation Free Planter Free Planter Free Planter Free Planter Free Planter Free Planter Free Planter Free Planter Soldier Free Planter Free Planter Free Planter Sergeant Free Planter Corporal, Sergeant Free Planter Free Planter Free Planter Free Planter Free Planter Free Planter Gunner’s Mate Free Planter Eldest Sergeant Sergeant Free Planter Free Planter

85

87

90

92

93 X

93

98 X

98 X

X X

X

X X X X X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X

X

X X

X

X X X X X X X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X X

180 Jackson, Henry Leach, Richard Long, John Luffkin, John Malling, William Manning, Henry Marsh, William Maxwell, Samuel Melling, William Mudge, John Nairnes, Thomas Nicholls, John Orchard, John Purling, Erasmus Rider, James Rooker, Andrew Sherwin, Thomas Shreevedale, Thomas Sleaford, Edward Spiers, Ralph Starling, ? Stevens, John Steward, Charles Taylor, John Taylor, Samuel Trewsdale, Thomas Wells, William Wills, Rippin Worrall, John

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND Sergeant Free Planter Free Planter Free Planter Free Planter Surgeon Free Planter Free Planter Free Planter Free Planter Gunner’s Mate Free Planter Free Planter Free Planter Free Planter Armourer Free Planter Free Planter Free Planter Corporal Corporal Free Planter Free Planter Free Planter Free Planter Free Planter Gunner’s Mate NCO Free Planter Soldier

X X X

X X

X

X

X X X

X X

X X X X X

X X

X

X

X

X X X X

X X

X

X X X X X X X X X

X

X

X X X

X X

X

X

X

TABLES Wrangham, Samuel

Free Planter

181 X

X

Source: St Helena Consultations Table 4.3 East India Company chaplains at St Helena, 1670 to 1706. Name Appointed Left Reason Notes Office William Noakes 1670 1673 Not returned Dispute with at regovernor, addicted occupation to several vices William Swindell 1673 1674 Died John Wynn 1675 1679? Asked to return 1678 Joseph Church 1680 1683 Dismissed Dispute with governor John Crammond 1683 1684 Temporary Ship’s chaplain contract Thomas Sault 1684 1684 Resigned Dispute with council Robert Butler 1685 1685 Visitor John Ovington 1689 1689 Visitor ? Willis 1691 1691 Henry Manning 1691? 1692 Lay Reader, Also surgeon, lost dismissed both jobs for incompetence William Clifton 1692 1692 Lay Reader Schoolteacher, convicted of adultery 1690 William Rudsby 1692 1693? Jethro Bridecake 1693 1695? Bartholomew 1695 1696 Left the Harwood island ? Simons 1697 1697 Visitor John Humphreys 1698 1700 Dismissed Intemperate drinking, impious, lewd and vile conversation Edward 1700 1701 Lay Reader Planter Edmunds Jethro Bradock 1701 1701 Visitor John Kerr 1701 1704 Dismissed Dispute with governor, restless humour Charles Masham 1704 1706 Died Joshua 1706 Tomlinson Sources: East India Company archives in London and St Helena.

182

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Table 6.1 Taxes imposed by Deputy Governor Robert Holden, early 1680s. For every working Black slave p.a. 10s 6d For every head of neat cattle 6d For every head in family 6d For every 10 acres of land to ye highway 6d For every beast sold on ship board 6d For all calicoes bought for their use, per piece 6d For all strong liqueurs per gall 2d For all silks and stuffs bought for their use per piece 6d For all sugar cent weight 6d Source: BL, Orme Manuscripts, MSS EUR/ORME OV.4, ff. 111-14. Table 6.2 Occupations of company slaves, 1723. Location Occupation Male Female Company Plantation Not stated/labourer 20 14 Farmer 2 Butcher 2 Gardner 11 Water trench 2 Boys to scare goats 5 Washing 5 Dairy 2 Poultry 6 Perkins Not stated/labourer 8 2 The Hutts Not stated/labourer 7 3 The Peake Not stated/labourer 4 1 Fortifications Not stated/labourer 25 3 Stonelayer/cutter 5 Carpenter/sawyer 5 Waits on the Doctor 1 Tailor/makes black clothes 1 Midwife 1 Longboat Boatmen 8 Fishing boats Fishermen 10 Lime kilns Lime maker 4 Company Garden Gardener 5 The House (Fort) House black 3 4 Cook 2 Candlemaker 1 Distiller 1 Superanuated 8 7 Children not fit for 20 19 labour Total 156 68 Source: A List of the Honourable Company’s Blacks, their Names, Ages, Employment and Qualitys at the Several Plantations BL, G/32/118 no. 81, 26 March 1723.

TABLES

183

Table 6.3 ‘Quality’ descriptors of working company slaves, 1723. ‘Quality’ Number Good or very good 73 Good but troublesome or lazy 2 Indifferent 54 Good for little or nothing 7 Bad or very bad 5 Sickly or very sickly 32 Lame 2 Poxed 6 Total 170 Note: total entries exceed 170 as some were in more than one category, such as Great Sarah who was ‘very bad and much poxed’. Source: A List of the Honourable Company’s Blacks, their Names, Ages, Employment and Qualitys at the Several Plantations, BL, G/32/118 no. 81, 26 March 1723.

184

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Table 6.4 Punishment of slaves convicted of conspiracy to revolt in 1693. Slave Master Notes Punishment Jack John Gurling Ringleader Hanged in chains alive, starved to death Will Owen Beavan To be governor, Hanged, cut down alive, gave evidence drawn and quartered, against others quarters and head displayed Randall Thomas Allison Key recruiter Hanged, cut down alive, drawn and quartered, quarters and head displayed Joane Owen Beavan Only woman 410 lashes over 5 days, branded with an R on the shoulder, transported Firebrass Greentree Planned to give 410 lashes over 5 days, orphans no quarter branded with an R on the shoulder, transported Poplar John Goodwin 410 lashes over 5 days, branded with an R on the shoulder, transported Peter Thomas Allison Claimed to have 120 lashes over 2 days, refused to join branded with an R, transported Ruface John Greentree Recruited as he 120 lashes over 2 days, knew about guns branded with an R, transported Hem Richard Gurling 120 lashes over 2 days, branded with an R, transported Peter Thomas 120 lashes over 2 days, Goodwin branded with an R, transported Will Samuel 120 lashes over 2 days, Wrangham branded with an R, transported Roger Thomas Perhaps revealed 120 lashes over 2 days, Goodwin plot to Annah branded with an R, transported Sources: SHA, EIC 1/4, pp. 237-51, 3 December 1695 and EIC 1/4, pp. 253-60, 16 December 1695.

TABLES

185

Table 7.1 Deputy Governors (Second in Council), St Helena 1659 to 1708. Deputy Governor Appointment Left office Reason for leaving Dispute with governor? Robert Stringer 1659 1660 Promotion to governor In abeyance 1660 1664 Alexander Butler 1664 1666 Replaced? Henry Gargen 1666 1668 Dismissed Yes Robert Swallow 1668 1670 Replaced William Noakes 1670 1673 Not returned Yes upon reoccupation Gregory Field 1673 1674 During military occupation, promotion to governor Anthony Beale 1674 1681 Dismissed Joshua Johnson 1681 1683 Dismissed Robert Holden 1683 1689 Dismissed Yes Joshua Johnson 1689 1690 Promotion to governor Richard Kelinge 1690 1693 Promotion to governor Stephen Poirier 1693 1698 Promotion to governor Thomas Bright 1698 1701 Dismissed Yes John Fowles 1701 1702 Died Yes Thomas Goodwin 1702 1702 Acting Cornelius Sodrington 1703 1704 Dismissed Thomas Goodwin 1704 1707 Became acting governor Edward Mashborne 1707 1708 Acting Thomas Goodwin 1708 Source: East India Company records.

186

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Table 7.2 Persons condemned after the 1684 rebellion on St Helena. Name Occupation Fate Notes William Bowyer Soldier Executed Ringleader Joseph Clarke Jnr Soldier Executed Joseph Clarke Snr Soldier Exiled to Barbados Allen Dennison Soldier Exiled to Barbados Catalyst James Johnson Soldier Exiled to Barbados Robert Moore Soldier Exiled to Barbados Joseph Orseman Soldier Exiled to Barbados Thomas Browne Soldier Pardoned Henry Collis Soldier Pardoned Thomas Bolton Planter Executed John Colson Planter Executed Once on council Edward Gardiner Planter Executed Job Jewster Planter Executed William Rutter Planter Executed William Cox Planter Exiled to Bencoolin Betrayed island to Dutch in 1673 Hugh Bodley Planter Exiled to Bencoolin? John Luffkin Planter Exiled to Bencoolin? Matthew Pouncey Planter Exiled to Bombay Leister Sexton Planter Exiled to Bencoolin? John Sich Planter Exiled to Bencoolin? Robert Soames Planter Exiled to Bencoolin? Robert Thompson Planter Exiled to Bencoolin? Gabriel Powell Planter Stowed away on Rochester George Sheldon Planter Stifled to death in prison Anthony Beale Former Pardoned by company governor Sources: BL, IOR G/32/2, St Helena Consultation, 30 December 1684; IOR E/3/90, f. 276-276v; Orme Manuscripts, IOR OV4, ff. 111-14.

TABLES

187

Table 8.1 East India Company ships trading to the Eeast in 1710. Ship Tonnage Destination Blenheim 250 Mocha Rochester 330 Chusan Stringer, galley 250 Canton and Mocha King William, galley 400 The Bay St George 450 Coast then Bay Des Bouverie 420 Coast then Bay Europe 300 Coast then Bay Susanna 300 Coast then Bay Sherbourne 300 Coast then Bay Mead, frigate 310 St Helena and Bencoolen Phoenix 400 Bombay Katherine 450 Bombay Duchesse 430 Persia with cloth, then Bombay Source: BL, IOR E/3/96, ff. 389-94, 11 January 1710. Table 8.2 The East India Company’s garrison on St Helena, 1678. Rank Number Lieutenant 2 Ensign 1 Sergeant 4 Corporal 3 Drummer 1 Gunner 1 Gunner’s Mate 2 Armourer 1 Private 66 Total garrison strength 81 Note: the governor, Major John Blackmore, and deputy governor, Captain Anthony Beale, were military officers and each commanded one of the two companies. The garrison was supplemented by the civilian militia. Source: SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 21-24, 30 September 1678.

188

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Table 8.3: ‘An Account Taken of All the Accessible Places or Entrances into the Island of St Helena Where There is Any Landing by Sea. The Breadth and Bearing of Every Such Place. In Order to the Walling Them Up and Making the Island Impregnable. By R.H. and R.K., Sept 27, 28, 29, 1698’. Places names Bearing Breadth in yards Rupert’s Valley ENE 250 Dry Gulf between N 38 Banks Valley N 60 Turks Cap Valley SSE 40 Prosperous Bay E 137 Stone Top Valley NE by E 20 Deep Valley SE 50 Porvell’s Valley NE 75 Potata Bay E by N 30 Sandy Bay S and by E 58 Do S 20 Do NEEN 150 Do E by S 95 Maneta Bay S 50 Old Woman’s Valley* SSW 31 Tombstone Valley [Dry Gut?] SSW 31 Lemon Valley SW by S 65 Freyer [Friar’s] Valley SW 34 Plantation [Young’s] Valley W 10 Break Neck Valley W 20 Chappell or Fort Valley SW by W 210 1483 yards walls up ye island *Swanley Valley is a steep waterfall where there is no walling, being only a fishing path which it the first beginning mounts up the hill higher than any wall can be made. Source: BL, IOR E/3/93, f. 233v, 27 March 1701.

TABLES

189

Table 8.4 Gratuities from the East India Company for commanders involved in retaking St Helena in 1673. Captain Role Gratuity Sir Richard Commander and captain of £400 and a gold Munden Assistance medal worth £20 Thomas Piles Captain of William and Thomas £100 John Butler Captain of Mary and Martha £50 William Hobbs Captain of Levant Merchant £50 Thomas Wilshaw Captain of Castle (fireship) £40 Richard Keigwin Captain of Eagle (fireship); governor £100 of St Helena after retaking Notes: Munden was refunded £58 for monies ‘disbursed … when on the island’ and was also given a knighthood and £2500 from the state; Keigwin was also paid 8s per day for being governor and commanding a foot company on the island. Source: A Court of Committees, 8 January 1674 and 20 January 1675 in Ethel B. Sainsbury A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc. of the East India Company, 1674-1676 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1935), p. 3 and p. 143.

Notes

Chapter 1 1

2 3 4 5

6 7

8 9 10

11 12

13

14 15 16

Musgrave, P., ‘The economics of uncertainty: the structural revolution in the spice trade, 1480-1640’, in P. L. Cottrell and D. H. Aldcroft (eds), Shipping, Trade and Commerce: Essays in Memory of Ralph Davies (Leicester University Press: Leicester, 1981), pp. 9-21. Davies, Kenneth G., The North Atlantic World in the Seventeenth Century (University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, 1974), p. 3. Rabb, Theodore K., Enterprise and Empire: Merchant and Gentry Investment in the Expansion of England, 1575-1630 (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 1967), p. 20. Davies: North Atlantic World, p. 18. There are chapters on trading companies in these nations as well as the English and Dutch companies in Leonard Blussé and Femme S. Gaastra (eds), Companies and Trade (Leiden University Press: Amsterdam, 1981). Steensgaard, N., ‘The companies as a specific institution in the history of European expansion’, in Blussé and Gaastra: Companies and Trade, p. 250. Ogborn, Miles, ‘Writing travels: power, knowledge and ritual on the English East India Company’s early voyages’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 27.2 (2002), p. 155. Kupperman, Karen Ordahl, Providence Island, 1630-1641: The Other Puritan Colony (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1993). Irwin, Douglas A., ‘Mercantilism as strategic trade policy: the Anglo-Dutch rivalry for the East India trade’, The Journal of Political Economy 99.6 (1991), pp. 1296-1314. Sleigh, Dan, Jan Compagnie: The World of the Dutch East India Company (Tafelberg: Cape Town, 1980); see also Gaastra, Femme S, ‘The shifting balance of trade of the Dutch East India Company’, in Blussé and Gaastra: Companies and Trade, pp. 47-69. Irwin: ‘Mercantilism’. Gaastra, Femme S., ‘War, competition and collaboration: relations between the English and Dutch East India Companies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries’, in H. V. Bowen, Margarette Lincoln and Nigel Rigby (eds), The Worlds of the East India Company (Boydell Press: Woodbridge, 2002), pp. 49-68. Greene, Jack P., Pursuits of Happiness: The Social Development of Early Modern British Colonies and the Formation of American Culture (University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, 1988), p. 35. McCusker, J. J. and R.R. Menard, The Economy of British America, 1607-1789 (University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, 1985), p. 35. Horn, James, Adapting to a New World: English Society in Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake (University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, 1994), p. 3. Horn: Adapting to a New World, p. 4.

192 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31 32

33

34 35 36

37 38

39

40

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Osgood, Herbert L., The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century (Macmillan: New York, 1904), vol. 1, p. 3. Pestana, Carla G., The English Atlantic in an Age of Revolution, 1640-1661 (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 2004), pp. 17-18. Kupperman: Providence Island. Morgan, Edmund S., American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (W. W. Norton: New York, 1975), p. 79. Davies: North Atlantic World; see also Steensgaard: ‘Companies’. Davies: North Atlantic World. Lombard, D., ‘Questions on the contact between European companies and Asian societies’, in Blussé and Gaastra: Companies and Trade, pp. 179-87. Farrington, Anthony, Trading Places: The East India Company and Asia (British Library: London, 2002). Bowen, H. V., ‘“No longer mere traders”: continuity and change in the metropolitan development of the East India Company, 1600-1834’, in Bowen, Lincoln and Rigby: East India Company, p. 19. Sen, Sudipta, Empire of Free Trade: The East India Company and the Making of the Colonial Marketplace (University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, 1998), p. 3 and p. 9. British Library (BL), IOR E/3/90, ff. 89v-98, 1 August 1683; another copy, BL, IOR G/32/1 pp. 35-44. Rabb: Enterprise and Empire. Gardner, Brian, The East India Company: A History (Rupert Hart Davies: London, 1971). Prakash, Om, ‘The English East India Company and India’, in Bowen, Lincoln and Rigby: East India Company, p. 2; see also Ogborn: ‘Writing travels’. Klein, Peter W., ‘The origins of trading companies’, in Blussé and Gaastra: Companies and Trade, p. 24. Cook, A., ‘Establishing the sea routes to India and China: stages in the development of hydrographical knowledge’, in Bowen, Lincoln and Rigby: East India Company, p. 121. Chaudhuri, K. N., ‘The English East India Company in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries: a pre-modern multinational organisation’, in Blussé and Gaastra: Companies and Trade, p. 30. Miller, R., The East Indiamen (Time-Life Books: Alexandria, Virginia, 1980); see also Gardner: East India Company. Prakash: ‘English East India Company’, pp. 2-3. Royle, Stephen A., ‘St Helena as a Boer prisoner of war camp, 1900-1902: information from the Alice Stopford Green papers’, Journal of Historical Geography 24.1 (1998), pp. 53-68. Royle, Stephen A., A Geography of Islands: Small Island Insularity (Routledge: London, 2001). Grove, Richard H., Green Imperialism: Colonial Expansion, Tropical Island Edens and the Origins of Environmentalism, 1600-1860 (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1995), p. 9. Schulenburg, Alexander H., Transient Observations: The Textualising of St Helena through Five Hundred Years of Colonial Discourse (Unpublished PhD thesis, School of Philosophical and Anthropological Studies, University of St Andrews, 1999); Schulenburg, Alexander H. ‘“Island of the blessed”: Eden, Arcadia and the picturesque in the textualising of St Helena’, Journal of Historical Geography 29.4 (2003), pp. 516-34. Dodds, Klaus and Royle, Stephen A., ‘The historical geography of islands. Introduction: rethinking islands’, Journal of Historical Geography 29.4 (2003), p. 488 and p. 495.

NOTES 41

193

Keay, John, The Honourable Company: A History of the English East India Company (HarperCollins: London, 1991), p. 179.

Chapter 2 1 2

3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17

18 19 20

21 22 23

Anon (Duncan, F.?), A Description of the Island of St Helena (R. Phillips: London, 1805), p. 2; see http://www.bweaver.nom.sh/#books (accessed 23 December 2006). Tavernier, John B., The Six Voyages of John Baptista Tavernier a Nobleman of France Now Living through Turkey into Persia and the East Indies Finished in the Year 1670 (RL and MP: London, 1678). Pyrard, François, The Voyage of François Pyrard of Laval to the East Indies, the Maldives, the Moluccas and Brazil (Hakluyt Society: London, 1890), Volume II, p. 300. van Linschoten, John Huyghen, The Voyage of John Huyghen van Linschoten to the East Indies (Hakluyt Society: London, 1885), Volume I. van Linschoten: Voyage to the East Indies. van Linschoten: Voyage to the East Indies. Cavendish, Thomas, ‘The prosperous voyage of M. Thomas Candish esquire into the South Sea, and so around the circumference of the whole earth, begun in the yeare 1586, and finished 1588’, in Richard Hakluyt (ed.), The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques and Discoveries of the English Nation (George Bishop, Ralph Newberie and Robert Barker: London, 1598-1600). Pyrard: Voyage to the East Indies, p. 301. British Library (BL), Extraits de Diverses Lectures de Voyages, Slone Manuscripts, MS 305, ff. 65-65v. Brooke, Thomas H., A History of the Island of St Helena from its Discovery by the Portuguese to the Year 1806 (Black, Parry and Kingsberry: London, 1808). Cavendish: ‘Prosperous voyage’. Castell, Robin, Drake and St Helena (Castell Collection: St Helena, 2004). Hawkins, William, ‘Narrative of William Hawkins, 6 July 1583’, in E. R. G. Taylor, The Troublesome Voyage of Captain Edward Fenton 1582-1583 (Hakluyt Society: Cambridge, 1959), p. 278. van Linschoten: Voyage to the East Indies, p. xl. Miller, R., The East Indiamen (Time-Life Books: Alexandria, Virginia, 1980), p. 26. Floris, Peter, Peter Floris, His Voyage to the East Indies in the Globe, 1611-1615 (Hakluyt Society: London, 1934), p. 145. Mocquet, J., Voyages en Afrique, Asie, Indes Orientales & Occidentales (Jacues Caillove: Paris, 1645), reproduced in E. Strangman, Early French Callers at the Cape (Juta: Cape Town, 1936), p. 42; see also Augustine de Beaulieu’s 1622 journal in Strangman: Early French Callers, pp. 67-71. Pers, Walburg, Dutch Enterprise and the VOC, 1602-1799 (Rijksmuseum: Amsterdam, 1998). Ólafsson, Jón, The Life of Jón Ólafsson, Icelander, Traveller to India, Written by Himself and Completed about 1661 (Hakluyt Society: London, 1932), Volume II. Bontekoe, W. Y., Memorable Description of the East Indian Voyage, 1618-1625 (Routledge: London, 1929); see also Denholm, Kenneth, South Atlantic Haven: A Maritime History for the Island of St Helena (Education Department: St Helena, 1994). Barlow, E., Barlow’s Journal of his Life at Sea in King’s Ships, East and West Indiamen and other Merchantmen from 1659 to 1703 (Hurst & Blackett: London, 1934), p. 199. Navarette, Dominick Fernandez, ‘An account of the Empire of China’, in A. Churchill (ed.), A Collection of Voyages and Travels (Churchill: London, 1732), Volume I, p. 293. Lancaster, Sir James, The Voyages of Sir James Lancaster to Brazil and the East Indies, 15911603 (Hakluyt Society: London, 1940), p. xvi (of Sir William Foster’s edition); see also Dodge, Ernest S. Islands and Empires: Western Impact on the Pacific and East Asia (University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, 1976) and Miller: East Indiamen.

194 24

25

26 27 28 29 30 31

32 33 34 35 36 37

38 39

40 41 42 43 44 45 46

47 48 49

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Anon [Sir Henry Middleton], The Last East-Indian Voyage (Walter Burre: London, 1606), republished as Middleton, Sir Henry, The Voyage of Sir Henry Middleton to Bantam and the Maluco Islands, Being the Second Voyage Set Forth by the Governor and Company of Merchants Trading into the East Indies (Hakluyt Society: London, 1855). Best, Thomas, ‘Tenth Voyage of the English East India Company in 1612’, in R. Kerr (ed.), A General History and Collection of Voyages and Travels (Blackwood: Edinburgh, 1824); also Best, Thomas, The Voyage of Thomas Best to the East Indies, 1612-14 (Hakluyt Society: London, 1934). Herbert, Sir Thomas, Some Yeares Travels into Africa and Asia (R. Scot, T. Basset, J. Wright and R. Chiswell: London, 1638), 4th Impression, 1677. Pyrard: Voyage to the East Indies. BL, IOR/A/1/18A, 15 April 1633; see the translation in Gosse, Philip, St Helena 1502-1938 (Cassell: London, 1938), p. 41. Brooke: History; Melliss, John C., St Helena: A Physical, Historical and Topographic Description of the Island (L. Reeve: London, 1875). Mundy, Peter, The Travels of Peter Mundy in Europe and Asia, 1608-1667, Volume III, Part II, Travels in Achin, Mauritius, Madagascar and St Helena (Hakluyt Society: London, 1919). Anderson, A., An Historical and Chronological Deduction of the Origin of Commerce (J. Robson and others: London, 1787); Wilber, Margaret Eyer, The East India Company and the British Empire in the Far East (Stanford University Press: Stanford, 1945). Kitching, Geoffrey C., ‘Records of the Island of St Helena’, The American Archivist 10 (1947), pp. 151-71. Tavernier: Six Voyages. Strangman: Early French Callers, p. 84. Foster, Sir William, ‘The acquisition of St Helena’, The English Historical Review 34, number 135 (1919), pp. 281-89. Dampier, William, Dampier’s Voyages (E. Grant Richards: London, 1906), p. 524. Boothby, Richard, A True Declaration of the Intolerable Wrongs Done to Richard Boothby, Merchant of India, by Two Lewd Servants to the Honourable East India Company, Richard Wylde and George Page (No publisher given: London, 1644). A Court of Committees, 21 March 1649, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc of the East India Company 1644-1649 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1912), p. 318. Petition of Merchants Trading to the East Indies to the Lord Protector, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc of the East India Company 1655-1659 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1916), p. 119. Admiralty Committee to Navy Commissioners, 1 December 1657, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1655-59, p. 193. Report of the Commissioners of the Admiralty and Navy, 23 October 1658, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1655-59, p. 292. Miller: East Indiamen. Keay, John, The Honourable Company: A History of the English East India Company (HarperCollins: London, 1991). A Court of Committees for the New General Stock, 11 October 1658, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1655-59, p. 289. A Court of Committees for the New General Stock, 15 December 1658, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1655-59, p. 302. A Court of Committees for the New General Stock, 17 December 1658, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1655-59, p. 302; see also Foster: ‘The acquisition of St Helena’ and Milton, Giles, Nathaniel’s Nutmeg (Hodder & Stoughton: London, 1999). BL, IOR E/3/85, f. 96-96v, 11 January 1659. Nieuhoff, John, Voyages and Travels into Brasil and the East-Indies (No publisher given: Amsterdam, 1682). BL, IOR E/3/85, f. 96-96v, 11 January 1659.

NOTES 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68

69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87

195

BL, IOR E/3/85, f. 179, 19 December 1660. Dutton, John, Brief Relation of a Voyage from St Helena on the Coast of Africa to Bantam in India begun the 6th day of May 1661, BL, Landsdowne MS 213. BL, IOR E/3/85, ff. 177-79, 19 December 1660. Dodge: Islands and Empires. Best: Voyage, p. 83. Rogers, Francis, ‘The diary of Francis Rogers, London merchant’, in B. S. Ingham (ed.), Three Sea Journals of Stuart Times (Constable: London, 1936), p. 189. Neu Guinea Compagnie, ‘Annual report for 1886-87’, in Peter Sack and Dymphna Clark, German New Guinea: The Annual Reports (Australian National University Press: Canberra, 1979), p. 12 and p. 13. Cavendish: ‘Prosperous voyage’. van Linschoten: Voyage to the East Indies. Herbert: Some Yeares Travels, p. 391. van Linschoten: Voyage to the East Indies. Lancaster: Voyages, p. 139. Lancaster: Voyages, pp. 16-17 and p. 140. Best: Voyage, p. 83. Gardner, Brian, The East India Company: A History (Rupert Hart Davies: London, 1971). Herbert: Some Yeares Travels, p. 392. Rogers: ‘Diary’, p. 192. Mundy: Travels, pp. 412-13. de Mandelslo, John Albert, ‘The remarks and observations made by John Albert de Mandelsoe in his passage from the Kingdom of Persia through several countries of the Indies’, in J. Harris (ed.), Navigantium Atque Itineranium Biblioteca or a Complete Collection of Voyages and Travels (T. Woodward et al: London, 1744), Volume I; see also Castell: Drake and Gill, R. and Teale, P., St Helena 500: A Chronological History of the Island (Ceda Communications: Epping, 1999). Herbert: Some Yeares Travels, p. 392. BL, IOR E/3/85, f. 92, 11 January 1659. BL, IOR E/3/85, ff. 92v-94, 11 January 1659. BL, IOR E/3/85, ff. 94-95v, 11 January 1659. BL, IOR E/3/85, f. 114v-115, 23 June 1659. BL, IOR E/3/86, f. 157, 30 September 1663. BL, IOR E/3/86, ff. 155v-156, 24 September 1663. Gargen, Henry, A Narrative of ye Island St Helena for the Planting it & Soile of ye Island & How the Inhabitants Imployed &c from Anno 1661 to 1665, Bodleian Library, Oxford, Rawlinson Papers, MS Rawl, C843. de Rennefort, Sochu, Histoires des Indes Orientales (Frederick Harring: Paris, 1688). BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 41v-44v, 19 December 1673. BL, IOR G/32/2, St Helena Consultation, 25 February 1676. Fryer, John, A New Account of East India and Persia Being Nine Years’ Travels, 1672-1681 (Ri Chiswell: London, 1698), Volume III. Ovington, John, A Voyage to Surat in the Year 1689 (Oxford University Press: London, 1929), p. 61. BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 285v-289v, 15 March 1678. A Court of Committees, 20 June 1662, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc of the East India Company 1660-1663 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1922), p. 219. St Helena Archives (SHA), EIC 4/1, pp. 77-83, 20 March 1678. BL, IOR E/3/89, f. 69, 16 May 1679. SHA, EIC 1/3, pp. 455-63, 29 December 1692. BL, IOR E/3/89, ff. 30v-31, 8 November 1678.

196 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

100 101

102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116

117 118 119 120 121

122 123 124 125 126

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 140v-141, 8 March 1675. BL, IOR E/3/89, ff. 30v-31, 8 November 1678. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 21-24, 30 September 1678. SHA, EIC 4/1, pp. 90-91, 23 January 1679. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff, 89v-98, 1 August 1683. BL, IOR E/3/87, ff. 23-25, 28 December 1666. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff, 89v-98, 1 August 1683. BL, IOR E/3/89, f. 123, 24 March 1680. SHA, EIC 4/1, p. 168, 11 February 1682. BL, IOR E/3/87, f. 175-175v, 9 March 1669. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 89v-98, 1August 1683. Greene, Jack P., Pursuits of Happiness: The Social Development of Early Modern British Colonies and the Formation of American Culture (University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, 1988), p. 154. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 175-80v, 5 April 1684. Grove, Richard H., Green Imperialism: Colonial Expansion, Tropical Island Edens and the Origins of Environmentalism, 1600-1860 (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1995), p. 102. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 89v-98, 1August 1683. BL, IOR E/3/87, f. 23, 28 December 1666. Gargen, Narrative. de Rennefort: Histoires. du Bois, Sieur, Les Voyages Faits par le Sieur D. B. aux Isles Dauphine ou Madagascar, & Bourbon ou Mascarenne, és Annés 1669, 70, 71, 72 (Claude Barbin: Paris, 1674). BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 175-80v, 5 April 1684. Smallman, David L., Quincentenary: A Story of St Helena, 1502-2002 (Patten Press: Penzance 2003), p. 30. BL, IOR G/32/4, St Helena Consultation, 26 July 1709. Ovington: Voyage, p. 62. BL, IOR E/3/92, f. 18v, 22 February 1689. BL, IOR E/3/93, ff. 74-76, 15 December 1698. Grove: Green Imperialism, Chapter 3. Halley, Edmond, The Three Voyages of Edmond Halley in the Paramore, 1698-1701 (Hakluyt Society: London, 1981), p. 306. BL, IOR E/3/93, f. 227, 16 April 1701. Anon, An Account of a Voyage to the East Indies and Back to the Cape of Good Hope in the Frigate Macclesfield in the years 1701-1702, Bodleian Library, Oxford, Rawlinson Papers, MS Rawl C.841. Rogers: ‘Diary’, p. 192. BL, IOR E/3/96, ff. 158-63v, 7 April 1708. Bruce, John, Annals of the East-India Company (East India Company: London, 1810), Volume II, p. 269. BL, IOR E/3/97, ff. 129v-144v, 17 April 1711. Morris, D., A Report upon the Present Position and Prospects of the Agricultural Resources of the Island of St Helena (Colonial Office: London, 1884), p. 5 and p. 6; see also Northcliffe, G. B., ‘The role of scale in locational analysis: the phormium industry on St Helena’, Journal of Tropical Geography 29 (1969), pp. 48-57. Seed, Patricia, Ceremonies of Possession in Europe’s Conquest of the New World, 1492-1640 (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1995), p. 39. BL, IOR E/3/86, ff 155v-156, 24 September 1663. BL, IOR E/3/85, f. 177, 19 December 1660. BL, IOR E/3/85, ff. 94-95v, 11 January 1659. BL, IOR E/3/87, ff. 108v-109, 10 February 1668.

NOTES 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156

157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174

197

BL, IOR E/3/87, f. 175-175v, 9 March 1679. BL, IOR E/3/87, ff. 274v-276, 14 June 1672. BL, IOR G/32/1, ff. 3-7, 19 December 1673. BL, IOR G/32/1, ff. 11-14, 20 March 1679. BL, IOR E/3/97, ff. 297-303v, 30 May 1712. BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 41v-44v, 18 December 1674. BL, IOR G/32/1, ff. 3-7, 19 December 1673. BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 285v-289v, 15 March 1678. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 113-16, 10 May 1680 and EIC 1/1, pp. 131-38, 30 August 1680. BL, IOR E/3/89, f. 203-203v, 20 May 1681. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 89v-98, 1 August 1683. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 89v-98, 1 August 1683. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 37-39, 24 February 1679. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 89v-98, 1 August 1683. BL, IOR G/32/4, St Helena Consultation, 12 July 1709. BL, IOR E/3/89, f. 123, 24 March 1680. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 139-43, 27 September 1680. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 319-24, 15 January 1683; also BL, IOR G/32/2. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 372-85, 30 July 1683. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 195-98, 4 August 1681. SHA, EIC 1/4, pp. 235-36, 23 November 1695. SHA, EIC 1/4, pp. 253-60, 16 December 1695. Leguat, François, The Voyage of François Leguat of Bresse to Rodriguez, Mauritious, Java and the Cape of Good Hope (Hakluyt Society: London, 1891), p. 299. Lincolnshire Archives, Ancaster Papers, 3 Anc 9/21/1, ff. 5-7, c. 1694. Rogers: ‘Diary’, p. 191. Beeckman, D., A Voyage To and From the Island of Borneo in the East Indies (T. Warner: London, 1718), p. 194 of the 1973 edition (Dawsons of Pall Mall: London). Lincolnshire Archives, Ancaster Papers, 3 Anc 9/21/1, ff. 5-7, c. 1694. BL, IOR E/3/89, f. 123, 24 March 1680 BL, IOR G/32/118, no. 38, 1722. General Court of Sales, 16 May 1671, in Ethel B. Sainsbury A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc of the East India Company 1671-1673 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1932), p. 36. and BL, IOR E/3/93, ff. 74-76, 15 December 1698. BL, IOR E/3/95, ff. 152-56, 30 November 1704. BL, IOR E/3/87, f. 24, December 1666. BL, IOR E/3/87, ff. 108v-109, 10 February 1668. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 223-26, 5 October 1685. BL, IOR E/3/91, ff. 179v-186v, 3 August 1687. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 169-70, 4 May 1685. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 175-81, 8 June 1685. SHA, EIC1/2, pp.6-7, 23 January 1688 and EIC 1/2, p. 11, 26 January 1688. Dampier: Voyages, p. 525. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 159-63, 12 February 1681. BL, IOR E/3/87, ff. 202v-203, 9 December 1670. SHA, EIC 1/3, pp. 271-93, 4 and 5 December 1690. BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 41v-44v, 19 December 1673. Evans, Dorothy, Schooling in the South Atlantic Islands (Anthony Nelson: Oswestry, 1994). SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 14-17, 2 September 1678. BL, IOR E/3/89, f. 203-203v, 20 May 1681. BL, IOR E/3, ff. 74-76, 15 December 1698. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 14-17, 2 September 1678.

198 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190

191 192 193 194 195

196 197 198 199 200 201

202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 330-43, 19 March 1683. SHA, EIC, 1/1, pp. 93-97, 16 February 1680. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 144-50, 25 August 1680. SHA, EIC, 1/1, pp. 93-97, 16 February 1680. SHA EIC 1/2, pp. 169-70, 4 May 1685. Cannan, Edward, Churches of the South Atlantic Islands (Anthony Nelson: Oswestry, 1992). SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 119-24, 21 June 1680. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 155-57, 20 December 1680. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 250-60, 11 July 1682; also BL, IOR G/32/2. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 330-43, 19 March 1683. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 71-79, 29 July 1684. SHA, EIC, 1/1, pp. 400-01, 15 October 1683. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 250-51v, 26 November 1684. SHA, EIC 1/3, pp. 363-67, 29 October 1691. SHA, EIC 1/3, pp. 381-83, 20 January 1692. A Court of Committees, 24 February 1669, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc of the East India Company 1668-1670 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1929), p. 162. BL, IOR E/3/96, ff. 15-26, 14 and 20 December 1705. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 151-54, 22 September 1680. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 272v-274v, 6 May 1685. McMichael, J. R. and B. Taft, The Writings of William Walwyn (University of Georgia Press: Athens and London, 1989). More, Sir Thomas, A fruteful and pleasaunt worke of the beste state of a publyque weale, and of the newe yle called Utopia (Abraham Vele: London, 1551), translation from the 1515 Latin edition. Harrington, James, The Commonwealth of Oceana (D. Pakemen: London, 1656). Pocock, J. G. A. (ed.), James Harrington: The Commonwealth of Oceana and A System of Politics (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1992), p. xvi. Smith, H. F. R., Harrington and his Oceana: A Study of a Seventeenth Century Utopia and its Influence on America (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1914), p. 13. Cavendish, Margaret, The World’s Olio (J. Martin and J. Allestrye: London, 1655). Lilley, K. (ed.), Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle, The Description of a New World Called the Blazing World and Other Writings (William Pickering: London, 1992), p. x. Cornelius, P. van Zurich-Zee [pseud, Pieter Plockhoy], The Way to the Peace and Settlement of these Nations, Fully Discovered in Two Letters, Delivered to his Late Highnesse, and One to the Present Parliament, as Also One to His Highnesse Richard Lord Protector (Daniel White: London, 1659). Morgan, Edmund S., American Slavery, American Freedom: the Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (W. W. Norton: New York, 1975), p. 82. Bowerbank, S. and Mendelson, S., Paper Bodies: A Margaret Cavendish Reader (Broadview Literary Texts: Peterborough, Ontario, 2000). BL, IOR E/3/85, f.96-96v, 11 January 1659. BL, IOR E/3/85, f.96-96v, 11 January 1659. BL, IOR E/3/85, ff. 177-79, 19 December 1660. BL, IOR E/3/87, f. 23, 28 December 1666. BL, IOR G/32/2, St Helena Consultation 12 February 1681. A Court of Committees, 1 May 1672, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1671-73, p. 205. A Court of Committees, 15 January 1673, in Sainsbury: Calendar of 1671-73, p. 123. BL, IOR E/3/87, f. 275v, 14 June 1672. BL, IOR E/3/85, f. 177, 19 December 1660. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 89v-98, 1August 1683.

NOTES 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222

223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237

199

BL, IOR E/3/89, ff. 276v-277, 14 March 1681. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 159-63, 12 February 1681. BL, IOR E/3/87, ff. 202v-203, 9 December 1670. BL, IOR E/3/87, f. 175-75v, 9 March 1669. BL, IOR E/3/85, f. 177, 19 December 1660. BL, IOR E/3/86, f. 73v, 11 July 1662. BL, IOR E/3/86, ff. 155v-156, 24 September 1663. BL, IOR E/3/87, ff. 202v-203, 9 December 1670. Zuckerman, M., ‘Identity in British America: unease in Eden’, in Nicholas Canny and Anthony Pagden (eds), Colonial Identity in the Atlantic World, 1500-1800 (Princeton University Press: Princeton, 1987), p. 150. BL, IOR G/32/1, ff. 8-10, 20 February 1677. BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 285v-289v, 15 March 1678. Keay: Honourable Company, p. 179. BL, IOR E/3/89, f.123, 24 March 1680. SHA, EIC 1/1, p. 2, 27 June 1678. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 404-10, 25 October 1683. SHA, EIC 1/1, p. 363, 15 June 1683. BL, IOR E/3/90, f. 99-99v, 20 June 1683. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 1-4, 8 January 1684. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 175-80v, 5 April 1684. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 272v-274v, 6 May 1685. BL, IOR E/3/96, ff. 195-96, 5 May 1708. BL, IOR E/3/96, ff. 389-94, 11 January 1710. BL, IOR G/32/1, ff. 3-7, 19 December 1673. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 89v-98, 1 August 1683.

Chapter 3 1 2 3 4

5 6 7

8

9

10

British Columbia Archives, Vancouver Island Colony, Blanshard Papers, MS-0611, 21 July 1849. Provincial Archives of Manitoba, Hudson’s Bay Company Archives, Fort Victoria Correspondence Book, B.226/b/14, 10 November 1853. British Library (BL), IOR E/3/85, f. 92, 11 January 1659. A Court of Committees for the New General Stock, 15 December 1658, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc of the East India Company 1655-1659 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1916), p. 302. A Court of Committees for the New General Stock, 26 October 1659, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1655-59, p. 350. BL, IOR E/3/85, ff. 94-95v, 11 January 1659. A Court of Committees, 2 November 1664, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc of the East India Company 1664-1667 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1925), p. 102. Horn, James, Adapting to a New World: English Society in Seventeenth Century Chesapeake (University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill 1994), p. 32; see also Horn, James, ‘Servant emigration to the Chesapeake in the seventeenth century’, in Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman (eds), The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society (University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, 1979), pp. 5195. Greene, Jack P., Pursuits of Happiness: The Social Development of Early Modern British Colonies and the Formation of American Culture (University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, 1988). Pestana, Carla G., The English Atlantic in an Age of Revolution, 1640-1661 (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 2004), Chapter 6.

200 11

12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

46 47

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

A Court of Committees, 24 September 1660, in Ethel B. Sainsbury A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc of the East India Company 1660-1663 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1922), p. 35. Wilber, Margaret Eyer, The East India Company and the British Empire in the Far East (Stanford University Press: Stanford, 1945), p. 196. A Court of Committees, 21 April 1662, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1660-63, p. 200. Gargen, Henry, A Narrative of ye Island St Helena for the Planting it & Soile of ye Island & How the Inhabitants Imployed &c from Anno 1661 to 1665, Bodleian Library, Oxford, Rawlinson Papers, MS Rawl, C843. de Rennefort, Sochu, Histoires des Indes Orientales (Frederick Harring: Paris, 1688). A Court of Committees, 30 March 1666, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1664-67, p. 213. BL, IOR E/3/87, f. 23, 28 December 1666. A Court of Committees, 1 September 1668, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1668-70, p. 92. A Court of Committees, 16 September 1670, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1668-70, p. 360. BL, IOR E/3/87, ff. 202v-203, 9 December 1670. A Court of Committees, 3 December and 10 December 1669, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc of the East India Company 1668-1670 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1929), p. 280 and p. 284. A Court of Committees, 16 September 1670, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1668-70, p. 360. A Court of Committees, 30 September 1670, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1668-70, p. 364. BL, IOR E/3/87, ff. 202v-203, 9 December 1670. BL, IOR E/3/87, f. 23, 28 December 1666. A Court of Committees, 22 February 1671, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc of the East India Company 1671-1673 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1932), p. 16. Navarette, Dominick Fernandez, ‘An account of the Empire of China’, in A. Churchill (ed.), A Collection of Voyages and Travels (Churchill: London, 1732), Volume 1, p. 293. A Court of Committees, 6 June 1673, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1671-73, p. 242. A Court of Committees, 1 November 1673, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1671-73, p. 282. A Court of Committees, 3 October 1673, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1671-73, p. 272. A Court of Committees, 26 August 1674, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc of the East India Company 1674-1676 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1935), p. 272. Morgan, Edmund S., American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (W. W. Norton: New York, 1975), p. 85. A Court of Committees, 3 October 1673, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1671-73, p. 272. A Court of Committees, 13 February 1674, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1674-76, p. 20. A Court of Committees, 19 November 1673, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1671-73, p. 287. BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 41v-44v, 19 December 1673. A Court of Committees, 12 December 1673, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1671-73, p. 296. A Court of Committees, 26 August 1674, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1674-76, p. 272. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 89v-98, 1 August 1683. The Company to Captain Hopefor Bendall, 18 April 1674, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1674-76, p. 47. A Court of Committees, 20 September 1676, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1674-76, p. 349. BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 169v-171, 27 October 1676. BL, IOR E/3/89, f. 123, 24 March 1680. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 175-180v, 5 April 1684. Beeckman, Daniel, A Voyage To and From the Island of Borneo in the East Indies (T. Warner: London, 1718), pp. 194-95 of the 1973 edition (Dawsons of Pall Mall: London). Ovington, John, A Voyage to Surat in the Year 1689 (Oxford University Press: London, 1929), p. 57. BL, IOR E/3/88, f. 61v, 10 April 1674.

NOTES 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91

201

BL, IOR E/3/87, f. 175-175v, 9 March 1669. St Helena Archives (SHA), EIC 1/2, pp. 26-35, 24 February 1684. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 182-87, 22 June 1685. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 386-93, 27 August 1683. BL, IOR E/3/89, ff. 277v-278, 14 March 1681. BL, IOR E/3/89, ff. 74-76, 15 December 1698. BL, IOR E/3/92, f. 16, 3 April 1689. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 170-98, 14 March 1681. BL, IOR G/32/2, St Helena Consultations, 8 May 1682. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 224-36, 13 March 1682. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 314-15, 17 March 1687. BL, IOR G/32/118, no. 38, 1722. SHA, EIC 1/6, pp. 216-17, 15 October 1701. BL, IOR E/3/95, ff. 152-56, 30 November 1704. BL, IOR E/3/91, ff. 179v-186v, 3 August 1687. BL, IOR E/3/92, f. 16, 3 April 1689. BL, IOR E/3/95, ff. 152-56, 30 November 1704. BL, IOR E/3/97, ff. 297-303v, 30 May 1712. BL, IOR E/3/91, ff. 179v-186v, 3 August 1687. BL, IOR E/3/91, f. 187, 3 August 1687. BL, IOR E/3/91, ff. 188v-189, 31 August 1687. BL IOR E/3/91, f. 189, 6 September 1687. BL, IOR E/3/91, f. 189, 9 September 1687. BL, IOR E/3/93, ff. 131-32, 20 December 1699. BL, IOR E/3/95, ff. 49-51, 17 February 1703. BL, IOR E/3/95, ff. 152-56, 30 November 1704. BL, IOR E/3/96, ff. 15-26, 14 and 20 December 1705 and BL, IOR E/3/96, ff. 15863v, 7 April 1708. Farrington, A., ‘Bengkulu: an Anglo-Chinese partnership’, in H. V. Bowen, Margarette Lincoln and Nigel Rigby (eds), The Worlds of the East India Company (Boydell Press: Woodbridge, 2002), p. 111. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 175-80v, 5 April 1684. Schreier, D. and Lavarello-Schreier, K., Tristan da Cunha: History, People, Language (Battlebridge Publications: London, 2003). BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 250-51v, 26 November 1684, another manuscript copy, Bodleian Library, Oxford, Rawlinson Papers, MS Rawl A. 302, ff. 87-88v. Royle, Stephen A., ‘Perilous shipwreck, misery and unhappiness: the British military at Tristan da Cunha, 1816-1817’, Journal of Historical Geography 29.4 (2003) pp. 516-34. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 14-17, 2 September 1678. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 250-60 and BL, IOR G/32/2, St Helena Consultation, 11 July 1682. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 294-305 and BL, IOR G/32/2, St Helena Consultation, 20 November 1682. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 344-55, 9 April 1683. SHA, EIC, 1/2, no pagination, 30 June 1684. Walsh, L. S. (1979) ‘“Till death us do part”: marriage and family in seventeenth century Maryland’, in Tate and Ammerman: Chesapeake, pp. 126-52. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 330-43, 19 March 1683. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 372-85, 30 July 1683. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 279-86, 5 August 1686. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 417-421, 26 November 1683. Ovington: Voyage, p. 63. Ovington: Voyage, p. 59

202

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Chapter 4 1

2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

British Columbia Archives, Vancouver Island Colony, Blanshard Papers, MS-0611, 21 July 1849; James Douglas’s Commission to be Governor and Vice-Admiral of Vancouver Island, Add MSS 821, 16 May 1851. Minutes of His Majesty’s Council of Bermuda, 16 November 1686, reprinted in Bermuda Historical Quarterly 2.1 (1945). Greene, Jack P., Pursuits of Happiness: The Social Development of Early Modern British Colonies and the Formation of American Culture (University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, 1988), p. 17. Chapin, Bradley, Criminal Justice in Colonial America, 1606-1660 (University of Georgia Press: Athens, 1983). British Library (BL), IOR E/3/85, f. 96-96v, 11 January 1659. BL, IOR E/3/85, ff. 177-79, 19 December 1660. BL, IOR E/3/87, f. 219v, 22 February 1670. A Court of Committees, 15 January 1673, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc of the East India Company 1671-1673 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1932), p. 123. BL, IOR G/32/1, pp. 1-3, 19 October 1673. Bodleian Library, Rawlinson Manuscripts, MS Rawl B.516, ff. 28-35 and BL, IOR V 7697; see also J. Cant, His Majesty’s Grant of the Island of St. Helena (The Wanderer: London, 1999) and http://www.bweaver.nom.sh/sh_charter.htm (accessed 15 December 2006). BL, IOR G/32/1, ff. 3-7, 19 December 1673. Court of Committees, 8 October 1673, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1671-73, p. 274. BL, IOR G/32/1, ff. 11-14, 20 March 1679. St Helena Archives (SHA), EIC 1/1, p. 90, 26 January 1680. BL, IOR E/3/89, f. 131v, 14 April 1680. BL, IOR E/3/89, ff. 272-76v, 10 March 1681; another, slightly different, at BL, IOR G/32/1, ff. 16-32. Chapin: Criminal Justice. BL, IOR E/3/89, ff. 276v-77, 14 March 1681. SHA, EIC 1/3, pp. 271-93, 4 and 5 December 1690. BL, IOR E/3/95, ff. 152-56, 30 November 1704; Keble, J., An Assistance to Justices of the Peace for the Easier Performance of their Duty (Dring, Harper and Keble: London, 1689). SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 404-10, 25 October 1683. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 41-46, 12 November 1683. Kupperman, Karen Ordahl, Providence Island, 1630-1641: The Other Puritan Colony (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1993), p. 55. Neu Guinea Compagnie, ‘Annual Report for 1886-87’, p. 10. Agreement between the Jaluit-Gesellschaft and the Reich (Marshall Islands History Sources No. 10: http://marshall.csu.edu.au/Marshalls/html/history/JaluitContract.html (accessed 3 January 2007)). BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 89v-98, 1 August 1683; another at IOR G/32/1 pp. 35-44. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 1-4, 8 January 1684. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 204-11, 12 August 1685. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 76-84, 22 December 1679. BL, IOR E/3/95, ff. 152-56, 30 November 1704. BL, IOR E/3/91, ff. 179-86v, 3 August 1687. BL, IOR E/3/92, f. 16, 5 April 1689. BL, IOR E/3/95, ff. 49-51, 17 February 1703. BL, IOR E/3/96, ff. 195-96, 5 May 1708. BL, IOR E/3/97, ff. 129v-44v, 17 April 1711. BL, IOR E/3/90, f. 108-108v, 15 August 1683.

NOTES 37

38 39 40 41

42 43 44 45 46 48 47 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

203

Neu Guinea Compagnie, ‘Annual report for 1887-88’, in Peter Sack and Dymphna Clark, German New Guinea: The Annual Reports (Australian National University Press: Canberra, 1979), p. 27. SHA, EIC 1/1, p. 12, 19 August 1678. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 172-74, 25 May 1685. SHA, EIC 1/2, p. 5, continued p.8, 9 January 1688. Court of Committees, 21 January 1678, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc. of the East India Company, 1677-1679 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1938), p. 148. BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 285v-289v, 15 March 1678. BL, IOR E/3/89, ff. 277v-278, 14 March 1681. Lincolnshire Archives, Ancaster Papers, 3 Anc 9/21/1, ff. 5-7, c. 1694. BL, IOR E/3/93, ff. 74-76, 15 December 1698. BL, IOR E/3/89, f. 123, 24 March 1680. SHA, EIC 1/3, pp. 161-74, 3 March 1690. BL, IOR G/32/2, St Helena Consultation, 15 July 1676. BL, IOR E/3/85, ff. 94-95, 11 January 1659. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 319-24, 15 January 1683. SHA, EIC 1/3, pp. 161-74, 3 March 1690. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 104-109, 12 April 1680. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 144-50, 25 August 1680. SHA, EIC 1/4, pp. 287-300, 6 July 1696. BL, IOR G/32/3, St Helena Consultation, 15 January 1706. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 125-27, 5 July 1680. Kupperman: Providence Island. Pers, Walberg, Dutch Enterprise and the VOC, 1602-1799 (Rijksmuseum: Amsterdam, 1998). Horn, James, Adapting to a New World: English Society in Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake (University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, 1994), p. 382. BL, IOR E/3/85, ff. 94-95, 11 January 1659. A Court of Committees, 3 December and 10 December 1669, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc of the East India Company 1668-1670 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1929), p. 280 and p. 284. Navarette, Dominick Fernandez, ‘An account of the Empire of China’, in A. Churchill (ed.), A Collection of Voyages and Travels (Churchill: London, 1732), Volume I, p. 293. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 224-36, 13 March 1682. Chapin: Criminal Justice. BL, IOR E/3/85, ff. 177-79, 19 December 1660. BL, IOR E/3/87, f. 23, 28 December 1666. BL, IOR E/3/87, f. 176, 9 March 1669. Committee for Shipping and Plantations, 30 September 1670, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1668-70, p. 366. A Court of Committees, 4 November 1670, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1668-70, p. 379. BL, IOR E/3/87, ff. 202v-203, 9 December 1670. BL, IOR/E/3/91, ff. 179v-186v, 3 August 1687; others at BL, IOR G/32/1, ff. 4551; and BL, Add Ms 20240, ff. 1-4. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 89v-98, 1 August 1683; another at BL, IOR G/32/1 ff. 35-44. A Court of Committees, 11 November 1670 and A Meeting of Committees, 24 November 1670, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1668-70, p. 382 and p. 386. BL, IOR E/3/87, ff. 202v-203, 9 December 1670. Court of Committees, 5 December 1673, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1671-73, p. 294. BL, IOR E/3/87, ff. 202v-203, 9 December 1670.

204 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Cannan, Edward, A History of the Diosese of St Helena and its Precursors, 1502-1984 (Government Printing Office: St Helena, 1985). Court of Committees, 1 May 1672, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1671-73, p. 123. See, for example, Smallman, David L., Quincentenary: A Story of St Helena, 1502-2002 (Patten Press: Penzance 2003). Court of Committees, 8 May 1672, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1671-73, p. 125; a copy of Coney’s letter of dismissal is at BL, IOR E/3/87, f. 275v, 14 June 1672. BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 4v-5, 19 July 1672. Court of Committees, 24 July 1672, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1671-73, p. 150. Court of Committees, 26 May 1673, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1671-73, p. 238. A Court of Committees, 28 October 1673 and 19 November 1673, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1671-73, p. 281 and p. 287 and BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 41v-44v, 19 December 1673. BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 41v-44v, 19 December 1673. A Meeting of Committees, 24 November 1670, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1668-70, p. 386. BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 41v-44v, 18 December 1674. BL, IOR G/32/1, ff. 8-10, 20 February 1677. BL, IOR E/3/93, f. 227, 16 April 1701. BL, IOR E/3/89, ff. 272-76v, 10 March 1681. BL, IOR E/3/89, f. 203-203v, 20 May 1681. BL, IOR E/3/89, f. 123, 24 March 1680. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 89v-98, 1 August 1683; another at IOR G/32/1 ff. 35-44. SHA EIC 1/2 pp. 44-55, 11 April 1684. BL, IOR E/3/90, f. 108-108v, 15 August 1683; another at BL, IOR G/32/1, ff. 3544. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 400-401, 15 October 1683. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 1-4, 8 January 1684. SHA EIC 1/2, pp. 26-35, 24 February 1684. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 80-82, 5 August 1684. SHA, EIC 1/2, p. 87, 15 August 1684. SHA, EIC, 1/3, pp. 381-83, 20 January 1692. SHA, EIC 1/3, pp. 414-15, July 1692 (partial record only). SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 231-32, 2 December 1685. BL, IOR E/3/92, f. 16, 5 April 1689. Pers: Dutch Enterprise, p. 79. BL, IOR E/3/93, ff. 74-76, 15 December 1698. BL, IOR E/3/93, ff. 131-32, 20 December 1699. BL, IOR E/3/93, f. 165v, 4 July 1700. BL, IOR E/3/93, f. 227, 16 April 1701; another version at BL, IOR G/32/1, ff. 5356. BL, IOR E/3/93, ff. 231v-232, 6 May 1701. BL, IOR E/3/95, ff. 120v-124, 31 December 1703. BL, IOR E/3/95, ff. 152-56, 30 November 1704. BL, IOR E/3/95, ff. 152-56, 30 November 1704. BL, IOR E/3/96, ff. 15-26, 20 December 1706. BL, IOR E/3/95, ff. 152-56, 30 November 1704. SHA, EIC 1/6, pp. 201-205, 26 August 1701. Lambeth Palace Library, Gibson Papers, Volume 1, MS 929/52, 29 November 1705. BL, IOR G/32/3, St Helena Consultations, 1 July 1706; BL, IOR E/3/96, ff. 15-26, 20 December 1706. Cannan: Churches, p. 30. Beeckman, Daniel, A Voyage To and From the Island of Borneo in the East Indies (T. Warner: London, 1718), p. 196 of the 1973 edition (Dawsons of Pall Mall: London).

NOTES

205

Chapter 5 1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

E., T. (Thomas Edgar), The Lawes Resolutions of Womens Rights (Iohn Grove: London, 1632). Chapin, Bradley, Criminal Justice in Colonial America, 1606-1660 (University of Georgia Press: Athens, 1983), p. 9. Lambeth Palace Library, Gibson Papers, Volume 1, MS 929/52, 29 November 1705 British Library (BL), IOR E/3/88, ff. 41v-44v, 19 December 1673. Court of Committees, 12 December 1673, in Ethel B. Sainsbury A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc. of the East India Company, 1671-1673 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1932) p. 296. BL, IOR E/3/85, ff. 177-79, 19 December 1660. Court of Committees, 21 August 1674, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc. of the East India Company, 1671-1676 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1935), p. 74. Court of Committees, 26 August 1674, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1671-76, pp. 76-77. Ovington, John, A Voyage to Surat in the year 1689 (Oxford University Press: London: 1929), pp. 59-60. Court of Committees, 16 January 1678, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc. of the East India Company, 1677-1679 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1938), p. 138. BL, IOR G/32/3, 4 April 1706. BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 285v-289v, 15 March 1678. BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 285v-289v, 15 March 1678. BL, IOR E/3/89, f. 123, 24 March 1680. BL, IOR G/32/2 and SHA, EIC 1/2, p. 137, 5 January 1685. Hughes, Vivien, ‘Women in public life: the Canadian Persons case of 1929’, British Journal of Canadian Studies 19.2 (2007), forthcoming. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 89v-98, 1 August 1683. St Helena Archives (SHA), EIC 1/4, pp. 287-300, 6 July 1696. A List of the Honourable Company’s Blacks, Their Names, Ages, Employment and Qualitys at the Several Plantations, BL, G/32/118 no. 81, 26 March 1723. BL, IOR E/3/93, ff. 74-76, 15 December 1698. BL, IOR E/3/87, f. 24, December 1666. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 199-204, 10 August 1685. Honourable Company’s Blacks. Walsh, L. S., ‘“Till death us do part”: marriage and family in seventeenth century Maryland’, in Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman (eds), The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society (University of North Caroline Press: Chapel Hill, 1979), p. 139. Horn, James, Adapting to a New World: English Society in Seventeenth Century Chesapeake (University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, 1994), p. 205. BL, IOR E/3/89, ff. 272-76v, 10 March 1681. BL, IOR G/32/2, 23 October 1682. BL, IOR G/32/2, St Helena Consultation, 1 April 1676. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 330-43, 19 March 1683. BL, IOR G/32/2 and SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 294-305, 20 November 1682. Sharpe, James A., Defamation and Sexual Slander in Early Modern England: The Church Courts at York (Borthwick Papers: York, 1980) no. 58, p. 1. SHA, EIC 1/3, pp. 464-69, 20 March 1693. SHA, EIC 1/4, pp. 180-94, 7-8 January 1695. SHA, EIC 1/4, pp. 180-94, 7-8 January 1695. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp.76-84, 22 December 1679. SHA, EIC, 1/4, pp. 36-44, 4 July 1693. BL, IOR G/32/3, 12 March 1706.

206 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

BL, IOR E/3/95, ff. 152-56, 30 November 1704. SHA, EIC 1/3, pp. 161-74, 3 March 1690. SHA, EIC 1/3, pp. 241-42, 19 July 1690. BL, IOR G/32/3, 15 January 1706 and 26 February 1706. Dampier, William, Dampier’s Voyages (E. Grant Richards: London, 1906), pp. 526-27. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 36-44, 18 March 1684. BL, IOR G/32/2, 1 April 1676. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 372-85, 30 July 1683. BL, IOR G/32/2, 15 July 1676. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 139-43, 27 September 1680. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 89v-98, 1 August 1683. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 104-109, 12 April 1680. SHA EIC 1/2, pp. 392-95, 12 December 1687. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 386-90, 24 November 1687. Honourable Company’s Blacks. BL, IOR G/32/1, 19 December 1673. Court of Committees, 20 October 1676, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1674-76, p. 367. Honourable Company’s Blacks. A List of Families, Lands and Neat Cattle on the Island of St Helena for the Year 1722, BL, IOR G/32/118, no. 38. Zuckerman, M., ‘Identity in British America: unease in Eden’, in Nicholas Canny and Anthony Pagden (eds), Colonial Identity in the Atlantic World, 1500-1800 (Princeton University Press: Princeton, 1987), p. 146. SHA, EIC 1/6, pp. 240-41, 9 December 1701. SHA, EIC 1/4, pp. 70-75, 2 October 1693. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 36-44, 18 March 1684. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 314-15, 17 March 1687. SHA, EIC, 1/3, pp. 241-42, 19 July 1690. BL, E/3/88, f. 45, 20 December 1673. BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 169v-171, 27 October 1676. BL, IOR G/32/4, 5 July 1709 and 2 August 1709. BL, IOR E/3/93, ff. 74-76, 15 December 1698. Journal of the House of Commons, 10 (1688-1693), pp. 135, 139, 151-52, 155-56, 341. SHA, EIC 1/3, pp. 177-83, 20 March 1690. BL, IOR G/32/3, St Helena Consultation, 12 February 1706.

Chapter 6 1

2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9

Royle, Stephen A. ‘“The island has been handed over to me”: Ascension Island as a company colony, 1922-1942’, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 25.1 (2004), pp. 10926. Provincial Archives of Manitoba, Hudson’s Bay Company Archives (HBCA), Fort Rupert Post Journal, 1849-50, B.185/a/1, 10 February 1850. HBCA, Fort Victoria Correspondence Book, B.226/b/14, 2 November 1853. HBCA, James Douglas Outward Correspondence, B.226/b/3, 5 August 1850. Greene, Jack P., Pursuits of Happiness: The Social Development of Early Modern British Colonies and the Formation of American Culture (University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, 1988), p. 182. Schulenburg, Helmut and Schulenburg, Alexander H., St Helena, South Atlantic Ocean (Jacob-Gilardi-Verlag: Allersberg, 1997). British Library (BL), IOR E/3/90, f. 250-51v, 26 November 1684. Warrant, 23 December 1673, in Ethel B. Sainsbury (1932) A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc. of the East India Company, 1671-1673 (Clarendon Press: Oxford), p. 303. BL, IOR/E/3/85, ff. 94-95v, 11 January 1659.

NOTES 10 11 12 13 14

15

16 17

18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

207

BL, IOR/E/3/85, ff. 113-14v, 23 June 1659. BL, IOR/E/3/85, ff. 114v-115, 23 June 1659. BL, IOR E/3/86, f. 73v, 11 July 1662. BL, IOR E/3/86, ff. 155v-156, 24 September 1663. Court of Committees, 28 November 1666, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc. of the East India Company, 1674-1676 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1925), p. 267. Gargen, Henry, A Narrative of ye Island St Helena for the Planting it & Soile of ye Island & How the Inhabitants Imployed &c from anno 1661 to 1665, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson Papers, MS Rawl C. 843. BL, IOR E/3/87, f. 175-175v, 9 March 1669. BL, IOR E/3/87, ff. 202v-203, 9 December 1670; Committee for Shipping and Plantations, 30 September 1670, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc. of the East India Company, 1668-1670 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1929), p. 364. Miller, R. The East Indiamen (Time-Life Books: Alexandria, Virginia, 1980), p. 84. The Company to the Governor and Council of St Helena, 6 April 1677, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc. of the East India Company, 1677-1679 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1938), p. 36. St Helena Archives (SHA), EIC 1/2, p. 332, 6 May 1687. BL, IOR E/3/89, ff. 277v-278, 14 March 1681. BL, IOR E/3/93, ff. 74-76, 15 December 1698. Court of Committees, 11 February 1670, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1668-70, p. 304. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 175-80v, 5 April 1684. BL, IOR E/3/91, ff. 179v-186v, 3 August 1687. BL, IOR E/3/90, f. 250-250v, 26 November 1684; another at Bodleian Library, Rawlinson Papers, MS Rawl A. 302, ff. 87-88v. SHA, EIC 1/3, pp. 177-83, 20 March 1690. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 330-43, 19 March 1683. BL, IOR E/3/89, f. 203-203v, 20 May 1681; another at BL, IOR G/32/1, ff. 14-15. BL, Orme Manuscripts, MSS EUR/ORME OV4, ff. 111-14. BL, IOR E/3/87, f. 24, December 1666. Gargen: A Narrative. BL, IOR E/3/86, f. 157, 30 September 1663. SHA EIC 4/1, pp. 90-91, 23 January 1679. Lincolnshire Archives, Ancaster Papers, 3 Anc 9/21/1. BL, IOR E/3/89, ff. 277v-278, 14 March 1681. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 89v-98, 1 August 1683; another at BL, IOR G/32/1, pp. 35-44. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 175-80v, 5 April 1684. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 175-80v, 5 April 1684. BL, IOR E/3/93, ff. 131-32, 20 December 1699. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 175-80v, 5 April 1684. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 89v-98, 1 August 1683; another at BL, IOR G/32/1, pp. 35-44. BL, IOR G/32/3, 28 August 1708. BL, IOR E/3/96, ff. 158-63, 7 April 1708. BL, IOR G/32/4, 12 July 1709. BL, IOR G/32/2, St Helena Consultation, 10 April 1682. SHA, EIC 1/2, pagination awry, 30 June 1684. SHA, EIC 1/6, pp. 220-23, 13 November 1701. SHA, EIC 1/3, pp. 363-67. 26 October 1691. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 175-80v, 5 April 1684. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 175-80v, 5 April 1684. BL, IOR E/3/96, ff. 15-26, 20 December 1706. BL, IOR E/3/97, ff. 129v-144v, 17 April 1711.

208 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78

79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

BL, IOR G/32/2, St Helena Consultation, 13 October 1684. BL, IOR E/3/97, ff, 129v-144v, 17 April 1711. BL, IOR E/3/86, ff. 155v-156, 24 September 1663. BL, IOR E/3/97, ff. 129v-144v, 17 April 1711. BL, IOR G/32/3, St Helena Consultation, 26 August 1707. BL, IOR G/32/3, St Helena Consultation, 26 August 1707. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 262-63, June 1686. BL, IOR G/32/118 no 1, St Helena Consultation, 22 October 1698. BL, IOR G/32/118 no 1, St Helena Consultation, 1 November 1698. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 336-39, 15 June 1687. BL, IOR G/32/3, St Helena Consultation, 14 January 1706. SHA, EIC 1/3, pp. 212-16, 20 May 1690. SHA, EIC 1/3, pp. 416-20, 25 July 1692. SHA, EIC 1/6, pp. 220-23, 13 November 1701. SHA, EIC 1/6, p. 239, 29 November 1701. BL, IOR G/32/2, St Helena Consultation, 12 February 1706. SHA, EIC 1/3, pp. 318-23, 11 May 1691. BL, IOR G/32/2, 15 July 1676. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 36-44, 18 March 1684. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 88-95, 8 September 1684. BL, IOR G/32/2, 15 July 1676. BL, IOR G/32/2, 22 July 1676. BL, IOR G/32/2, 21 July 1676. SHA, EIC, 1/6, pp. 319-21, 6 October 1702. Greene, Jack P., ‘Changing identity in the British Caribbean: Barbados as a case study’, in Nicholas Canny and Anthony Pagden (eds), Colonial Identity in the Atlantic World, 1500-1800 (Princeton University Press: Princeton, 1987), p. 222. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 67-70, 3 November 1679. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 71-72, 6 November 1679. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 73-75, 24 November 1679. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 76-84, 22 December 1679 BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 89v-98, 1 August 1683; another at BL, IOR G/32/1, pp. 35-44 Marshall, Trevor G., Barbados: A Short History, http://www.casuarina.com/island/history.html (accessed 18 December 2006). BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 175-80v. 5 April 1684. BL, IOR/E/3/91, ff. 179v-186v, 3 August 1687. BL, IOR/E/3/96, ff. 389-94, 11 January 1710. BL, IOR G/32/3, St Helena Consultation, 15 January 1706. BL, IOR G/32/3, St Helena Consultation, 17 January 1706. BL, IOR G/32/3, St Helena Consultation, 14 January 1706. BL, IOR G/32/3, St Helena Consultation, 17 January 1706. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 89v-98, 1 August 1683; another at BL, IOR G/32/1, pp. 35-44. BL, IOR E/3/96, ff. 15-26, 20 December 1706. BL, IOR E/3/90, f. 250-51v, 26 November 1684; another at Bodleian Library, Rawlinson Papers, MS Rawl A. 302 ff. 87-88v. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 76-84, 22 December 1679. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 71-72, 6 November 1679. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 76-84, 22 December 1679. BL, IOR E/3/89, f. 123, 24 March 1680. BL, IOR G/32/2, St Helena Consultation, 10 April 1682. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 89v-98, 1 August 1683; another at IOR G/32/1, pp. 35-44. SHA, EIC, 1/2, pp. 264-75, 22 June 1686. SHA, EIC1/2, pp. 386-90, 24 November 1687.

NOTES 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124

SHA, EIC 1/4, pp. 64-67, 6 September 1693. SHA, EIC 1/4, pp. 237-51, 3 December 1695. SHA, EIC 1/4, pp. 253-60, 16 December 1695. BL, IOR G/32/3, St Helena Consultation, 26 August 1707. BL, IOR G/32/3, St Helena Consultation, 11 September 1707 (the second that day). BL, IOR G/32/3, St Helena Consultation, 26 August 1707. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 35-36, 21 January 1679. SHA, EIC 1/6, pp. 56-59, 3 April 1700. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 19-22, 31 January 1684. BL, IOR E/3/97, ff. 129v-144v, 17 April 1711. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 89v-98, 1 August 1683; another at BL, IOR G/32/1, pp. 35-44. SHA, EIC, 1/1, pp. 76-84, 22 December 1679. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 89v-98, 1 August 1683. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 243-51, 8 February 1686. Court of Committees, 7 December 1670, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1668-70, p. 390; see also BL, IOR E/3/87, ff. 202v-203, 9 December 1670. BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 41v-44v, 19 December 1673. A List of Families, Lands and Neat Cattle on the Island of St Helena for the Year 1722, BL, IOR G/32/118, no. 38. SHA, EIC 1/3, pp. 175-77, 4-5 March 1690. BL, IOR E/3/89, ff. 272-76v, 10 March 1681. SHA, EIC 1/1, p. 158, 4 January 1681. SHA, EIC 1/1, p. 186, 25 April 1681. SHA, EIC, 1/6, pp. 319-21, 6 October 1702.

Chapter 7 1

2

3 4

5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

209

Smith, John, ‘Historie of Bermudas, or Summer Islands’, in Samuel Purchas, Purchas His Pilgrims in Five Bookes (Henry Featherstone: London, 1625), Volume IV, p. 1803 and p. 1804. Kennedy, Jean C., Isle of Devils: Bermuda under the Somers Island Company, 1609-1685 (Collins: London, 1971), p. 245; see also Wilkinson, H. C., The Adventurers of Bermuda: A History of the Island from its Discovery until the Dissolution of the Somers Island Company in 1684 (Oxford University Press: London, 1958). British Library (BL), Lansdowne Papers, 1152B, ff. 205-17, 27 October 1686. Elliott, J. H., ‘Introduction: colonial identity in the Atlantic world’, in Nicholas Canny and Anthony Pagden (eds), Colonial Identity in the Atlantic World, 1500-1800 (Princeton University Press: Princeton, 1987), p. 8. Horn, James, Adapting to a New World: English Society in Seventeenth Century Chesapeake (University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, 1994), p. 334. Letters Patent granted by His Majesty to the East India Company, 3 April 1661, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc. of the East India Company, 16601663 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1925), p. 107. BL, IOR E/3/91, ff. 179v-186v, 3 August 1687. St Helena Archives (SHA), EIC 1/6, pp. 309-12, 18 August 1702. BL, IOR E/3/92, f. 20, 8 February 1689. BL, IOR E/3/89, ff. 30v-31, 8 November 1678. Morgan, Edmund S., American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (W. W. Norton: New York, 1975), p. 75. Anon, A Description of the Island of St Helena (R. Phillips: London, 1805), Chapter V. de Rennefort, Sochu, Histoires des Indes Orientales (Frederick Harring: Paris, 1688), p. 200. Navarette, Dominick Fernandez, ‘An account of the Empire of China’, in A. Churchill (ed.), A Collection of Voyages and Travels (Churchill: London, 1732), Volume 1, p. 293.

210 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

43 44 45

46 47 48

49 50 51 52 53 54 55

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Isaac Titsingh, 1786, cited in Pers, Walberg, Dutch Enterprise and the VOC, 1602-1799 (Rijksmuseum: Amsterdam, 1998), p. 89. BL, IOR E/3/91, f. 190, 31 August 1687. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 302-11, 26 February 1687. Cannan, Edward, Churches of the South Atlantic Islands (Anthony Nelson: Oswestry, 1992) p. 32. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 302-11, 26 February 1687. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 312-13, 7 March 1687. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 330-31, 23 April 1687. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 339-51, 27 June 1687. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 352-60, 18 July 1687. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 361-63, 20 July 1687. SHA, EIC 1/2, p. 384, 24 October 1687. SHA, EIC 1/2, p. 385, 5 November 1687. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 390-91, 3 December 1687. SHA, EIC 1/2, p. 5, continued p. 8, 9 January 1688 (bound out of sequence; should have been in EIC 1/3). BL, IOR E/3/92, f. 20, 8 February 1689. BL, IOR E/3/92, f. 16, 5 April 1689. BL, IOR E/3/92, f. 16, 5 April 1689. SHA, EIC 1/6, p. 154, between April and December 1700. BL, IOR E/3/93, f. 227, 16 April 1701; another at IOR G/32/1, ff. 53-56. SHA, EIC 1/6, pp. 156-57, between May and July 1701. BL, IOR E/3/93, ff. 312v-314, 26 February 1703. BL, IOR E/3/96, ff. 195-96, 5 May 1708. BL, IOR E/3/97, ff. 297-303v, 30 May 1712. BL, IOR E/3/93, f. 227, 16 April 1701; another at IOR G/32/1, ff. 53-56. BL, IOR E/3/86, ff. 155v-156, 24 September 1663. BL, IOR G/32/1, f. 44, 22 August 1683. BL, IOR E/3/87, f. 110v, 15 June 1668. A Court of Committees, 16 June 1669, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc. of the East India Company, 1668-1670 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1929), p. 206. BL, IOR E/3/87, f. 110v, 15 June 1668. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 89v-98, 1 August 1683; another at BL, IOR G/32/1, pp. 35-44. A Court of Committees, 11 March 1672, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc. of the East India Company, 1671-1673 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1932), p. 115. A Court of Committees, 15 January 1673, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1671-73, p. 205. BL, IOR E/3/88, f. 285-285v, 20 February 1677. Ogborn, Miles, ‘Writing travels: power, knowledge and ritual on the English East India Company’s early voyages’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 27.2 (2002), p. 163. BL, IOR G/32/1, pp. 1-3, 19 October 1673; another at Bodleian Library, Rawlinson Manuscripts, MS Rawl B.516, ff. 28-35. BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 140v-141, 8 March 1675. BL, IOR E/3/89, ff. 272-76v, 10 March 1681. Kupperman, Karen Ordahl, Providence Island, 1630-1641: The Other Puritan Colony (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993), p. 130. SHA, EIC 1/1, p. 186, 25 April 1681. Ovington, John, A Voyage to Surat in the Year 1689 (Oxford University Press: London, 1929), p. 59. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 68-70, 14 July 1684.

NOTES 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

211

SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 71-79, 29 July 1684. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 89v-98, 1 August 1683. BL, IOR E/3/91, f. 190, 31 August 1687. National Archives, C 108/203 108, 20 February 1726. BL, IOR E/3/89, f. 123, 24 March 1680. BL, IOR E/3/89, ff. 272-76v, 10 March 1681; another at BL, IOR G/32/1, ff. 16-32 Gosse calls him ‘Bird’; Gosse, Philip, St Helena, 1502-1938 (Cassell: London, 1938), p. 73 (of the 1990 re-issue, Anthony Nelson: Oswestry). Basse, William, Journal of the London, captained by William Bass, belonging to the Honble East India Company, a voyage to India 1672-74, BL, IOR L/MAR/A LXXI. A Court of Committees, 28 August 1674, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc. of the East India Company, 1674-1676 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1935), p. 79; see also the introduction, p. ix. Bruce, John, Annals of the Honourable East-India Company (East India Company: London, 1810). BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 272v-274v, 6 May 1685. SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 159-63, 12 February 1681. SHA, EIC 1/2, p. 87, 15 August 1684. BL, IOR E/3/90, f. 252, 26 November 1684. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 272-74v, 6 May 1685. BL, IOR E/3/90, f. 252, 26 November 1684. BL, Orme Manuscripts, IOR OV4, ff. 111-14. BL, IOR G/32/2, St Helena Consultation, 13 October 1684. BL, IOR G/32/2, St Helena Consultation, 13 October 1684. The story of the 1684 rebellion was constructed from a number of archival sources: the trial of the four ringleaders, BL IOR G/32/2, St Helena Consultation, 30 December 1684; the reply by Lord Sunderland on behalf of James II to the company’s report of the sedition: BL, IOR E/3/90, f. 275-275v, 14 April 1685; another missive from the king of the same date to the governor and council on St Helena: BL, IOR E/3/90, f. 276-276v; and a petition to parliament, BL, Orme Manuscripts, MSS EUR/ORME OV.4, ff. 111-14. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 64-67, 16 June 1684. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 71-79, 29 July 1684. BL, IOR G/32/2, St Helena Consultation, 23 and 24 December 1684. BL, Orme Manuscripts, MSS EUR/ORME OV.4, ff. 111-14. BL, Orme Manuscripts, MSS EUR/ORME OV.4, ff. 111-14. BL IOR G/32/2, St Helena Consultation, 30 December 1684. BL, IOR G/32/2, St Helena Consultation, 2 January 1685. SHA, EIC 1/2, p. 137, 5 January 1685; another at BL, IOR G/32/2. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 138-39, 15 January 1685. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 139-41, 19 January 1685. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 142-43, 20 January 1685. SHA EIC 1/2, pp. 144-45, 26 January 1685. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 272v-274v, 6 May 1685. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 26-35, 24 February 1684. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 204-11, 12 August 1685. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 235-42, 1 January 1686. BL, IOR H/42, 8 January 1685. BL, IOR E/3/90, f. 275-275v, 14 April 1685. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 272v-274v, 6 May 1685. BL, IOR E/3/90, f. 276-276v, 14 April 1685. BL, IOR E/3/89, f. 203-203v, 20 May 1681; another at IOR G/32/1, ff. 14-15. BL, IOR E/3/90, f. 276-276v, 14 April 1685.

212 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124

125 126

127 128 129

130 131 132 133

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

BL, Orme Manuscripts, IOR OV4, ff. 111-14. BL, IOR E/3/91, ff. 179v-186v, 3 August 1687; another at BL, IOR G/32/1, ff. 4551. Gill, R. and Teale, P., St Helena 500: A Chronological History of the Island (Creda Communications: Epping, 1999), p. 121. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 71-79, 29 July 1684. BL, IOR G/32/2, St Helena Consultation, 13 October 1684. BL, IOR G/32/2, St Helena Consultation, 1 December 1684. BL, Orme Manuscripts, IOR OV4, ff. 111-14. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 152-59, 23 February1685. BL, IOR E/3/91, ff. 179v-186v, 3 August 1687; another at BL, IOR G/32/1, ff. 4551. SHA, EIC 1/3, pp. 177-83, 20 March 1690. Journal of the House of Commons 10 (1688-1693), p. 135, p. 139, pp. 151-52, pp. 155-56, pp. 215-16 and p. 341. BL, Orme Manuscripts, MSS/EUR ORME OV.4, ff. 111-14. Journal of the House of Commons 10 (1688-1693), p. 341. Keay, John, The Honourable Company: A History of the English East India Company (HarperCollins: London, 1991). Gardner, Brian, The East India Company: A History (Rupert Hart Davies: London, 1971), p. 49. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 199-204, 10 August 1685. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 144-45, 26 January 1685. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 186-98, 20 July 1685. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 272v-274v, 6 May 1685. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 272v-274v, 6 May 1685. SHA, EIC 1/2, p. 164, 7 April 1685. BL, IOR G/32/3, St Helena Consultation, 2 July 1706. BL, IOR G/32/3, St Helena Court, 28 August 1706. SHA, EIC 1/4, pp. 50-59, 31 July 16931. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 64-67, 16 June 1684. BL, IOR G/32/2, St Helena Consultation, 23 December 1684. Jackson took a female slave in 1690, SHA, 1/3, pp. 241-42, 19 July 1690 and a male slave of his was in court on suspicion of burglary in 1692, SHA, EIC 1/3, pp. 416-20, 25 July 1692. SHA, EIC 1/3, pp. 464-69, 29 March 1693. Details of Leach’s crimes are recorded in SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 386-88, 18 December 1682; another at BL, IOR G/32/2; SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 330-43, 19 March 1683; SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 146-51, 9 February 1685; SHA, EIC 1/3, pp. 451-54, 1 December 1692. Smallman, David, Quincentenary: a story of St Helena, 1502-2002 (Patten Press: Penznance, 2003). Barlow, E., Barlow’s Journal of his Life at Sea in King’s Ships, East and West Indiamen and other Merchantmen from 1659 to 1703 (Hurst & Blackett: London, 1934), p. 445. The story is constructed from consultation of 24 April under the new Governor, Richard Kelinge, which included the inquest into Johnson’s murder and depositions taken on 22 June in the presence of visiting ships’ captains: SHA, EIC 1/4, pp. 1-4 and EIC 1/4, pp. 22-34; the later court case is at SHA, EIC 1/4, pp. 180-94, 7 and 8 January 1695. SHA, EIC 1/4, pp. 9-10, 4 May 1693. BL, IOR E/3/92, f. 181, 3 January 1694. SHA, EIC 1/1, p. 186, 25 April 1681. Lincolnshire Archives, Ancaster Papers, 3 Anc 9/21/1.

NOTES

213

Chapter 8 1 2 3

4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11

12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30 31

Kupperman, Karen Ordahl, Providence Island, 1630-1641: The Other Puritan Colony (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993). Bermuda National Trust, Bermuda’s Architectural Heritage, St George’s (Bermuda National Trust: Hamilton, 1998) p. 12. Smith, John, ‘Historie of Bermudas, or Summer Islands’, in Samuel Purchas, Purchas His Pilgrims in Five Bookes (Henry Featherstone: London, 1625), Volume IV, Chapter VIII. Blau, G. Mappa Ætivarum Insularum Alias Barmudas (reprinted, The Island Press: Bermuda, 1981). The importance of the Sommer Islands for All Services upon the West Indies by His Majesties Fleetes, British Library (BL), Egerton Papers 2543, ff. 127-28, 1661. Finlayson, Roderick, Autobiography, Provincial Archives of Manitoba, Hudson’s Bay Company Archives, E.176/1. Neu Guinea Compagnie, ‘Annual report for 1891-92 and 1892-93’, in Peter Sack and Dymphna Clark, German New Guinea: The Annual Reports (Australian National University Press: Canberra, 1979), p. 75. Smallman, David, Quincentenary: a story of St Helena, 1502-2002 (Patten Press: Penznance, 2003), p. 34. Rogers, Francis, ‘The diary of Francis Rogers, London merchant’, in B. S. Ingham (ed.), Three Sea Journals of Stuart Times (Constable: London, 1936), p. 192 and p. 193. British Library (BL), IOR E/3/96, ff. 389-94, 11 January 1710. Petition of the Company to the King, 1 October 1664, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc. of the East India Company, 1660-1663 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1925), p. 89. Court of Committees, 26 October 1664, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1660-63, p. 100. Court of Committees, 16 October 1669, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc. of the East India Company, 1668-1670 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1929), pp. 206-207. BL, IOR E/3/92, f. 375, 29 November 1695. BL, IOR E/3/89, ff. 272-76v, 10 March 1681. BL, IOR E/3/87, ff. 202v-203, 9 December 1670. BL, IOR E/3/87, f. 175-75v, 9 March 1669. BL, IOR E/3/87, ff. 274v-276, 14 June 1672. Navarette, Dominick Fernandez, ‘An account of the Empire of China’, in A. Churchill (ed.), A Collection of Voyages and Travels (Churchill: London, 1732), Volume 1, p. 293. Court of Committees, 23 June 1671, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc. of the East India Company, 1671-1673 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1932), p.45. BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 169v-171, 27 October 1676. BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 285v-289v, 15 March 1678. St Helena Archives (SHA), EIC 1/1, pp. 151-54, 22 September 1680. BL, IOR E/3/93, f. 227, 16 April 1701. BL, IOR E/3/96, ff. 15-26, 20 December 1706. Bellin, Jaques Nicolas, Le Petit Atlas Maritime Recuil des Cartes et de Plans des Quatre Parties du Monde, Tome III, Contenant 1. L’Asie; 11. L’Afrique avec les Details Interessans de ces Deux Partie, Plate 123: Plan de l’Isle Ste Helene; Plate 124: Plan de la Forteresse et Bourg, de l’Isle de Ste Helene (Paris,1764), copy held in the Royal Geographical Society, 9E1. Vue de la Partie de L’Isle St Helena par Mr Lafitte, Ingenieur des Colonies, National Archives (NA) MPH 1/251. BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 41v-44v, 19 December 1673. BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 285v-289v, 15 March 1678. St Helena Archives (SHA) EIC 1/2, pp. 58-63, 7 May 1684. BL, IOR E/3/88, f. 61v, 10 April 1674; BL, IOR E/3/88, f. 41v-44v, 18 December 1674.

214

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 3-4, 19 July 1678. SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 279-86, 5 August 1686. 34 Fryer, John, A New Account of East India and Persia Being Nine Years’ Travels, 1672-1681 (Ri Chiswell: London, 1698). 35 Ogborn, Miles, ‘Writing travels: power, knowledge and ritual on the English East India Company’s early voyages’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 27.2 (2002), p. 162. 36 BL, IOR E/3/89, ff. 272-76v, 10 March 1681. 37 BL, IOR 32/G/3, St Helena Consultation, 4 June 1706. 38 BL, IOR E/3/85, ff. 177-79, 19 December 1660. 39 BL, IOR E/3/87, f. 23, 28 December 1666. 40 BL, IOR E/3/87, ff. 202v-203, 9 December 1670. 41 BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 41v-44v, 19 December 1673. 42 BL, IOR E/3/89, f. 123, 24 March 1680. 43 BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 41v-44v, 19 December 1673. 44 SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 8-11, 5 August 1678. 45 SHA, EIC 1/3, pp. 121-24, 24 July 1689. 46 SHA, EIC 1/4, pp. 50-59, 31 July 1693. 47 BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 89v-98, 1 August 1683; another at BL, IOR G/32/1, pp. 35-44. 48 SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 372-85, 30 July 1683. 49 SHA, EIC 1/4, pp. 50-59, 31 July 1693. 50 SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 29-30, 2 December 1678; pp. 32-34, 30 December 1687; pp. 3536, 21 January 1679. 51 BL, IOR E/3/87, f. 23, 28 December 1666. 52 BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 285v-289v, 15 March 1678. 53 BL, IOR E/3/87, ff. 274v-276, 14 June 1672. 54 SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 8-11, 5 August 1678. 55 SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 43-44, 19 May 1679. 56 Bligh, William, Journal of Captain William Bligh, 1799-1800, NA, ADM/55/19. 57 SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 43-44, 19 May 1679. 58 SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 73-75, 24 November 1679. 59 SHA EIC 1/1, pp. 261-71, 28 August 1682; another at BL, IOR G/32/2. 60 SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 356-57, 26 April 1683. 61 BL, IOR G/32/2, St Helena Consultation, 12 February 1681; SHA EIC 1/1, pp. 39499, 24 September 1683. 62 BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 89v-98, 1 August 1683; another at BL, IOR G/32/1, pp. 35-44. 63 SHA, EIC 1/1, pp. 422-30, 20 December 1683. 64 SHA, EIC 1/2, pp. 36-44, 18 March 1684. 65 SHA, EIC 1/3, pp. 307-10, 22 April 1691. 66 Court of Committees for the New General Stock, 17 December 1658, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc of the East India Company 1655-1659 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1916), p. 302. 67 Letters Patent Granted by his Majesty to the East India Company, 3 April 1661, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc of the East India Company 16601663 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1922), p. 107. 68 BL, IOR E/3/85, ff. 94v-95v, 11 January 1659. 69 BL, IOR E/3/87, f. 270v, 15 March 1671. 70 SHA, EIC1/2, pp. 279-86, 5 August 1686. 71 BL, IOR E/3/87, f. 23, 28 December 1666. 72 du Bois, Sieur, Les Voyages Faits par le Sieur D. B. aux Isles Dauphine ou Madagascar, & Bourbon ou Mascarenne, és Annés 1669, 70, 71, 72 (Claude Barbin: Paris, 1674). 73 The Company to Captain Robert Medford, 14 June 1672, in Sainsbury: Calendar 167173, p. 135. 32 33

NOTES 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104

105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113

114 115

215

BL, IOR E/3/85, ff. 92v-94, 11 January 1659. BL, IOR E/3/95, ff. 49-51, 17 February 1703. Thornton, John, A New Map of St Helena (1673), BL, St Helena Island General maps and charts, CC2.d.23, 1673. BL, IOR L/MAR/A LXXI, 22-27 April 1674. BL, IOR G/32/1, ff. 3-7, 19 December 1673. BL, IOR E/3/88, ff. 285v-289v, 15 March 1678. BL, IOR E/3/89, f. 123, 24 March 1680. BL, IOR E/3/90, ff. 175v-180v, 5 April 1684. SHA, EIC 1/3, pp. 123-24, 24 July 1679. Dampier, William, Dampier’s Voyages (E. Grant Richards: London, 1906), p. 525. SHA, EIC 1/4, pp. 211-12, 1 August 1695. BL, IOR E/3/93, f. 233-233v, 27 March 1701. BL, IOR E/3/93, f. 233v, 27 March 1701 (originally compiled 27-29 September 1698). BL, IOR E/3/93, ff. 231v-232, 6 March 1701. SHA, EIC 1/4, pp. 235-36, 23 November 1695. BL, IOR E/3/93, f. 227, 16 April 1701. BL, IOR E/3/95, ff. 49-51, 17 February 1703. BL, IOR E/3/96, ff. 15-26, 20 December 1706. SHA, EIC 1/6, pp. 228-30, 28 October 1701. BL, IOR E/3/95, ff. 49-51, 17 February 1703. Rogers: ‘Diary’, p. 191. BL, IOR E/3/95, ff. 120v-124, 31 December 1703. BL, IOR E/3/95, ff. 152-56, 30 November 1704. BL, IOR E/3/96, ff. 15-26, 20 December 1706. BL, IOR E/3/96, ff. 59v-61, 25 May 1707. BL, IOR E/3/96, ff. 158-163v, 7 April 1708. BL, IOR E/3/96, ff. 195-96, 5 May 1708. BL, IOR G/32/3, St Helena Consultation, 24 August 1708. BL, IOR G/32/3, St Helena Consultation, 26 August 1708. BL, IOR E/3/96, ff. 389-94, 11 January 1710. Grove, Richard H., Green Imperialism: Colonial Expansion, Tropical Island Edens and the Origins of Environmentalism, 1600-1860 (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1995), Chapter 3. BL, IOR E/3/97, ff. 129-44v, 17 April 1711. Fryer: East India, Volume III, p. 31 (of the Hackluyt Society edition edited by William Crooke, London, 1915). Ovington, John, A Voyage to Surat in the Year 1689 (Oxford University Press: London, 1929), p. 57, footnote 1. Melliss, John C., St Helena: A Physical, Historical and Topographic Description of the Island (L. Reeve: London, 1875). Bruce, John, Annals of the East-India Company (East India Company: London, 1810). G. Downing to Henry Bennett, NA, SP 84/174, 6 January 1665. de Rennefort, Sochu, Histoires des Indes Orientales (Frederick Harring: Paris, 1688). Boxer, C. R., ‘The third Dutch war in the East (1672-4)’, Mariners’ Mirror 16 (1930), pp. 343-86. John Paige to Sir Joseph Williamson, 26 May 1673, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1671-73, pp. 238-39; also Representation of the Company to the Plenipotentiaries at Cologne, 27 May 1673, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1671-73, pp. 239-40. Kitching, Geoffrey C., ‘The loss and recapture of St Helena, 1673’, Mariner’s Mirror 36 (1950), p. 61. Boxer: ‘Third Dutch war’.

216 116 117 118 119 120 121

122

123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135

136 137 138 139

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Fryer: East India, Volume III, p. 180 (of the Hackluyt Society edition edition, London, 1915). BL, IOR L/MAR/A LXXI, 22-27 April 1674. BL, IOR E/3/89, ff. 30v-31, 8 November 1678. John Paige to Sir Joseph Williamson, 26 May 1673, in Sainsbury: Calendar 1671-73, p. 256. Boxer: ‘Third Dutch war’. There are full copies of Munden’s log at National Maritime Museum (NMM), Earl of Dartmouth Papers, DAR/8 and the Pepys Library, Magdelene College Cambridge, PL 2543 and partial copies of the entries involving the re-taking of St Helena at BL, Add Ms 34729 (West Papers Vol III), ff. 127-32 and Pepys Library, PL 2540 and a published version in Sainsbury: Calendar 1671-73, pp. 315-17. Mackenzie, I., The Retaking of St Helena 1673: ‘We Having Noo Other Business too Doo’ (Conference paper, Service Historique de la Marine: Vincennes, 1994), NMM, PBP 4877. Gosse, Philip, St Helena, 1502-1938 (Cassell: London, 1938), p. 65 (of the 1990 reissue, Anthony Nelson: Oswestry). The criticism came from Richard Gibson of the Navy Office in an addendum to the Pepys Library PL 2350, 7 April 1683. Mackenzie: Retaking of St Helena. Pepys Library, PL 2543. Anon, A Relation of the Re-taking of the Island of Sta Helena and Three Dutch East-India ships (Thomas Newcomb: London, 1673). Kitching: ‘Loss’. Pepys Library, PL 2350. NA, ADM 106/284 174. A Court of Committees, 22 August 1673 in Sainsbury: Calendar 1671-73, p. 257. A Court of Committees, 30 September 1673 in Sainsbury: Calendar 1671-73, p. 270. A Court of Committees, 1 October 1673 in Sainsbury: Calendar 1671-73, p. 271. Submission by Treasurer Latimer of a doquet, 24 December, 1673 in Sainsbury: Calendar 1671-73, p. 304. A Court of Committees, 9 January 1674, in Ethel B. Sainsbury, A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc. of the East India Company, 1674-1676 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1935), p. 257. BL, IOR G/32/3, St Helena Consultation, 5 June 1706. BL, IOR E/3/96, ff. 15-26, 20 December 1706. BL, IOR E/3/96, ff. 158-63v, 7 April 1708. Denholme, Kenneth, ‘St Helena: South Atlantic fortress’, Fortress 6 (1990), pp. 11-23.

Chapter 9 1

2 3

4

Porteous, Douglas, The Modernization of Easter Island (Western Geographical Series, University of Victoria: Victoria, 1981); see also Fischer, Steven Roger, Island at the End of the World: The Turbulent History of Easter Island (Reaktion: London, 2005). Osgood, Herbert L., The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century (Macmillan: New York, 1904), 3 volumes. Brown, J. J. to W. Haining, Evacuation of Ascension Island by the Admiralty, Ascension Island Archives, Georgetown, Shelf 3; see also Royle, Stephen A., ‘“The island has been handed over to me”: Ascension Island as a company colony, 1922-1942’, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 25.1 (2004), pp. 109-26. Neu Guinea Compagnie, ‘Annual Report for 1887-88’, in Peter Sack and Dymphna Clark, German New Guinea: The Annual Reports (Australian National University Press: Canberra, 1979), p. 31.

NOTES 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Kupperman, Karen Ordahl, Providence Island, 1630-1641: The Other Puritan Colony (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1993), p. 83. Morgan, Edmund S., American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (W. W. Norton: New York, 1975). Zuckerman, M., ‘Identity in British America: unease in Eden’, in Nicholas Canny and Anthony Pagden (eds), Colonial Identity in the Atlantic World (Princeton University Press: Princeton, 1987), p. 141. Pestana, Carla G., The English Atlantic in an Age of Revolution, 1640-1661 (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, 2004), p. 173. Kupperman; Providence Island, p. x. Kupperman; Providence Island, p. 21 and p. 207. Horn, James, Adapting to a New World: English Society in the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake (University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, 1994), p. 340. Neu Guinea Compagnie, ‘Annual Report for 1889-90’, in Sack and Clark: German New Guinea, p. 45. Neu Guinea Compagnie, ‘Annual Report for 1893-94’, in Sack and Clark: German New Guinea, p. 90 and p. 91. Douglas, James to George Blenkinsop, 29 March 1852, Hudson’s Bay Company Archives, Provincial Archives of Manitoba, B.226/6/4. Neu Guinea Compagnie, ‘Annual Report for 1893-94’, in Sack and Clark: German New Guinea, pp. 90-91. Kupperman: Providence Island, p. 62. Paquet, G. and Wallot, J-P., ‘Nouvelle-France/Québec/Canada: a world of limited identities’, in Nicholas Canny and Anthony Pagden (eds), Colonial Identity in the Atlantic World (Princeton University Press: Princeton, 1987), p. 105. Osgood: American Colonies. German Imperial Government, ‘Annual Report for 1898-99’, in Sack and Clark, German New Guinea, p. 171. Neu Guinea Compagnie, ‘Annual Report for 1886-87’, in Sack and Clark, German New Guinea, p. 3. Neu Guinea Compagnie, ‘Annual Report for 1888-89’, in Sack and Clark, German New Guinea. Neu Guinea Compagnie, ‘Annual Report for 1890-91’, in Sack and Clark, German New Guinea, p. 58. Neu Guinea Compagnie, ‘Annual Report for 1893-94’, in Sack and Clark, German New Guinea, p. 90. British Library, IOR E/3/91, ff. 179-86v, 3 August 1687. Smallman, David L., Quincentenary: A Story of St Helena 1502-2002 (Patten Press: Penzance, 2003), p. 30.

Appendix 1 1

2

3 4

217

Chaudhuri, K. N., ‘The “New Economic History” and the business records of the East India Company’, in P. L. Cottrell and D. H. Aldcroft (eds), Shipping, Trade and Commerce: Essays in Memory of Ralph Davies (Leicester University Press: Leicester, 1981), p. 48 Ogborn, Miles, ‘Writing travels: power, knowledge and ritual on the English East India Company’s early voyages’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 27.2 (2002), pp. 155-71; also Indian Ink: Script and Print in the Making of the English East India Company (University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 2007). Melliss, John C., St Helena: A Physical, Historical and Topographic Description of the Island (L. Reeve: London, 1875), p. 5. Kitching, Geoffrey C. ‘Records of the Island of St Helena’, The American Archivist 10 (1947), p. 161.

218 5 6 7 8

9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Bruce, John, Annals of the East-India Company (East India Company: London, 1810), Volume II, p. 635. Sainsbury, Ethel B., (1907-1938) A Calendar of the Court Minutes etc of the East India Company (Clarendon Press: Oxford), a series of volumes for different dates. Kitching: ‘Records’, pp. 160-61. Pearson, James D., A Guide to Manuscripts and Documents in the British Isles Relating to Africa (Mansell: London, 1993-94), 2 volumes; Smith, Brian, A Guide to the Manuscript Sources for the History of St Helena (Altair Publishing: Todmorden, 1995). Schulenburg, Helmut and Schulenburg, Alexander H., St Helena, South Atlantic Ocean (Jacob-Gilardi-Verlag: Allersberg, 1997), p. 13. Janisch, Hudson R., Extracts from the St Helena Records (The Guardian: St Helena, 1885). Schulenburg, Alexander H., Transient Observations: The Textualising of St Helena through Five Hundred Years of Colonial Discourse (unpublished PhD thesis, School of Philosophical and Anthropological Studies, University of St Andrews, 1999), p. 82. Gill, R. and Teale, P., St Helena 500: A Chronological History of the Island (Creda Communications: Epping, 1999). Grove, Richard H., Green Imperialism: Colonial Expansion, Tropical Island Edens and the Origins of Environmentalism, 1600-1860 (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1995) Kitching: ‘Records’, p. 156. Brooke, Thomas H., A History of the Island of St Helena from its Discovery by the Portuguese to the Year 1806 (Black, Perry and Kingsbury: London, 1808). Schulenburg: Transient Observations. Schulenburg: Transient Observations, p. 87. Gosse, Philip, St Helena, 1502-1938 (Cassell: London, 1938). Schulenburg: Transient Observations, p. 139. Sack, Peter and Dymphna Clark, German New Guinea: The Annual Reports (Australian National University Press: Canberra, 1978).

Index Amsterdam, 148 Anglo-Dutch Wars, 128-29, 141 Arlington, Lord, 153 Ascension Island, 5, 84, 124, 153, 156, 157 Association Island, 5, 158 Astrolabe Company, 160 Australia, 160 Baltimore, 153 Banda Islands, 17 Barbados, 26, 27, 45, 86, 94, 118, 124, 148, 149, 161 slavery, 87, 94 Bantam, 6, 17, 18 Beeckman, Daniel, 48, 69-70 Bellin, Jacques, 130, 131, 132 Bencoolen (Bencoolin), 34, 52-53, 120 Bengkulu, see Bencoolen Benjar, 52, 55 Bermuda, 4, 5, 35, 45, 56, 103, 111, 156, 158 Bermuda Company (Somers Island Company), 6, 56, 103, 127 company officials Coney, Richard, governor, 56 Moore, Richard, governor, 127 Robinson, Sir Robert, governor, 103 Tucker, Daniel, governor, 103 fortifications, 127-28 National Archives, 165 trade, 158 Bennett, Henry, 148 Bligh, William, 137, 139 Bodleian Library, 164 Bombay, 6-7, 9, 50, 52, 60, 75, 110 Bontekoe, William, 13 Brazil, 149, 150 Breda, Treaty of, 18 British Columbia Archives, 165 British Library, 163 Brooke, Thomas, 15, 164 Bruce, John, 148 Calcutta, 9 Canada, 156-57, 159, 161 Cannan, Edward, 36, 66, 70, 105 Cape of Good Hope, 148

Cape Verde Islands, 24, 85, 150 Castell, Robin, 13 Catherine of Braganza, 7 Cavendish, Margaret, 38 Cavendish, Thomas, 12-13, 21 Chapin, Bradley, 57, 74 Charles II, 6, 129, 141, 153 Chesapeake, 5, 45, 76, 84, 104, 158 Clark, Dymphna, 165 colonialism, 3, 4-5, 29, 74 company colonies, 5-8, 44, 56, 74, 84, 103, 127-28, 156-62 Condore, 52 Connecticut, 57 Cromwell, Oliver, 17, 38 Cromwell, Richard, 17-18 da Gama, Vasco, 11 da Nova, João, 11 Dampier, William, 17, 34, 79, 143 de Flacourt, Etienne, 15 de Mandelslo, John, 23 de Rennefort, Sochu, 24, 148 Denholm, Ken, 155 Desauges, M., 130, 154 discoveries, European, 11 Drake, Francis, 1, 13 du Bois, Sieur, 141 E., T., see Edgar, Thomas East India Company (EIC), 1, 3, 6-8, 52-54, 56, 73, 103, 110, 125, 128, 148, 153, 161, 162 archives, 163-65 company officials Alford, Robert, 85 Alley, Captain, 111 Bass, William, 27, 113-14, 141, 149 Bendall, Hopefor, 25, 48, 78, 171 Best, Thomas, 15, 23 Beyer, Francis, 25 Boothby, Richard, 17 Bowen, Robert, 24, 141 Brown, Captain, 114 Butler, John, 189 Buttler, Robert, 68, 181 Chudleigh, Thomas, 153

220

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Fryer, John, 25, 133, 146, 149 Harding, Captain, 52-53, 105, 107, 112 Harman, Thomas, 46, 85 Herbert, Sir Thomas, 15, 21 Hobbs, William, 151, 189 Knox, Captain, 28, 86, 88, 142 Lancaster, Sir James, 14, 23 Medford, Robert, 141, 148 Middleton, Sir Henry, 14 Piles, Thomas, 151, 189 Richards, Samuel, 47 Rogers, Francis, 20, 128 Setter, James, 47 Smith, Samuel, 148 Swanley, George, 24, 85 Tolbett, Captain, 128 Wybourne, Sir John, 119 House of Commons, 120-21 relations with crown, 104, 116, 118, 119, 153 relations with St Helena, 25-26, 28, 40-41, 65, 70, 108-22, 125 rival East India Companies (and interlopers), 6, 109, 110, 111, 121, 129 voyages of, 14 Eastern Telegraph Company, 5, 84, 156 Edgar, Thomas, 73, 82, 83 Elliott, John, 103 Falkland Islands, 161 Falklands Conflict, 127 Falkland Islands Company, 156 Fenton, Edward, 13 Foster, Sir William, 17 Fort Cormantine, 40 Fort St George (Madras), 50 Germany, 157 Gill, R., 164 Gravesend, 48 Gold Coast, 86 Gosse, Philip, 15, 150, 164 Greene, Jack, 26, 57, 94 Grove, Richard, 8, 9, 23, 27, 29, 164 Hakluyt Society, 163 Halley, Edmond, 29 Harrington, James, 38 Horn, James, 4, 104, 158, 169 Hudson’s Bay Company, 5, 6, 7, 44, 56, 84, 128, 156-57, 158, 165 Huguenots, 28, 48 Humphrey, Oziah, 20, 147 India, 3, 6-7, 8, 49, 128, 156

international trade, 1, 4, 156, 169 Irish (Munster and Londonderry) Companies, 7 Irwin, Douglas, 3 island commonalities, 61, 104 Jaluit Gessellschaft, 5, 60, 157 Jamaica, 27, 103 James II, 8, 119, 121, 126 Janisch, Hudson, 164 Johanna, 86 Keay, John, 9, 17, 40, 121 Kendall, Abraham, 14 Kinsale, 128, 153 Kitching, Geoffrey, 152, 163, 164 Klein, Peter, 7 Kupperman, Karen, 5, 158, 159 La Compagnie de la Nouvelle France, 6 La Compagnie Française des Indes Orientales, 6 Lafitte, M., 130 Lambeth Palace Library, 164 Leeward Islands, 27 Leguat, François, 33 levellers, 38 Lincolnshire Archives, 164 Long Island, 4 Lopez, Fernando, 12 Lord, Thomas, 69 Mackenzie, Iain 151 Madagascar, 15, 86, 124 Madagascar ships (slavers), 49, 85-86, 87, 101 Malta, 127 Maine, 4 Manhattan, 18 Marriner, James, 117 Maryland, 4, 54, 76 Marshall Islands, 5, 60, 156, 157 Massachusetts Bay Company, 5, 6, 56, 156, 159 company official Winthrop, John, 6 Mauritius, 161 Melliss, John, 15, 146, 163 mercantilism, 3-4 merchant companies, 1, 3, 5, 7 Métis, 81 Miller, Russell, 85 Moll, Herman, 142 More, Sir Thomas, 38 Morgan, Edmund, 104, 157 Munden, Richard, 100, 113, 150-53, 155, 189

INDEX Mundy, Peter, 15, 23 Napoleon, 8 National Archives, 164 National Maritime Museum, 164 Navarette, Dominick Fernandez, 46-47, 104, 129 Navigation Act, 1653, 3 Neu Guinea Compagnie, 5, 21, 56, 128, 158-60, 161, 165 New England, 4 New Guinea, German, 5, 60, 156, 157, 158 New Netherland , 6 Newfoundland, 4 Nieuhoff, John, 19 Ogborn, Miles, 1, 133, 163 Ólafsson, Jón, 13 Osgood, Herbert, 4, 156 Pearson, James, 164 Pepys Library, 164 Pers, Wallberg, 68 Pestana, Carla, 158 Pitts, Thomas, 124 Plockhoy, Pieter, 38 Plymouth Company, 6 Pollerone , 17, 18, 45 Porteous, Douglas, 156 Providence Island, 4, 5, 60, 65, 111, 127, 128, 156, 157, 158, 159 Pulo Run, see Pollerone Pyrard, François, 11, 12, 15 Quakers, 65 Rabb, Theodore, 7 Raleigh, Sir Walter, 6, 47 Rapa Nui (Easter Island), 156 Roanoke, 6, 47 Royal African Company, 6, 86 Run, see Pollerone Sack, Peter, 165 Sainsbury, Ethel, 163 St Helena acquisition by EIC, 17-18, 23 agriculture, 24, 27-28, 33-34, 45, 174 Alarm House, 42 blasphemy and swearing, 64, 65, 107, 177 Breakneck Valley, 111, 151 Chapel Valley, 32, 34, 48, 49, 98, 122, 130, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 150, 151, 154 Chapel Valley Town (Jamestown), 154

221 charters, 17, 57, 104, 110, 118 company officials Beale, Anthony, governor, 39, 47, 67, 97, 110, 115, 120, 129, 130, 131, 141, 148, 150, 175, 185, 186, 187 Beale, Mrs (Madame), 98 Bolton, John, court clerk, 59 Blackmore, John, governor, 32, 34, 35, 39, 41, 42, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 59, 60, 61-2, 68, 76, 96, 101, 105, 107, 109, 112, 117, 118-19, 121, 123, 125, 126, 131, 133, 135, 137, 142, 149, 163, 187 Blackmore, Mrs, 76, 118 Bode, Dr, surgeon, 91 Boucher, Benjamin, governor, 52, 61, 87, 146 Bowman, John, mason, 144 Brebourne, John, writer, 107 Bright, Thomas, deputy governor, 107-108, 186 Butler, Alexander, deputy governor, 174, 186 Byfield, Edward, governor, 112 Callin, John, overseer, 90 Church, Joseph, chaplain, 67-68, 181 Clifton, William, soldier, teacher, 68, 79, 181 Coney, Richard, governor, 31, 39, 46, 49, 56, 57, 64, 66, 104, 109, 129-30, 141 Cox (Coxe), Henry, overseer, 26, 28, 106 Crammond, John, chaplain, 68, 181 Davis, John, cattleman, 49 Delines, Bennet, writer, 120 Dutton, John, governor, 18, 30, 38, 45, 52, 57, 64, 65, 75, 85, 109, 141, 163 Field, Gregory (Richard) governor, 25, 48, 63, 84, 110, 113, 131, 142, 153, 185 Field, Mrs, 82 Fowles, John, deputy governor, 108, 185 Gargen, Henry, deputy governor, 24, 27, 28, 34, 39, 45, 46, 85, 86, 109, 174, 186 Girling, Christopher, surgeon, 36

222

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND Goffe, Thomas, council, 105, 106 Goodwin, Thomas, deputy governor, 42, 92, 98, 108, 124, 185 Goodwin, Mrs, 98 Heath, Thomas, writer, 62 Holden Robert, deputy governor, 41, 68, 104-107, 111, 115, 120, 121, 125, 143, 144, 182, 185, 188 Humphreys, John, chaplain, 36, 37, 68-69, 181 Humphreys, Mrs, teacher, 76 Jessey, Samuel, company plantation manager, 90 Johnson, Joshua, governor, 25, 80-81, 82, 98, 107, 109, 123-25, 135, 186 Johnson, Mrs (Madame), 83, 124 Keigwin, Richard, military governor, 84, 113-14, 150-51, 153, 189 Kelinge, Richard, governor, 41, 106, 124, 125, 129, 135, 136, 143, 185 Kelinge, Mrs, 83 Kerr, John, chaplain, 69, 181 Knight, Ralph, overseer, 28 Legett, Philip, teacher, 36 Laoust, James, engineer, 145 Manning, Henry, surgeon, 37, 68, 89, 118, 181 Manning, Margaret, midwife, 64, 76 Marsden, William, quarryman, 145 Masham, Charles, chaplain, 6970, 181 Mashborne, Edward, acting governor, 185 Melling, William, teacher, 36 Moore, Francis, surgeon, 36, 47, 54, 175 Noakes, William, chaplain, 35, 46, 66-67, 72, 148, 181, 185 Ovington, John, visiting chaplain, 25, 28, 48, 55, 75, 111, 126, 146, 181 Poirier, Stephen, governor, 2829, 41, 42, 48, 52, 53, 61, 63, 69, 70, 90, 92-93, 98, 107-108, 124, 130, 136, 144, 146, 154, 161, 185

Roberts, John, governor, 29, 42, 61, 128, 145-46, 154 Sault, Thomas, chaplain, 68, 115, 181 Sich, John, sheriff, 59, 117, 186 Sodrington, Cornelius, deputy governor, 50, 78, 108, 185 Stevens, John, surgeon, 89, 12324 Stringer, Robert, governor, 19, 24, 30, 39, 46, 57, 66, 104, 109, 134, 141, 148, 174, 185 Swallow, Robert, deputy governor, 30, 185 Swindell, William, chaplain, 35, 47, 67, 175, 181 Taylor, Ezekiel, marshal, 118 Vogell, Christian, engineer, 145 Wynn, John, chaplain, 36, 67, 181 defence, 43, 135-36, 154 Dutch action against Claim, 1633, 15, 17, 146 Invasion, 1673, 25, 31, 57, 104, 110, 117, 119, 129, 134, 137, 148-49, 155 Threat, 1665, 146, 148 East Ridge (Two Guns), 135, 136, 140 economic potential, 21-23 economy, 19-21 education, 35-36 engagements at, 13-14, 148-54 executions, 59, 93-94, 95, 99-100, 113, 118-121, 186 fishing, 11, 24, 26-27, 88 fortifications, 129, 130, 131, 135, 138, 140-47, 152, 154, 155, 188 Banks’s Battery, 123, 135, 136, 137, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 151, 155 Crane Battery, 137, 142 Flagstaff lookout post, 136, 137, 139, 140, 152, 155 Fort James, 35, 96, 97, 98, 99, 114, 115, 116, 117, 124, 135, 137, 139, 140, 141, 142, 146, 149, 150-51, 154, 155 Holden’s plan for, 138, 143-45, 188 High Knoll Fort, 155 High Peak lookout post, 137

INDEX Lemon Valley Fort (Spragues, Sprigg’s), 111, 135, 136, 137, 142, 145, 149, 153, 154 Munden’s Mount, 124, 137, 144 Munden’s Point, 124, 135, 141, 142, 146, 147, 153, 154, 155 Prosperous Bay lookout post, 136, 137, 140, 145 Rupert’s, 123, 135, 137, 140, 141, 142, 145, 146, 151, 152, 154 Sandy Bay Battery, 136, 137, 144, 154, 155 Free Blacks, 84, 100-101, 136, 176 Betty, Black, 99 firearms, restrictions, 100 Oliver, Black, 81, 100, 117, 150, 153 Oliver, Jack, 93, 100, 101, 102 French action against, 129, 130, 131, 145, 153-54, 155 Fryar (Friar’s) Valley, 111, 136 gambling, 64-65 games, 65 garrison, 25, 37, 41, 48, 49, 131-33, 154, 155, 176, 187 Abbey, Thomas, soldier, 50 Bowyer, William, private, 11619, 121, 186 Browne, Thomas, soldier, 118, 186 Clarke, Joseph, Jnr, private, 11619, 186 Clarke, Joseph, Snr, soldier, 118, 186 Collis, Henry, soldier, 118, 186 Croplands, John, soldier, 49 Curd, Lieutenant, 113-14 Davis, John, soldier, 124 Dennison (Deneson), Allen, soldier, 115-18, 186 Duffee, James, soldier, 97 Evans, Richard, soldier, 124 Field, Captain, 106 Field, John, corporal, sergeant, 62, 107, 179 Fogg, Henry, soldier, 123 Fraizer, Alexander, soldier, 81 Gantry, Thomas, soldier, 123-24 Gargen, Thomas, soldier, 83, 104, 123-24 Goodwin, Timothy, ensign, 107 Hailes, (Haile, Hale) Israel, sergeant, 64, 111, 179

223 Hunt, Maurice, sergeant, 118 Jackson, Henry, sergeant, 92, 105, 107, 117, 122-24, 125, 126, 155, 179 Jervey, Samuel, soldier, 133 Johnson, James, soldier, 117, 186 Kirkpatrick, Allenard, soldier, 80 Lock, George, soldier, 124 Maxwell, Corporal, 107 Moore, Robert, private, 117-19, 186 Morris, Lieutenant, 54, 136 Moseley (Mosely), Richard, armourer, 47, 175 Orseman, Joseph, soldier, 11619, 186 Phillips, Andrew, gunner, 55, 97 Rooker, Andrew, armourer, 124, 180 Slaughter, Isaac, soldier, 124 Smith, John, soldier, 123 Spires (Spiers), Ralph, corporal, 62, 140, 180 Sutton, George, coxswain, 62 Swallow, Robert, corporal, 133 Talby, John, soldier, 62 Taylor, Samuel, soldier, 62 Taylor, Sergeant, 113-14 Tyler, Jonathan, lieutenant, 135 Vernon, John, soldier, 123 Wells, William, gunner’s mate, 62 Whalley, Simon, coxswain, 93 gender relations, 73-83 gender roles, 76, 80, 137 geography, 8, 21 government, 35, 38-40, 42, 57, 66, 94-95, 104, 106, 113, 114 council, disputes within, 104-109 Hancock, Richard, deserter, 117, 119 health midwives, 64, 76, 88 slaves, care of, 89 surgeons, 36-37 venereal disease, 80 Holdfast Tom, 150 Horse Pasture, 136, 145 Hutt’s Plain, 140 indentured labourers, 30, 38, 45, 74 Jamestown, see Chapel Valley Town Keigwin’s Point, 150

224

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Ladder Hill, 155 land allocation, 30, 31, 32, 48, 75 law, 57-62, 94, 177 Court of Judicature, 58, 59 fines, 59, 62, 177 juries, 58, 59, 60-61, 71, 90, 95, 178-80 sheriff, 58 Lemon Valley, 15, 96, 98, 111, 135, 145, 149 Lookout posts, 137-40 martial law, 119, 121 Matthews, Nicholas, sailor, 130 matrimony, 74 migration pre-1673, 44-47 post-1673, 47-49, 75, 175 military discipline, 62 wooden horse, 61, 62, 64, 80, 81, 82 militia, 48, 134-37, 154, 155 morality, 58, 63-65, 71 murder, 90, 91, 93, 97, 122-24 mutiny 1674, 113-14 1693, 98, 122-25 Old Woman’s Valley, 136, 137, 149 orphans, 54-55, 89 Perkins, 87 Plantation House, 30 Plantation (Young’s) Valley, 136 planters/civilians Alexander, Richard, 76 Bagley, Edward, 92, 179 Bagley, Orlando, Snr, 90, 179 Bazzett, Matthew, 83 Beavon, Owen, 98 Bodley, Hugh, 186, 179 Bolton, Martha, 91, 100 121 Bolton, Thomas, 117, 119, 186 Boston, John, 94 Bowes, 46 Bowman, John, 98, 179 Bowyer, Dorothy, 121 Box, Thomas, cordwainer, 54, 136 Cannady, Anne, 77, 111 Carnes, George, 90 Coales, Mary, 79 Colson (Coulson), John, 115, 117, 119, 120, 121, 174, 175, 186 Colson (Coulson), Grace, 78, 120, 121, 174, 175

Colston, John, 81, 100 Colston, Mary, 81 Cottier, Daniel, 81 Cottier, Naomy, 81-2 Cox, William, 52, 117, 120, 149, 186 Doroning, John, 98 Dufton (Doveton), Susan, 80 Dufton (Doveton), William, 78, 80, 81, 175 Edmunds, Edward, 69, 108, 179, 181 Eibin, Hiddulph, 97 Exeter, Robert, 63, 78 Finch, Robert, 92, 101, 102 Gardiner, Edward, 117, 186 Girling (Gurling), Richard, 80, 98, 111, 136, 179 Goodwin, John, 97, 179 Greentree, James, 95 Greentree, John, 115, 117, 135, 175 Greentree orphans, 89 Griffin, Richard, 97 Harper, Margaret, 78 Hunt, Leonard, 54 Hunt, William, 37 Isaack, Sutton, 81, 179 Jewster, Job, 64, 117, 186 Jewster, Mary, 92 Kersey, Henry, 96 Leach, Isaac, 77, 79, 123 Luffkin, Elizabeth, 124 Luffkin, John, 41. 89, 117, 124, 180, 186 Marsh, William, 78, 180 Marshall, Sarah, 54-55, 79 Matthews, John, 100 Miller, Benjamin, 63 Mudge, John, 64, 179 Orchard boys, orphans, 55 Orchard, Mary, 54 Parum, Elizabeth, 64 Parum, Richard, 78, 93 Poole, John, 76 Poole, Mary, 76-77, 82 Price, Samuel, 79 Pouncey, Matthew, 36-37, 79, 98, 117, 120, 186 Powell, Gabriel, 97, 111, 120, 186 Rider, James, 97-98, 136, 180 Roe, Margaret, 82

INDEX Roe, William, 82 Rutter, Fran, 74, 175 Rutter, William, 117, 186 Sacknold, John, 90 Scadder, William, 65 Sexton, Leicester (Leister), 62, 116, 120, 186 Sheldon, George, 55, 120, 121, 186 Sherwin, George, 91 Sherwin, Prudence, 92 Sinsennis, John, 64 Smith, Edward, 95 Soames, Robert, 117, 186 Starling, Elizabeth, 79 Steward, Charles, churchwarden, 64, 180 Swallow, Elizabeth, 79, 82 Swallow, Thomas, 97 Swallow, William, 122 Thompson, Robert, 97, 186 Trewsdale, Thomas, 80, 120, 181, 186 Vessey, James, 83, 91 Wakefield, James, 122 Williams, Hester, 79 Williams, Peter, 100 Wilson, Andrew, cordwainer, 130 Wrangham (Rangham), Francis, 93, 175 Young, James, 55 population, 33, 46, 49-52, 60, 175, 176 overpopulation, 51-52 population reservoir, 50-52 Portuguese on, 11-15, 21, 140 produce, 23, 24, 26-27, 32, 34, 48, 161, 169 Prosperous Bay, 123, 136, 150, 151 prostitution, 79-80 rats, 24, 25, 28, 29, 33 recapture, 1673, 104, 113, 117, 15053 refreshment at, 11, 15, 19, 23, 29, 33, 37 religion, 36, 40, 46, 65-71 baptism, 67, 70 burials, 70 chaplains, 36, 46, 49, 66-72, 181 observance, 70-71, 101 rendezvous at, 17, 128-29 restorative properties of, 23

225 roads, 32 Rock Rose, 33 route to, 137, 139 Rupert’s Valley, 151 Sandy Bay, 136, 137, 151 sedition, 112-13, 114-15, 121 1684, 41, 50, 53, 68, 83, 86, 100, 111, 114-22, 143 sexual assault or relations, 76-82 slaves, 24, 37, 40, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52-53, 54, 64, 65, 74, 80-81, 84-102, 115, 161, 176 association of, 96, 98 company slaves, 76, 87-88, 89, 182, 183 cost/value of slaves, 86, 94, 97 escape of, 100 gender relations between, 80-81 importation of, 85, 96 punishment of, 80-81, 90, 91-92, 93-96, 97, 100 revolts of, 96-97, 98-99, 100 slaves by name Amingo, 80 Annah, 98-99 Anthony, 54 Bess, 124 Betty, 91 Civill, 92, 101 Coley, 82 Covam, 90 Dick, 99 Firebrass, 98, 99, 184 Fortune, 98 Frank, 80 Garret, 99 Hern, 185 Jack, 80-81, 93, 98-99, 184 Jacob, 90 Jenny, 83 Joane, 184 Johannah, 91 Neptune, 117 Peter (1), 81, 97 Peter (2), 184 Poplar, 99, 184 Randall, 99, 184 Rasher, 99 Robin (1), 91, 93 Robin (2), 99 Roger, 98-99, 184 Rowland, 94, 96 Ruface, 99, 184

226

THE COMPANY’S ISLAND

Sam, 92 Sarah, Great, 89, 183 Sattoe, 93-94, 96 Stephen, 93 Tom, 92 Totley, 95 Will (1), 98-99, 184 Will (2), 184 Will, Old, 87-88 Worla, 81, 97 ‘Sth Valley’, 151 Sugar Loaf, 136, 141, 142, 143, 152 survey of, 25, 30-31, 32 supplies for, 25-26, 148 171-73 taxes, 66, 76, 112, 115, 182 tensions within, 108-22, 125, 155, 161 The Hutts, 87 The Peake, 87 timeline, 167 Tombstone Valley, 136 trade, 34-35, 101-102, 110-11 West Ridge, 135 women punishment of, 77, 78, 79, 82, reputation, 78-79 resistance of, 82-83 utopianism, 37-43, 112 yams, 24, 25, 28, 32, 33, 86, 90 St Iago, 24, 45, 46, 85, 150 St Lawrence, see Madagascar Schulenburg, Alexander, 8, 164 Seed, Patricia, 29, 31 Sen, Sudipta, 7 Sharpe, James, 78 ships African, 18, 45, 74 Alphen, 153 American, 85 Arabia, 20, 128 Assistance, 150-152, 153, 189 Barnadiston, 152, 153 Benjamin, 48, 52, 111 Blenheim, 187 Bounty, 137 Bridgemate Merchant, 100-101 Caesar, 36 Castle, 150-51, 189 Charles, 46, 85, 147-48 Charles 2 (or II), 41, 46, 60, 119 Des Bouverie, 187 Director, 139 Dolphin, 15, 16

Dover, 122, 153-54 Duchesse, 187 Eagle, 113, 150, 189 Edward Bonaventure, 14 Europa, 152 Europe, 187 European, 47, 74 Francis and Mary, 123-24 Fruroe, 85 George, 85 Hollandia, 13 Humphrey and Elizabeth, 141, 148 Johannah, 25, 37, 48, 49, 171 John and Alexander, 47, 74 John and Martha, 46 John and Mary, 118 Julia, 54 Katherine, 187 Kattenburgh, 148 Kempthorne, 25 Kent, 106 King William, 187 Kingfisher, 128 Levant Merchant, 150-51, 190 London, 24, 113-14, 141 Loyal Merchant, 47 Loyal Subject, 153 Lumley Castle, 111 Macclesfield, 29 Marguerite, 107 Marmeduke, 24 Mary and Martha, 150, 151, 189 Mead, 187 New London, 68, 119 Nossa Senora de Peigna de Francia, 13 Pearl, 13 Phoenix, 138, 188 President, 37, 68 Queen, 122, 153-54 Rebecca, 153 Rochester, 120, 187 Roebuck, 102, 111, 115, 126 Royal James, 117, 118 Royal Merchant, 14 St George, 187 Satisfaction, 17 Sherbourne, 188 Shrewsbury, 85 Society, 105, 116 Sperber, 128 Stringer, 187 Surat Merchant, 37, 58, 59, 149 Susanna, 188

INDEX Swaentje, 148 Tonquin Merchant, 53 Unicorn, 46, 85 Vautour, 149 Vryheyt, 148 Wapen van de Veer, 153 William and Thomas, 149-52, 153, 190 Witt Leuw, 13-14 Zuydpolsbroeck, 148 slavery, 6, 87, 101 Smallman, David, 28, 128 Smith, Brian, 164 Smith, John, 127 South African War, 8 Spain, 158 Spice Islands, 3 Sunderland, Lord, 129 Surat, 6, 17, 20, 149 Tavernier, John Baptista, 15 Teale, Percy, 164 Tortuga, see Association Island Trinidad, 4 Tristan da Cunha, 53-54 van Linschoten, John Huyghen, 11, 13, 21-23 Vancouver Island, 7, 44, 56, 84, 128, 156-57, 159 colonial officials

227 Blanchard, Richard, governor, 56 Douglas, James, governor, 44, 56, 84, 159 Finlayson, Robert, 128 Fort Rupert, 84 Fort Victoria, 84, 128 Nanaimo, 44 Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie (VOC), 1, 3, 13, 17, 65, 68, 104, 148, 152 company officials Coon, Johannes, 150 de Ruyter, 148 de Gens, Jacob, 148, 149 van Breitenbach, 152 Virginia, 4, 5, 104, 124, 158 Virginia Company, 5-6, 7, 38, 56, 57, 156, 157 Walwyn, William, 38 War of Spanish Succession, 130 West-Indische Compagnie, 6 Wilber, Margaret, 45 William III (William of Orange), 8, 121, 135 Williamson, Balfour and Company, 156 women life cycle stages, 73 under Common Law, 76 Zuckerman, Michael, 40, 81