The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
College of Earth and Mineral Sciences
DIGITAL VISUALIZATION OF COLONIAL CARTOGRAPHY:
PATTERNS OF WEALTH IN THE SUGAR COLONY OF BARBADOS
A Thesis in
Geography
by
Peter J. Koby
© 2014 Peter J. Koby
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science
August 2014 The thesis of Peter J. Koby was reviewed and approved* by the following:
Deryck W. Holdsworth Professor of Geography Thesis Advisor
Anthony C. Robinson Research Associate in the Department of Geography
Karl S. Zimmerer Head of the Department of Geography
*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School.
ii ABSTRACT
Barbados was one of the most concentrated settings for wealth production in the early Atlantic world, but research is lacking on visualization of patterns of wealth on this sugar island during the colonial era. Colonial maps of Barbados provide information on over 800 sugar plantations through remarkably detailed symbolization. These maps were digitized and georeferenced to modern elevation data, and a database of a dozen variables was constructed from each map's symbology, including size, location, and elevation of plantations, number and type of sugar mills, and their distance from roads and towns.
Parish boundaries help situate census records of landowners, servants, and slaves. These data layers reveal patterns of wealth on the island. The project seeks to contextualize these patterns within the broader economic geography of the colonial Caribbean sugar industry as well as address issues of symbolization for historical data and the accuracy of locational information in historical cartography.
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures vi List of Tables vii
Acknowledgements viii
Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Research Questions 8 Significance 10
Chapter 2: Literature Review 13
Chapter 3: Methodology 21 Maps 23 Adding Features 28 Census 31 Determining Wealth 34 Categorizing Wealth 41 Mapping the Wealth 44
Chapter 4: Findings 47 Issues with Historical Data 47 Analysis and Classification 56 Results 61 Case Studies 75 Windmill Study 75 Bridgetown Study 78
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusions 82 Discussion 84 Conclusion 88
Bibliography 90
Appendices 98 Appendix A: the Parish of St. Andrew 99 Appendix B: the Parish of Christ Church 105 Appendix C: the Parish of St. George 127 Appendix D: the Parish of St. James 134
iv Appendix E: the Parish of St. John 144 Appendix F: the Parish of St. Joseph 151 Appendix G: the Parish of St. Lucy 157 Appendix H: the Parish of St. Michael 180 Appendix I: the Parish of St. Peter 192 Appendix J: the Parish of St. Philip 205 Appendix K: the Parish of St. Thomas 227 Appendix L: Bridgetown 238
v LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: A map of Barbados by Richard Ligon, 1657 4
Figure 1.2: A map of Barbados by Richard Ford, 1674 5
Figure 1.3: A map of Barbados by Herman Moll, 1736 6
Figure 2.1: Glyph-style medieval city markers (from Buckley et al. 2013) 19
Figure 2.2: Legend from Ford's map of 1674 showing glyph symbols 19
Figure 3.1: A map of rough boundaries of soil types (Starkey 1939) 36
Figure 3.2: Wealth compared to acreage and total workers 43
Figure 3.3: A section of Ford's map showing the relative homogeneity of symbols 46
Figure 4.1: Regional Allocation Issues with Parish Boundaries 52
Figure 4.2: Sum of Wealth by Parish in Census 63
Figure 4.3: Sum of Wealth by Parish on Ford Map 64
Figure 4.4: Wealth Compared to Acreage and Total Workers: Ford Map 65
Figure 4.5: Average Wealth by Parish in Census 67
Figure 4.6: Average Wealth by Parish on Ford Map 68
Figure 4.7: Plantation Count by Parish in Census 70
Figure 4.8: Plantation Count by Parish on Ford Map 71
Figure 4.9: Class Distribution by Parish 73
Figure 4.10: Wealth by Soil Type 74
vi LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1: Parish Wealth Sums 61
Figure 4.2: Parish Wealth Averages 66
Figure 4.3: Plantations per Parish 69
Figure 4.4: Plantations Classes by Parish 72
Figure 4.5: Soil Averages 72
vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would first like to thank Dr. Deryck Holdsworth, my advisor, from whom the original topic for this thesis originated, and who provided multiple sources and leads on data and information over the last two years. Dr. Anthony Robinson provided critiques as part of my committee, and was also a sounding board in the middle of the project to solidify ideas. Dr. Cynthia Brewer was kind enough to travel to Barbados and take useful reference pictures of relevant features, and while not specific to this project, created
ColorBrewer, which was indispensable while making maps. Dr. Karl Zimmerer helped coalesce the origins of the topic, and gave final approval of this thesis.
It is also necessary to thank the Church of Latter-Day Saints, State College, PA for supplying the Barbados census of 1680, which provides about half of the information in this thesis. The staff were also extremely helpful with transferring the data from microfilm to a digital format.
Finally, I cannot give enough thanks to Allison Machnicki, whose continued support and motivation made it possible for me to finish the thesis in a timely fashion without stressing out over the various forms and deadlines.
viii Chapter 1: Introduction
Within a few decades of the English first visiting Barbados in 1624, Barbados had grown to be the largest sugar-producing region in the world, and “the richest and most populous colony in English America” shortly thereafter (Dunn 1969). Multiple maps of plantations and mills were produced, a remarkable record of the island’s economic geography. These maps, as well as a detailed census of 1679, provide the data from which to symbolize the contours of wealth. Explorations of how to visualize these data contribute to recent developments in digital humanities and Geographic Information
Systems (GIS). Barbados was predominantly colonized by the English, and officially claimed as an English Colony under King Charles I, but there were also significant populations of Dutch, French, and other nationalities settling the island in the 1600s.
Although Barbados was strongly British, its importance in the emerging Atlantic sugar economy also benefited from the Sephardic Jewish community that helped capitalize innovative sugar mills, and a merchant network from Amsterdam to Brazil included
Barbados (Schreuder 2002, 2004, 2006). Quakers were also an important part of the merchant community that helped link the plantation world with international markets.
Barbados was originally settled with the intention of making it a tobacco- producing island, as tobacco was in demand and easily planted. However, within a few years it was discovered that tobacco did not grow readily in the tropical climate, and other commodities were sought. The production of sugar for human consumption was a
1 luxury until colonization of the West Indies provided a cheap and stable industry of sugar cane production and refinement. Prior to colonization, refined sugar was reserved for the upper classes of society. Until the 1600s, sugar was mostly produced in the
Mediterranean, especially Crete, and Atlantic islands, especially the Canary Islands.
However, with the colonization by Europeans of the Atlantic islands in the 17th century, it was possible to grow sugar cane with much greater yields, which outweighed the costs of shipment back to Europe (Galloway 1989). By the 1650s the Barbados colonists discovered that sugar cane grew much more readily than tobacco. Three decades later, the island was almost exclusively producing sugar. From a descriptive cartouche on a map from 1674 by Richard Ford, the principal commodities of the time were “Sugar of all sorts viz. Muscovado [brown sugar]… Cotton, Ginger, Aloes, Logwood, Fustick [dye] green & yellow & Lignum vitæ [trade wood]; besides some Indico [dye] & Tobacco, but not near so much as formerly”.
Transport of raw sugar cane back to Europe was deemed too costly; the weight of the whole cane stalks and the perishable nature of the plant on long voyages decreased the profit of the final product (Galloway 1989). It was discovered to be more lucrative to set up initial extraction and refining factories in the colonies to pre-process the sugar cane into a non-perishable, lighter, somewhat refined state. The process of refinement first involved trimming the sugar cane and milling it to squeeze out the raw cane juice. On
Barbados, mills arose in conjunction with the sugar plantations, and were often the property of the plantation owners. Sugar mills were built in three varieties: wind-, water-, or cattle-driven.
2 Cartographers began mapping Barbados exclusive from the rest of the Windward
Islands from at least 1657 (e.g. a map by Richard Ligon was published in 1657, and is the earliest known map of Barbados alone). Early maps were not wholly accurate in terms of the shape of the island, but showed details of the sugar plantations. Symbols displaying the size of plantations and types of sugar mills were common on maps of Barbados from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Ligon’s map, for instance, shows the locations of sugar plantation labeled with the surname of the plantation owner (figure 1.1). Later maps, such as those by Richard Ford (1680) and Herman Moll (1736) incorporated symbolization to differentiate between the types of mills associated with plantations, or the size of the estate (figures 1.2, 1.3). Ford mapped the different types of mills and their number for each plantation, while Moll mapped plantations with symbols showing how many mills were associated with each.
In 1657 there were 280 plantations on Barbados located primarily on the western coast of the island, close to the ports of Bridgetown and Speightstown and the roads leading to them. By this time, sugar was already a substantial crop (tobacco failing shortly after the 1620s), and in the next few decades, the number of plantations and their distribution across the island would flourish. By 1680, that number had grown to about
2500, but only 813 were mapped. The economy of the sugar trade was incredibly important in this time period, so these maps were drawn to communicate information about the sugar plantations to the Lords of Trade and Plantations, a committee of the
Privy Council of the United Kingdom (Blathwayt and Black 1970). A census was taken in 1679 for the same reason (Dunn 1969), and finished and presented to the Lords of
3 Figure 1.1: A map of Barbados by Richard Ligon, 1657. Ligon, by 1.1: of A Richard Barbados map Figure
4 Figure 1.2: A map of Barbados by Richard Ford, 1674. Ford, by 1.2: of A Richard Barbados map Figure
5 Figure 1.3: A map of Barbados by Herman Moll, 1736. Herman BarbadosFigure map by 1.3: of A
6 Trade in 1680. The census is the most complete summary of the demographics and economics of the island in the colonial period of Barbados. The population of Barbados had burgeoned from around 20,000 people in the 1650s (including white landowners, servants, and black slaves) to 65,000 by the 1680s (Blathwayt 1970, Meinig 1986).
While the history of the island is well studied, the historical maps of Barbados have received less attention. Though there are many maps from the colonial period, there have not been many studies to analyze them individually, and none to compare them across time. Spatial analyses of the plantation data are nonexistent. Additionally, though the demographics of colonial Barbados are known from the census of 1679–80, these data have not been correlated with the historical maps to garner spatial understanding of the population.
The census is not completely accurate; the vast quantity of people (approximately
65,000) and the lack of technology to cross-check the data introduce some error. For instance, the population totals in Bridgetown given at the end of the census are slightly less than the actual count. Also, the totals do not count women, only men and children.
Other parishes do not even mention women or children, so the population represented in the census was considerably lower than the actual amount. In addition, large planters may have desired to hide some of their holdings from the Lords of Trade (for taxation purposes), so the numbers may have been skewed by up to 15%. While the numbers of servants and slaves seem to have been reported mostly accurately, the acreages are consistently somewhat erroneous (Dunn 1969). Regardless of the accuracy of the census,
7 it is the most complete summary of the demographics and economics of the island in the colonial period of Barbados.
The issue of accuracy is important to consider when working with historical data, especially when working across time. In addition, the use of data from multiple cartographers and political regimes adds more levels of uncertainty. Grappling with this uncertainty is an inherent part of the problem of applying modern technology to historical data. This project will not satisfactorily address this issue, so further research, such as ground-truthing of mill or plantation locations, would be required to fully explore these intricacies after these initial research goals are met.
Research Questions
This project, an exercise in the digital visualization of colonial cartography through an exploration of markers of wealth in the sugar colony of Barbados, considers whether elements of contemporary GIS and cartography (layers for terrain, hydrology and land use, etc.) can be correlated with hand-drawn maps. Analyses were conducted of three historical maps of Barbados showing symbolization of economic details of sugar plantations, though differing in the content displayed. The locations of sugar mills on
Barbados were analyzed to determine if there are patterns of location for their construction. The analysis was conducted using the Richard Ford map of 1674, which shows all plantations and their associated mills of that time.
Preliminary analyses of the data show that the 1679 census matches the names of the plantation owners shown on the maps (specifically the Ford map of 1674), and that
8 the maps relate to each other in terms of plantation names and locations. The listing of slaves and servants in the census provides an opportunity to mark wealth through a symbol set other than a house or mill, though sensitivities to icon choice to mark the racialized labor force will be critical.
Using these data, the patterns of wealth on colonial Barbados are explored. The distribution of wealth across the island may have been affected by factors such as time, topography, settlement patterns, or politics. These variables were examined to determine the likely causes of wealth distribution and movement over the years, as well as situate
Barbados in the broader geography of the Atlantic trade world. The patterns and movements of wealth were visualized using GIS.
Wealth on Barbados at the time studied is for the purposes of this thesis divided into four categories: the cost of land; the cost of slaves; the cost of servants, both indentured and free; and the cost of buildings, notably mills. For these four categories, information on costs were derived partially from the map and census data (e.g. for numbers of slaves and servants, numbers of mills) and partially from alternate primary sources, such as business logs detailing the costs of slaves, or the cost of land on equivalent islands such as Jamaica. Mills were differentiated based on mode of power
(wind, cattle, or water), both to determine differences of wealth based on each, and to show the influence of the Dutch introduction of wind power and its spread over the island
(Schreuder 2002). While a precise calculation cannot be made of the wealth of each plantation due to the nature of historical data, the numbers assigned provide relative value in respect to other plantations. That is, these calculations show the rich and the poor
9 plantations and everything in between, and at least provide an estimate of wealth that can be correlated to terms understood in the modern day.
In the process of this study, the case of colonial Barbados is used to examine the modern use of symbols to convey historical data succinctly and full of detail. The maps of early Barbados use various symbols to display factors like plantation size or renown, but this project has many more variables to deal with. It is therefore necessary to explore the optimal means of displaying diverse and detail-rich data. Understanding the specifics of Barbadian colonial wealth and the movement of goods and people could also translate to the study of the broader Atlantic geographies. Visualizing the contours of Barbadian wealth necessarily connects to wider emerging commodity chains in the evolving world- system (Wallerstein 2004); as such, tracking the movement of goods and people between
Barbados ports, Bristol and London, as well as Amsterdam, Brazil and the Carolinas contributes to the wider scholarship on the early Atlantic world.
Significance
The results of this research not only provide new interpretations of old data, but illuminate aspects of the colonial Barbadian community that have not been effectively examined up to this point. For instance, while the number of plantations on Barbados has been known from primary sources, the prosperity of these plantations has been accepted as fact based on the symbolization on contemporary maps. The classification scheme on these maps, however, is limited: the plantations are categorized either by size or by number of mills. However, the symbols do not take into account how many slaves
10 worked on a plantation, whether the landowner owned other properties, or how established the plantation might be.
These issues can be eye-opening from a historical perspective, but also from an economic view transcending time. In terms of historical research, this thesis will be beneficial to many subfields. Not only does this research delve into great detail on a specific sugar-producing island, with implications into Atlantic history, movement of trade, the growth of the Americas, and so forth, but it also illuminates further information on the slave trade of the early British colonies. Those invested in slave research will benefit from a categorical analysis of a discrete population of slaves, both from Africa and from the British Isles (terminology aside, indentured servants on Barbados from
Scotland and Ireland were no different from slaves). This thesis adds to this body of knowledge.
In addition, the information provided by this thesis will be useful to historical geographers, and to some extent to any study of either Barbados or historical economics.
Also, the work done with the census of 1679 provides information that has been relatively inaccessible up to this point. The raw census data were only available for this thesis on microfilm, but this thesis provides both an analysis of the data different from those done before (e.g. Hotten 1874; Dunn 1969), but also includes a digitized version of the census as an appendix. This information was otherwise only provided for the first six of eleven parishes. The census data may be extremely useful again for historians and
11 geographers, but perhaps most notably for genealogical studies. Herein lies an opportunity for this research to be accessible to the broader public.1
From an economic standpoint, this thesis will useful as a template for further study. It provides a glimpse at the early Barbadian economy which could easily be applied to further studies of other sugar-producing islands (e.g. Jamaica) without modification, but more broadly to other regions and time periods. The history of
Barbados was built on the backbone of sugar plantations, and knowing how its economy was established and changed over the early centuries of its history would help illuminate why and how it was such a successful colony. Fortunes were made and lost on the island, but this thesis will show more than the few great fortunes that lasted. It shows the distribution of wealth, which plantations prospered and which were absorbed, and provides an insight into the stimuli for change over time. Similar patterns of wealth can be found throughout time and space; this thesis can be used as a building block for future research in historical geographies of economics and trade.
1 Aside from publication in this thesis, which will be available online, the lists of census data may be submitted to other online databases, for example www.slavevoyages.org (Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade 2008).
12 Chapter 2: Literature Review
The literature concerning Barbadian colonial history is widespread; studies of the island in the period of the mid to late 1600s and early 1700s occupy such subjects as the life of slave populations or mapping of demographic boundaries of class and race. Many of these works offer interpretations that could be incorporated into a broader study of the history of Barbadian sugar culture, but are not compatible with this thesis. Because the focus of this research is on the patterns and markers of wealth, it would be ideal to find supporting literature discussing these facets of the culture. However, over the last few decades, there are limited studies of the sugar trade on Barbados specifically; there are many works that mention Barbados only briefly, despite its status as the richest English colony for many decades (Dunn 1969) and a center of innovation in sugar production techniques for centuries (Galloway 2005). Much of the literature focusing solely on
Barbados is primary, such as descriptions of the state of the colony (e.g. Ligon 1657), or instructions for running a plantation (Thompson 2009). Leaving aside the sense that maps themselves are texts, and thus a form of literary communication (Harley 1988; Edney
2005; Cosgrove 2007), the following review identifies the most salient scholarship in current and historical writings.
A notable example of research examining the demographic profiles of the island, and therefore to some extent the economics, is a paper by the historian Richard Dunn looking at the census of 1679–80, which he uses to derive patterns of the population
13 (1969). Dunn’s work is the first major piece of research to analyze the census; he himself notes that previous mentions of the census (e.g. genealogical work by John Camden
Hotten) were cursory at best, and did not actually use it for any economic analysis.
Dunn’s analysis is primarily numeric; the census is laid out by parish, so Dunn tallies the populations from each of eleven parishes and provides statistics on each.1 A primary result of Dunn’s work is showing that the misrepresentation of slaves and acreage often assumed to be in the census (for tax reasons) is not as egregious as is often suggested. Dunn demonstrates that the totaled acreage in the census cannot be much below the actual total because it does not fall far below the limit of the size of the island.
He also suggests that though slaves would be more easily hidden from tax agents than acreage, the taxes were not too steep, so the extent of error in reporting of slaves was also not as high as is assumed.
Aside from literature discussing the broader population or the population of slaves, there are some important works dedicated to the sub-population of Sephardic Jews on Barbados, and the small but significant Quaker community. The Quaker community was a substantial part of the planter and merchant class. The twenty or so Quakers who were merchants around 1680 all lived in Bridgetown, and were among the most successful traders of the time. These merchants were responsible for about eleven percent of the total wealth of the town in 1686 (Gragg 2009).
The Jewish community was a significant factor in the economics of the island, stemming in large part to the impact the Jewish community had in the sugar economy of 1 N.B.: the census includes internal tallies of the population, both white and black, every few pages. However, the totals given at the end of each parish do not match up with the actual total (based on my own work with the census). Dunn accepts the values given in the census. While the margin of error is slight and would not significantly affect the statistics, it should be noted.
14 Brazil in the early 1600s (Schreuder 2004). The trade between the Portuguese Jewish community from Brazil was incredibly promising to merchants in London and
Amsterdam. A group of Portuguese Jews in London were more than willing to accommodate trade from Barbados, and the lower tariffs to England compared to other
European countries (notably the Netherlands) prompted almost all sugar trade to pass through London before moving to the continent.
Aside from the relatively sparse literature discussing the population of colonial
Barbados, some useful works discuss the broader colonial Atlantic sugar industry, which began with Barbados and continued through the Caribbean islands over the next centuries. Notable among these works are those by historical geographers Donald Meinig and Jock Galloway.
Meinig wrote a four-volume work about the shaping of America; the first of the four volumes deals with the history of the Atlantic world between 1492 and 1800 (Meinig
1986). A short section discusses the rise of the sugar industry in the Caribbean (moving from the Mediterranean), beginning in Barbados and moving westward over the years, synthesized from Galloway’s earlier synopsis on the Mediterranean sugar industry
(Galloway 1977). Though Meinig’s discussion of Barbados is only a brief part of a large work, his summary of the early sugar islands is a good foundation for further reading.
Galloway’s 2005 book deals solely with the sugar industry through history, expanding on his earlier work (Galloway 2005). His synopsis begins in the Mediterranean
(albeit briefly), then moves quickly to Barbados. Galloway gives a broad overview of the birth of the Atlantic sugar industry, discussing not only export, but also the specifics of
15 sugar production. He includes imagery of sugar plantations, processing plants, and sugar mills, and goes into extensive detail describing the various stages of the process.
Generally speaking, Galloway discusses the rise of Barbados as a sugar giant in the time when it built its monopoly on sugar. However, for the purposes of this project,
Galloway’s decision to end his focus on Barbados at 1680, when many of the primary sources begin to appear with greater detail, is unfortunate. While Galloway continues to discuss the role of Barbados in sugar production after 1680, the focus is more on the rise of other sugar islands. He relates Barbados to the other islands in the Caribbean, demonstrating the movement of the industry westward, eventually finding a foothold on
Jamaica, which eventually supersedes Barbados as the predominant sugar island.
The issues of slavery and indentured servitude were integral to the culture of colonial Barbados, and there is no want for literature discussing these topics. However, for this thesis, these works are too qualitative. That is not to say that the issues of slavery and servitude should be discounted—they are in fact an important factor in any study of wealth. Beckles (1989) contributes numeric data to this research in the form of prices of slaves and servants, from which are derived the final values of wealth in the form of labor. In addition, a background of information on the white indentured servants and black slaves facilitated a broader understanding of the issues, so that the estimation of value was not considered too cold and insensitive. Examples of literature on white servitude discuss the ‘redlegs’ of Barbados (so called because of their propensity to sunburn) and their impacts on Barbadian culture throughout the centuries (Barbado’ed:
Scotland’s Sugar Slaves 2012; Sheppard 1977; Beckles 1989). Topics of slavery include
16 broad surveys of slave culture in the British West Indies (e.g. Hall 1962; Dunn 1972;
Sheridan 1974; Sandiford 2000; Galenson 2002) down to the smaller levels of Barbados
(Galenson 1982; Handler and Corruccini 1983) and even Bridgetown (Welch 2003).
Specific issues include slave naming practices (Handler and Jacoby 1996) and lead poisoning (Handler et al. 1986).
In terms of the broader aspects of this project, the topic of historical GIS is integral, and with growing popularity of using GIS to visualize historical data, a background of the sub-discipline is necessary. Anne Knowles has edited two books on the subject, in essence providing overviews of noteworthy analyses using historical GIS in order to demonstrate the state of the art (Holdsworth 2002, 2003; Knowles 2002;
Gregory and Ell 2007; Gregory and Healey 2007; Hillier and Knowles 2008; Gregory and Geddes 2014). Historical geography is an older sub-discipline of geography which has often discouraged researchers due to the disproportionate amount of time invested in data-collection and analysis. However, the rise of GIS as a user-friendly tool readily available to the researcher has brought historical questions of space back to the field
(Gregory and Ell 2007; Bodenhamer, Corrigan, and Harris 2010). In addition, user- friendly databases of historical spatial data are becoming increasingly common (e.g.
Minnesota Population Center 2011). Data archives tend to only provide the raw information and avoid data reconstruction.
Effective symbolization continues to be an issue of concern to cartographers (e.g.
Harley 1988; Robinson et al. 2013; Krygier and Wood 2013), but some of the most useful recent work on symbolization concerning historical data has been done by Alan
17 MacEachren and colleagues (MacEachren et al. 2005, 2012). While their work focuses primarily on issues with modern symbols, the techniques that they approach could be applied to historical issues as well. Their recent work with uncertainty in symbolization, particularly with point markers (MacEachren et al. 2005, 2012), would be effective in attempting to resolve issues with the lack of accuracy of historical maps. In the project presented in this thesis, the locations of plantation markers cannot be conclusively symbolized because of issues of imperfect georectification (stemming from inaccurate cartography in the first place). While MacEachren et al. have not approached the topic of historical geography in their work on uncertainty, it would supply another level of data to their work so far.
Symbolization of historical point data is not frequently discussed, but Buckley et al. (2013) suggest that emulating historical techniques of cartography could add character to a map and improve user comprehension. Because the data in historical GIS research are often vague or inaccurate, mapping in a historical style implies a degree of inaccuracy that a modern style would contradict. Buckley et al. include an example of point symbolization derived from glyphs of city markers from a medieval map
(figure 2.1). In comparison, the map of Barbados of 1674 by Richard Ford includes similar glyphs for plantations and mills (figure 2.2). These glyphs are cartoon-like, that is, not representational of reality. For instance, plantation houses on Ford’s map are represented by a small structure, which does not represent the mansions of the wealthy.
In terms of visualizing historical data beyond simply mapping, cues can be taken from similar studies that use primary documents as the main data source. The work by
18 Figure 2.1: Glyph-style medieval city markers (from Buckley et al. 2013).
Figure 2.2: Legend from Ford's map of 1674 showing glyph symbols.
19 Chang et al. on visualizing networks of communication during the Enlightenment (2009), or the use of focused software to discern patterns through time in the work by Weaver et al. (2007) are prime examples of the possible directions the data could drive the work.
While these approaches to the data are perhaps too ambitious for this thesis, such techniques could be considered for future work.
Aside from modern analyses of Barbados, there is substantial information about the island in primary sources such as the census of 1679–80. Various cartographers drew maps of Barbados over the centuries, marking the sugar plantations, towns, roads, and so forth. These maps display information discrete from the census, but of equal importance to modern analysis. What no research has covered is the spatiality of historical Barbados, especially concerning the demographics of the island. Dunn stated that the census was relatively unstudied, but the maps are analyzed even less. An analysis joining maps and census data, as well as other primary documents, would reveal the spatial development of the island, the spread of wealth, and the distribution of landowners and slaves, and it is to such an analysis that the thesis now turns.
20 Methodology
In order to determine patterns of wealth on colonial Barbados, this thesis relies substantially on data derived from historical maps from 1674 and 1736 by Richard Ford and Herman Moll respectively and the census of 1679–80. The maps and census needed to be brought into a format that would allow for the extraction of information concerning plantations and sugar mills that could be linked to locational attributes such as elevation and parish. This chapter outlines in detail the processes that were used to obtain the data, prepare it for digital use, and the steps taken to determine wealth. At the end of the chapter, the methods and the processes of analyzing the maps and census as well as the details of visualizing the data are discussed. A brief discussion of the symbolization of the maps concludes the chapter.
Digitization of the maps was done primarily in ESRI ArcMap. The maps were georeferenced as accurately as possible to modern coastline data and a modern Digital
Elevation Model (DEM) of the island. Locational data such as the points of plantations and mills, roads, and topography were added by hand onto the maps.
The census was also digitized completely, which involved manual transfer of microfilm data into a database. Once that was done, it was possible to relate the census data to the databases of the maps. The variables that came from the census and the maps include: names of landowners (both in towns and plantations), numbers of servants and slaves, acreage of plantations, approximate locations and elevation of plantations (derived
21 from multiple maps), numbers and types of mills associated with each plantation, distance of plantations to roads and towns, and as much as possible, the number of plantations owned by each family (determined by surname, which may span multiple generations). Using the acreage data from the census, the plantations were categorized and displayed based on size. Although this procedure does not provide an accurate representation of the layout of the plantations, it does aid in visualization of the wealth patterns; for instance, the use of a color ramp shows the relative sizes of the plantations.
It also provides a quick visual estimate of individual plantation wealth based on size.
Unfortunately, it was not possible to obtain cadastral data of the plantations from this time period, so the actual property boundaries are for the most part unknown. Similar projects have been conducted on Jamaican plantations, offering some broad assistance in thinking about how plantations might be seen (Higman 2001).
During the process of working with the maps and census, sub-projects were performed on smaller aspects of the Barbados sugar trade. First, a study was done of the windmills on the island to determine if there was preference of construction on one side of the island or the other, or at certain elevations. Second, using a portion of the census, a case study of the population and demographics of the capital city of Barbados,
Bridgetown, was conducted. These projects were quite helpful in the study of wealth patterns, and in the case of the study of windmills, utilized as one aspect of wealth in the main study.
22 Maps
The first step in the obtainment and processing of data was to collect and convert maps. Three historical maps were considered for use in this project, but only two ended up being used. Those three maps were Richard Ligon’s map of Barbados in 1657,
Richard Ford’s 1674 map, and Herman Moll’s 1736 map. Ligon’s map is the earliest known surviving map of Barbados by itself (see figure 1.1) (Ligon 1657); previous cartographic attempts mapped the nearby Caribbean islands as well, and at a small scale.
Ligon mapped 280 plantations, located mostly along the western, leeward, coast and clustered around Bridgetown. Aside from plantations, Ligon mapped a few roads, vague topography, coastal features, and little else. However, in the spaces left empty of plantations or other features, Ligon included artistic pictorial representations of island wildlife and livestock, ships, and scenes from the sugar and slave trade (as well as the obligatory sea monsters). Unfortunately, the shape of Ligon’s Barbados does not relate well to reality, so this map was not used for analysis.
Richard Ford’s 1674 map was the first map used in this thesis (see figure 1.2)
(Ford 1674). It is considered one of the first economic maps in the world. Ford’s map is far more detailed than Ligon’s, is in color in contrast to Ligon’s monochromatic display, and is far more accurate in terms of the shape of Barbados. By the time this map was made, Barbados was far more densely settled than had been the case in 1657, which is eminently clear when viewed alongside the census. Ford included 811 plantations on his map, which is solidly fewer than the ~2500 plantations mentioned in the census five years later. Ford was limited by space and legibility to how many plantations he could fit
23 on his map. In fact, the number mentioned in the census was probably smaller than the number of plantations that would have been existent when Ford mapped Barbados, because between 1674 and 1679 there were two substantially deadly hurricanes. A number of plantations were wiped out and absorbed by larger plantations in subsequent years.
Along with plantations, Ford included the number and type of sugar mills associated with each plantation. Although it is not clear from the evidence whether the plantations Ford excluded from his map would have had associated mills, it is likely that he would have accorded preference for displaying the larger and wealthier plantations, which would have been those with mills (this issue is discussed further in the following chapter). Mills were divided by the mode of power: wind, cattle, or water. Of the 447 mills shown on Ford’s map, 374 are windmills, sixty-nine are cattle mills, and four are watermills. The lack of water power is likely due simply to the lack of sizable watercourses (all four watermills were located on the eastern coast of Barbados, near the most severe topography). Cattle mills were not common in comparison with windmills, for various possible reasons. The added cost of building a larger structure for a windmill may have been lower over time than purchasing and feeding cattle for many years. Also, the influence of Dutch settlers may have prompted the use of windmills as tradition, or at least the borrowing of that Low Countries tradition by Jewish Dutch merchants prominent in capitalizing the mills as part of the broader sugar trade.
Other features on Ford’s map include an expanded road network (as compared to
Ligon’s map), more detailed topography including titles of distinct features, locations of
24 parish churches, Quaker meeting houses, and forts, and again the requisite sea monsters.
This map was considered most useful for this thesis due to its proximity in time to the census of 1680 (so names of plantation owners would be most similar), its detail, and the use of symbology showing different types of mills.
Ford’s map was acquired from the Pennsylvania State University (PSU) Map
Library. The map was included as one of many sent to the Lords of Trade and Plantations as part of the Blathwayt Atlas (“a collection of 48 manuscript and printed maps of the
17th century relating to the British overseas empire in that era, brought together about
1683”) (Blathwayt 1970). The PSU Map Library scanned the Ford map into .jpg format and sent it via email.
The final map under consideration was by Herman Moll, published in 1736
(see figure 1.3). The date of completion is not known, but other maps included with early editions of this map were likely finished between 1729 and 1732 (Moll 1736). Moll died in 1732, so the map was certainly not completed any later.
Moll’s map is distinct from the other two mentioned here for its feature of parish boundaries. On Ligon’s map, parishes are not shown at all, and on Ford’s map parishes are only shown by their respective churches. Prior to Moll’s mapping, the boundaries of the parishes were probably inexact or under some disagreement, and even at the time of
Moll’s work, the boundaries would have remained inconsistent, as they still remain to some extent today (see next chapter). For the purposes of this thesis, the parish boundaries are useful for dividing the population of the island into regions, which allows for the aggregate mapping of discrete patterns of wealth. For instance, the region of
25 Barbadian “Scotland” on the northeastern coast was settled by the poor freed servants of
Scottish heritage. This region has poor soil quality and rugged terrain, so the plantations would not have been able to produce very much sugar. Examining the wealth of the parish of St. Andrew (where “Scotland” is located) in comparison to others will illuminate disparate patterns.
Moll’s symbology of plantations differs from that used by Ligon and Ford.
Whereas Ligon showed simply the location of plantations without any other information, and Ford symbolized separate points for mills, Moll shows distinction between relative plantation sizes. His categorization is somewhat vague: rather than simply show the mills,
Moll categorizes his plantations by note. His categorizations are 1) “plantations of greatest note or sugar works of three windmills”, 2) of two mills, 3) of one mill, and 4)
“plantations of less note &c.” Ergo, Moll does not distinguish between types of mills
(perhaps by this time, cattle mills were dwindling in popularity), nor does he state whether a given symbol is, for instance, a plantation of great note or a sugar works. For the purposes of this thesis, however, these categories were assumed to be equivalent to
Ford’s. That is, Moll’s plantation of greatest note compares to Ford’s plantation with three mills.
Moll improves upon Ford’s map in terms of the level of detail and accuracy of mapping. Moll marks 946 plantations on his map, which is again probably substantially fewer than were on Barbados at the time. There is no relevant census for this later time, so it is not possible to know the actual population. However, population growth seems to have been relatively steady, so it is likely that the population rose as steadily as the
26 number of mapped plantations. Moll’s coastline shows more features, many of them labeled. He also includes offshore hazards such as shoals and reefs (but does not include any sea monsters like Ford had!). Like Ford, he also maps forts, parish churches, and
Quaker meeting houses. His mapping of topography is slightly more detailed and accurate than previous maps as well. Moll’s map expands once again on the road network since Ford’s map, but the degree of expansion is far less than between Ford and Ligon.
Moll’s map was acquired from the David Rumsey Map Collection (David Rumsey Map
Collection 2014), a source of over 46,000 historical maps. The map was downloaded as a .jpg image in high resolution.
Other maps acquired for this thesis were modern data of the island with which to compare and align the historical maps. These data include a modern coastline of
Barbados and a modern road network, and elevation data from the NASA Shuttle Radar
Topography Mission (SRTM) program.
All the maps were imported into ESRI ArcMap 10.1. The modern data had georeferencing already, so they were the basis of aligning the historical maps. ArcMap’s georectifying technologies were used to skew and align the maps to the modern data as close as possible, but the inaccuracy of the historical cartography was evident in some areas of imprecision. This discrepancy would have been most notable had Ligon’s map been used, as the shape of his Barbados was decidedly different from the actual shape of the island. Ford’s and Moll’s maps were also not completely accurate (or coastlines have change, but this is unlikely to the degree shown). That said, these colonial maps were georeferenced as accurately as possible to the modern coastline data of Barbados. In
27 some areas, the coastlines differ by up to approximately 150 meters, most noticeably on
Ford’s map. Moll’s map is not as noticeably inaccurate, but does differ from both the modern coastline and Ford’s map. This does cause some errors of mapping, as mentioned in the following chapter.
In addition to the modern coastline data, an elevation DEM was added to the map.
This information was most useful in determining patterns of windmills (see below), but also verified the relatively vague topography shown on the historical maps. Additionally, the elevation data shows ruggedness of terrain, which plays a part in the analysis of wealth; that is, the more rugged the terrain, the less suitable it is for planting of crops, and therefore less likely to be owned by someone with financial freedoms. This can be seen readily in the north-east region of the island (“Scotland”) where freed indentured servants were given a piece of land of five acres, generally where no one else wanted it.
Adding Features
The features of interest on the historical maps for this thesis were the plantations, mills, parish churches, parishes, and roads. These features are almost completely gone or replaced by now (parish churches remain the same, as do the basic routes of the roads).
Therefore, it was necessary to add these features to the digital map in ArcMap.
Plantations were mapped using ArcMap’s Editor tools. The map was zoomed in, and the center of each plantation symbol was marked with a point. After all plantations were marked, other information was added to the point features. The points were labeled using the surnames found next to the plantation symbols. Points were labeled with preference
28 on having the label below or to the right of the point. However, other features (roads, mountains, other plantations) often were in the way, so labels were found in any orientation to the point. In some cases, names of plantations were deduced by proximity and trial and error.1 On both Ford’s and Moll’s maps, there were also a number of plantation symbols lacking names. These plantations were in almost all cases smaller plantations or lacking mills. Using the DEM elevation data, values for elevation were added to the plantation points using ArcMap’s Extract Values to Points tool. These values were interpolated, so although the resolution of the DEM was thirty meters, the values applied to the points are estimates of elevation based on surrounding values.
The same processes were used to mark mills. These features were only shown on
Ford’s map. In this case, the mills were unlabeled, but categorized based on the type of mill (wind, water, or cattle). Again, the elevation values were applied. In the case of both maps, the number of mills was applied to the plantations to which they were associated.
In the case of Ford’s map, the number of mills was obvious, because they were individually symbolized. In the case of Moll’s map, the plantations were (as mentioned previously) symbolized by relative note, or by the number of mills. The plantations “of greatest note” are indistinguishable from those with three mills, nor is there any valuation of note given. Therefore, the plantations of greatest note were categorized the same as those having three mills, and so on down to those “of less note, etc.” having no mills.
Parish churches were treated the same as the other point features, but there was far less information to add to them (in this case, only a name). It should be noted that the
1 If a label did not belong clearly to one plantation, the surrounding plantations were labeled first. In all cases, the surrounding plantations had clear labels, so the remaining label was applied to the dubious plantation.
29 parish churches were not at the center of the parish, which is why it was important to include the parish boundaries from Moll’s map.
Roads were added from Ford’s map, mostly to compare visually to the modern roads, but to some extent to discern if distance to a road made a difference for wealth.
The parish boundaries from Moll’s map were quite useful. These areas were again mapped using the Editor tools, but using polygons instead of points or lines. Moll’s map matched up to the modern coastline more precisely than Ford’s, so the parish boundaries are probably relatively accurate (at least for the time). However, because some of Ford’s map lay outside of Moll’s, some plantation from Ford’s map were left outside of the island altogether, or found in the wrong parish. This issue was overcome using information from the census, and is discussed below. For the purpose of determining patterns of wealth, the parishes were quite useful as a categorization feature. Therefore, the parish associated with each plantation was also added to the plantation features.
A pilot study was conducted on the windmills of Barbados, using the data discussed above. The purpose of this project was to determine the windward and leeward sides of the island, associate windmills with each category, and then look for patterns of construction of these mills. The hypothesis of this study was that windmills would be constructed more often on the windward side of the island (the eastern side), despite a preference for the western side of the island in general.2 The variables derived from this study, including aspect and slope, were added to the point features of mills from the Ford map.
2 The capitol of Barbados, Bridgetown, is located on the southwest corner of the island, and the population spread from there
30 In summary, the data at this stage included two historical maps, a modern coastline, modern elevation data, line data of roads, polygon data of parishes, and point data of churches, mills (including variables of type, aspect, and slope), and plantations
(including variables of name, size/number of mills, elevation, and parish).
Census
Further data were derived from the census of 1679-80. This census could not previously be found other than in microfilm format. James Camden Hotten, in 1874, published data from the census, but for some reason only included half of the parishes
(Hotten 1874), and the data are difficult to extract into a digital format as is.3 For this thesis, the census was needed in its entirety, so the microfilm version was acquired and accessed through the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (sent from their main library to the State College, PA Family History Center). The microfilm needed to remain in the center, but instead of coding the census manually in the center, photographs of every page were taken. These photographs were loaded onto a computer, read from the screen, and inputted into a digital spreadsheet. The resultant coding involved 2547 landholders (plantations) and 405 householders (in Bridgetown).4
Coding of the census involved the inputting of values for: surname, first name, any titles (such as doctor, esquire, etc.), suffix (Jr., Sr.), whether the named had a wife, children, or ‘comp.,’5 hired (white) servants, bought or indentured (white) servants, black
3 Hotten’s book is available digitally through Google Books, but the lists of names and associated values are not well formatted for digital use. 4 A database was considered for this information, but most values were dissimilar. 5 This is assumed to mean complainant, but the meaning of this is not clear. If it is used in a financial or legal sense, it is not known what role these complainants play. The abbreviation could also mean “companion,” but there is no reference for this either.
31 slaves (listed as Negroes), acres, and sundry additional information (coded as notes). Not all of these variables were used for every parish. For instance, many parishes listed no wives or children; whether there were wives or children is unknown, but likely. Some parishes list hired and bought servants separately, while others list them simply as white servants. Some parishes include titles for most citizens, be it simply ‘Mr.’, while others list very few titles at all. These issues did not affect this study; in the following analysis, white servants will be considered equal. Data for the cost of a hired servant versus a bought/indentured servant are scant, but suggest that having to pay a stipend and buy land for freed indentured servants would be relatively equivalent in cost to paying a salary to a hired servant. Black slaves were a distinct category because the cost of purchasing and feeding a slave would have been substantially lower than for a white servant.
The lack of mention of wives or children in some parishes does not affect this study, because the focus here is at the household level. In many cases, the landholder was a widow, suggesting that many male plantation owners had wives who would take over the business upon his death. However, the extra people in a household would not appreciably affect the wealth of a plantation. For studies of the demographics of
Barbados, this omission would cause issue, but for this thesis, the people are an incidental part of wealth patterns.
A study based on the census of the population of Bridgetown was conducted. This study was designed to showcase the demographics of the town and discuss the origins and family patterns in the town, as well as compare Bridgetown to similar towns in
England. The results of this study are discussed in the next chapter.
32 The values from the plantation were used in conjunction with the plantation data from the maps. Because the census was taken in 1679-80, the census data were applied to the Ford map data of 1674. The variables added to the plantations were the number of acres and the number of servants and slaves.
The number of acres for a plantation may not be accurately represented in the census. Aside from error introduced intentionally by the census takers (under- representing sizes of plantations or numbers of slaves for taxation purposes), there are some instances of an adjustment of acreage for certain large landholders. Plantations tended not to exceed 200 acres (Dunn 1972), but in the census, landholders are shown to own up to 910 acres in one parish. These landholders are also shown to own plantations in other parishes with no record of acreage. In fact, the plantations belonging to these landholders were probably even in size around 200 acres, but represented in the census together (again, probably for taxation reasons). In these cases, the acreages were divided evenly between all plantations belonging to the landholder (where the name was clearly unique).
The census provided another benefit to the analysis of the plantations, because it listed all landholders by parish. On the map by Ford, the lack of parish boundaries means that it is necessary to rely on Moll’s boundaries for classification. However, it was noticed that some plantations on Ford’s map were not mentioned in the census where they should have been. In many of those cases, it was possible to check nearby parishes for the plantation name. Most of these plantations were at the edges of parishes, so the fact that they were found in adjacent parishes could mean either that boundaries changed,
33 Ford erroneously mapped the plantations, the plantations lands were in a different parish than Ford’s symbol, or simply there were inaccuracies between the maps. Of the few dozen plantations not found in the correct parish, the census allowed about three fourths of them to be reclassified.
An issue between the census and Ford’s map that was not found to impact the study was that Ford and the census taker(s) spelled names differently. Luckily, the different spellings did not make the names unrecognizable. The names were left both on the map and in the census as they were originally found.
Determining Wealth
The next step in the project was analysis of the data. While cursory examinations of the map and census data did show patterns of, for instance, larger plantations, trends could not be truly examined without first determining how wealth would be classified.
Looking to the literature and primary documents, it was possible to discover and extrapolate values for various aspects of plantation wealth. The five categories of wealth mentioned in this study are: acres of land, number of black slaves, number of white servants (hired or indentured), buildings, and sundry other costs. The first four are used in the study, the last is not.
The cost of an acre of land in the 1670s–1680s was not available. However, values for the value of land between 1638 and 1650 were found, based on deeds books from the Barbados Department of Archives (Schwartz 2004). Additional values were found in Ligon’s writings on Barbados in 1657 (Ligon 1657). Using these values, a trend
34 line was calculated to project the values of acres upwards from the known values. Of course, this is not a precise measurement of value, but it the closest approximation of an actual value available.
The value of acres also would have varied substantially based on the quality of the land. No digital shapefiles of soil quality on Barbados could be found for this project, but a chart of soils was found in The Economic Geography of Barbados (figure 3.1) (Starkey
1939). Though only an approximate representation of the soils, these categories could be applied to the plantations.6 Starkey includes six categories of soil. He states that the
Scotland soils were of little economic importance, and were too thin for sugar cane, but he includes little information on the quality of other soils. Dunn mentions that the parishes of St. George and St. John had the best quality soils, which would coincide with
Starkey’s red soils (Starkey 1939; Dunn 1972). Dunn also says that the parish of St. Lucy had the worst soils, which does not agree with Starkey’s assertion of poor Scotland soils.
In reference to the locations of rich and poor plantations, it would seem that Dunn is correct to a point, because the black soils of St. Lucy are also found in St. Philip, which has a paucity of large plantation and few millworks. However, Starkey’s region of shallow black soils would presumably be worse. In this case, however, the shallow black soils abut red sandy soils and red soils, which seem to be of better quality, so the parishes containing shallow black soils are not adversely affected in overall soil quality.
Therefore, for the purposes of this study, this order of greatest fertility to least is
6 Starkey does not classify the soils in order of fertility, and does state that “it is extremely difficult to determine the natural nutrients in Barbadian soils because of the heavy and continuous fertilization which has been carried on for nearly three centuries” (Starkey 1949).
35 Figure 3.1: A map of rough boundaries of soil types (Starkey 1939).
36 suggested: red soils, red sandy soils, deep black soils, Scotland soils, black soils, shallow black soils.
This is not a be-all and end-all classification of Barbadian soils, but is based on the little information available. Because the sources are vague, little variability has been applied to the values of land. If there were either better information on the quality of soil, or precise values of land in each region of soil, a better approximation could be provided.
The next category of plantation wealth is black slavery. Galenson (1982) provides values for the cost of slaves between 1673 and 1723. These values are not for slaves in general, but split between gender and age (male/female, adult/child). In addition,
Galenson includes the number of each category sold in the slave market each year.7 Using the numbers and values, it is possible to determine the average cost of a slave per year, regardless of gender or age. In 1679, the average cost of a slave in Barbados was £17.89.
The cost of a slave would not differ by parish, because all slaves were purchased from a few markets. Therefore, slaves are an excellent indicator of wealth, because all values are equal. A plantation with more slaves would, in an ideal system, be more wealthy. This is the trend, but the other variables of wealth do shift total wealth within a certain range.
Slaves were a long-term investment. The average £17.89 cost of a slave translates to at least £2,452 in modern currency (~$4,000 USD). However, a slave would work for a plantation in most cases until death. In addition, any children born of a slave woman became the property of the slave owner as well. In 1655, plantation owners valued a slave child around £5.
7 The numbers are derived from only one slave market, but reflect the general costs of slaves.
37 One factor that had to be considered by plantation owners was the opportunity cost of slaves. Some slaves would have skills that would be useful to a plantation besides planting and harvesting sugar (e.g. smithing). A plantation owner had to determine if it was worth his investment to keep the slave in the field (and take in more profit from sugar directly), or put the slave to use in a different role. Keeping a slave out of the field may also prolong his or her life, making the initial investment even more lucrative. These decisions would not affect initial cost, but may affect later profits.
The third category of wealth is that of white servants. Unfortunately, there is almost no information on how much it would have cost to keep free servant on Barbados.
Indentured servants are better represented: Taylor (2002) states that the cost of purchasing and keeping a white indentured servant would cost £12 over the four years of service. It is unclear what decade Taylor is referencing, but this cost is likely between
1645 and 1655. After 1662, a fixed price for a three year contract for a servant was £18
(Beckles 1989). Taylor states that black slaves were a better bargain than white indentured servants despite an initially higher cost, because slaves would work for far longer than indentured servants. Additionally, the plantation owner would have to buy a small plantation (minimum five acres) for the servants after five years, which would significantly increase the cost, even if the land were cheaper than average (in the
Scotland district, for instance). Opportunity cost again would play a role with white servants, although free servants were unlikely to work in the field in a menial role.
An indentured servant cost (on average) £3 per year around 1650 and £6 per year after 1662, (extrapolated to about £10 per year in 1679); a free servant would have
38 probably cost more, given that they were not serving time. Therefore, a free servant would have been one of the most costly members of a plantation. It is not possible to determine the cost per year for a slave, given that it would include room and board, which is not mentioned in the literature. It is also not possible to determine the average length of service, because slaves would join a plantation and die at different ages. However, it is quite likely that a slave would live longer than six years, and anything longer than that could be more cost-effective than keeping an indentured servant, up to a certain age (John
Pinney: A Plantation Owner n.d.).
The fourth category of wealth is the cost of buildings. In the 1790s, Bryan
Edwards evaluated the costs of an average large plantation on Jamaica (1819). Included in this valuation is a breakdown of the costs of all the buildings on such a plantation, as well as costs for slaves, livestock, and sundry costs. A very rough estimate of inflation suggests that Edwards’ estimate of £12,500 for 250 slaves would equate to 2.79 times the cost of the same in 1679 Barbados. The same ratio applied to Edwards’ estimate of building cost of £5,000 would equate to about £1,800. The plantation that Edwards was examining was 600 acres in size, which is far larger than anything found on Barbados during the 1600s (where the largest plantation would not generally exceed 200 acres).
Therefore, the cost of buildings would probably be less than this estimate. However,
Edwards does include individual costs for buildings, notably mills, which serves a purpose for this project because mills are the only buildings shown on maps aside from the estate house. Edwards states that a watermill would cost £1,000 (equating to £358 on
Barbados), and a wind or cattle mill would each cost half as much. Additional buildings
39 that Edwards mentions are a boiling house, a curing house, a distillery house, an overseer’s house, slave quarters, stables, shops, a hospital, prison, etc. On Barbados in the
1670s, the main export was muscovado sugar (a brown, unrefined form); rum was not commonly exported. Therefore, it is unlikely that most plantations would have a distillery. Additionally, slave quarters and stables would have been smaller due to having fewer slaves and livestock. Finally, shops, hospitals, and prisons were probably not common. An estimate of building costs for a large plantation containing two windmills
(or one watermill), therefore, would be about £900. The formula used to determine the cost of buildings for each plantation is as follows:
a c= ( m∗179 )+ ( s∗1555 ) ,ifm>0 ( 200 ) 8,9,10 0.37143 1555 a 0 { c= ( s∗ ) ( 200 ),ifm= }
Finally, the last category of wealth encompasses sundry costs. These costs would include the provision of dung for fertilizer; food, clothing, and other wares for the family, slaves, and servants; the cost of keeping some land untilled, or even forested, whether for erosion prevention or poor soil quality, and the use of land for purposes other than profit
(such as growing crops for consumption). These costs are not delineated in the primary literature, and are therefore impossible to compute. That said, it would be logical to assume that these costs would scale relative to the size of the plantation, and the omission
8 The value of 179 is the cost of one wind or cattle mill in GBP. The few plantations having watermills were manually rectified. 9 The value of 1,555 is a ratio of the average value of slaves per acre to the remainder of £900 after mills are accounted for (£542). For instance, if a plantation has 0.355 slaves/acre, then the full £542 is applied. 10 If a plantation is 200 acres, then the value of slaves per acre is multiplied by 1, totaling £900, if there are two mills.
40 thereof would not affect the relative wealth. Also, these sundry costs would not make up a substantial part of the costs of a plantation, aside from perhaps the provision of dung.
Henry Drax, a plantation owner in the late 1600s, mentions the importance of dung, and provides an estimate of the number of livestock needed to provide sufficient fertilizer
(Thompson 2009). Because the livestock producing dung were used for other purposes on the plantation (e.g. pulling wagons, turning mills, plowing, or even food), the extra expense may be negligible.
Categorizing Wealth
Previous categorizations of the plantations of Barbados did so primarily using acreage and slave counts as variables (Dunn 1972). This does give a rough approximation of wealth, but because of all the other variables involved in wealth, it is not sufficiently accurate for this study. Dunn (1972) proposes categorization into four levels: the freeman, small planter, middling planter, and big planter. During the late 1600s, only those white men with over ten acres of land were eligible to vote in elections. There was therefore a clear distinction between the terms ‘freeman’ and ‘freeholder’. Dunn’s category of a freeman is a landholder without sufficient acreage to vote (fewer than ten acres), but not subservient to anyone. Dunn’s other categories are all based on owning at least ten acres of land, and otherwise categorized by the number of slaves on the plantation. A freeholder with zero to nineteen slaves would be a small planter, eligible to vote, but turning little profit. A middling planter would have twenty to fifty-nine slaves,
41 which Dunn says would be sufficient to have a moderately sized plantation up to about
100 acres. A big planter would have over sixty slaves, up to the maximum.
Dunn’s categories begin to approach a more usable approximation of wealth, but his categories seem to be mostly arbitrary. His break of ten acres is logical, because there seems to have been a tendency for aiming to own at least this much land for voting privileges. It was useful to Dunn because he was attempting to classify plantations by productive worth, not acreage, and he was not attempting to show actual wealth. In any case, his breaks of the number of slaves appear to be his own estimate of a fair distribution.11
The method proposed for this study involves not only the acreages and number of slaves, but includes the variables of white servants and costs of buildings. Although Dunn states that acreage is not useful (past the level of ten acres) due to its variability of quality, it is proposed here that acreage should not be ignored. As mentioned above, the variability of soil quality has been taken into account, and values adjusted accordingly.
To categorize the plantations, the costs of each variable were totaled to arrive at a sum of money in pounds sterling. This total value was seen to be the approximate worth of a plantation, and therefore the plantation owner. The distribution of value across all of
Barbados is heavily positively skewed. That is, there is more value in the top quarter of plantations than there is in the lower three-quarters (figure 3.2). Put another way, 80% of the wealth of Barbados is held by 20% of the plantations (Jiang 2012). To distribute the values relatively equally, the technique of head/tail breaks is employed. Head/tail breaks 11 Dunn’s break between middling and big planters of owning 60 slaves derives from his mention that this would amount to an investment of £1,000. This value is close to the price given by Galenson (1982), but not exact (£1,000 would buy closer to fifty-six slaves, whereas sixty would cost £1,075). Regardless, there seems to be no significance to the number of £1,000.
42 Figure 3.2: Wealth compared to acreage and total workers.
are so called because they split the ‘head’ of the distribution (the end to which the data are skewed) from the ‘tail’ (the trailing end nearing zero) (Jiang 2012). This step is done repeatedly until the categories are roughly equal (in this case, three breaks, making four categories). The breaks are determined by first discovering the arithmetic mean of all values. This is the first break. The subsequent breaks are placed by finding the arithmetic mean of all values above the previous break.12
The four categories of wealth applied to the data using head/tail breaks differ from Dunn’s categories, tending to demote plantations from Dunn’s categories rather than the reverse. Only in three cases do the head/tail categories raise a plantation to a higher category. However, this is not detrimental to this study. Because the purpose of
12 For example, the first mean, m1, lies between the minimum and the maximum; the second mean, m2,
lies between m1 and the maximum, and so on.
43 this study is to examine and visualize wealth, it is logical to classify those of similar wealth together. Having the right to vote does not affect a man’s financial standing, even if his social rank differs. The categories of wealth, classified here as poor, lower middling, upper middling, and rich, were applied to the plantation data in ArcMap.
Mapping The Wealth
In order to visualize and analyze the wealth patterns, the variables added to the plantation points were applied to the map. Initially, it was planned to visualize the layout of plantations using Thiessen polygons, but the limitations of the data and of ArcMap rendered it unfeasible. Rather than rely on the default settings of ArcMap, it was hoped that the Thiessen polygons could be bounded by roads and limited to certain acreages.
Because the number of plantations marked on the map is far fewer than were mentioned in the census, there are gaps between plantations that would not have been properly filled using Thiessen calculations.
Not all of the plantations were buffered, because a number of the plantations on the Ford map do not match names in the census, and were therefore not given values of acreage. This does not affect the outcome of analysis: wealth by parish can be analyzed using only the census, and analyses of the plantations shown on the Ford map can omit the plantations missing from the census. This is a limitation of the nature of historical data; analyses done with the part of data that is complete may be applied to the whole, under the premise that the selection was unbiased and represents the missing data.
44 Aside from the visualization of area, it was necessary to visualize the plantation and mill points as well. The early maps of Barbados use various symbols to display plantation size or types of sugar mill that would be reducible to point symbols of certain sizes and colors, but this thesis has developed many more variables to deal with, such as the numbers of servants and slaves and the overall wealth.
Symbols of building type do occur on Ford’s map (notably for mills), and the level of detail is quite high, but despite this the symbols are not immediately and easily identifiable (see figure 3.3). To display the type and number of mill for better viewing and comprehension, plantations were symbolized with a simple circle, but differing in size and color. Plantations with water mills were colored blue, windmills a light yellow, and cattle mills red. If plantations had both wind and cattle mills, they were colored orange (derived from ColorBrewer.org). Any plantations without mills were colored black. Differences in the number of mills on a plantation were shown by different sizes of point symbol. No plantation/millwork exceeded three mills.
45 Figure 3.3: A section of Ford's map showing the relative homogeneity of symbols.
46 Chapter 4: Findings
Many of the findings of this thesis occurred throughout the process of collecting and analyzing the data. The previous chapter focused on the processes of analysis, but some aspects were glossed over in preference of outlining the results together.
Additionally, this chapter will examine the eventual findings from the analysis, including the production of final maps.
Issues with Historical Data
A significant aspect of this analysis of historical maps and the census was the necessity to overcome many issues inherent in historical data. Richard Ligon’s map was unusable for this study because of its spatial inaccuracy. Ford’s and Moll’s maps suffered the same issue, but not to the same degree. Because the maps were surveyed and drawn by hand, there are different inconsistencies between the maps. In addition, the various cartographers may have had different ideas about what was important to show on a map, and therefore leave out detail in other areas. For instance, both Ford’s and Moll’s maps are relatively accurate in terms of the notation of plantations, but their representation of the coastline of Barbados is vague. Ford’s coastline is less detailed than Moll’s, and in fact appears in some places to have been arbitrarily drawn rough to show that it was not simply a straight line, but had not been officially surveyed.
47 It is clear from comparisons between the census and the maps that both Ford and
Moll had to have taken liberties with the representation of plantations. There are 811 plantations drawn on Ford’s map and 946 on Moll’s, but there are 2547 landholders listed in the census, most of whom own land. Not only that, but some of the landholders omitted from the maps own substantial acreage. An analysis of the distribution of plantation acreages on Ford’s map show that there is a decent range of plantation sizes, but the map shows preference for plantations with more acreage. Although it is not clear from the evidence whether the plantations Ford excluded from his map would have had associated mills, it is likely that Ford would have given preference for displaying the larger and wealthier plantations, which would have mills. In some parishes there are no large plantations on Ford’s map (e.g. the parish of St. Philip, on the southeast point of
Barbados). Ford could have filled these parishes with smaller plantations simply to fill the space.
Neither Ford’s nor Moll’s maps delineate plantation boundaries. If the plantations were bounded, the maps would not only show the relative size of the plantations that were illustrated, but also show the gaps where no plantations were drawn. This would give a better idea of where the large plantations would have been located. Not all land was put to growing sugar, however, and the census does not make it clear whether acres on a plantation were for sugar production or other purposes. Regardless, it would be useful to know who owned what part of the island.
Nor do either of the maps tell the actual acreage of the plantations, but only indicate size by symbols. On Ford’s map, mills may show relative size and wealth, and
48 on Moll’s, the symbols show the “relative note” of the plantations. Based on the plantations shown on Ford’s map and the census, however, the plantations with no mills have land between zero1 and 400 acres, one mill has between zero and 447 acres, two mills have between eight and 910 acres, and three mills twenty-one to 705. Certainly, the average acres in respect to the number of mills go up, but the number of mills alone is not a good indicator of wealth. For instance, the acreages between eight and 400 are found with between none and three mills. In addition, a large number of the plantations on
Ford’s map are not found in the census (179 of 811, or 22.26%). Judging the wealth of these plantations by their mills alone would be unwise.
Problems also arise from aligning the historical maps with each other and with modern data. The historical maps are not perfectly aligned with the modern coastline, nor is it possible to align them perfectly through simple skewing. Perhaps with software other than ArcMap it would be possible to rubber-sheet the maps so that in most cases the data would align. In this study case, the deviation is not too severe and can be accounted for using the census and other data. However, certain issues need to be addressed.
It was not possible using ArcMap to align the coastlines of both historical maps and the modern data in all points. Moll’s map was appreciably more accurate than Ford’s.
On Ford’s map, a stretch of coastline on the western side of the island departs from the modern coastline by about sixty meters. In so doing, a few plantations located at the very edge of the island were placed outside of the actual boundary.2 A concurrent issue is the
1 Zero acres as mentioned in the census could mean less than one acre, which does not preclude, for instance, small town lots. 2 In fact, it must be considered that if these plantations were incorrectly located, then all plantations would be shifted more westward than they should be, decreasing in severity to the east side of the island where the coastlines do match.
49 application of elevation to plantations. While Barbados is not highly variable in elevation, with a maximum height of 339 meters above sea level, the plantations that were dislocated would have been given a different (probably lower) elevation than they would truly have had. However, in comparison with Moll’s map, the plantations do not seem to be located very precisely anyway: those plantations surviving from one map to the next do not match up (nor are they consistently displaced in one direction). It is not clear whether the cartographers marked plantations by their center point, the location of the estate house, or an arbitrary point; nor can it be shown that they both used the same technique. However, the plantations that were dislocated outside the modern coastline must be assumed to have had an elevation greater than zero meters above sea level. The effect of this error is not substantial; the elevations (of plantations inside the coastline) remain relative to each other, and the difference of height is not more than a few meters from reality. Elevation also does not play a major role in the analyses of this thesis, and in the case study in which they are most useful (Windmill Study, below), relative elevation is satisfactory.
A related issue with the misalignment between the maps is that the modern elevation data ‘leaked’ outside the boundaries of the historical maps in some areas. In part, this was due to the nature of the elevation data. Because the SRTM DEM was made with thirty meter accuracy, each pixel of elevation is thirty by thirty meters. In order to apply elevation to the whole island, some pixels were used that lie mostly in the ocean.
When the elevation was interpolated (see previous chapter, page 29), some of the areas outside of the coastline were given positive values. This is obviously not realistic, but
50 stems from the low resolution of the data. In applying elevation to the historical maps, the matter of leakage was more severe in those areas where the historical coastline was more inland than the modern coastline. In those areas where the coastline on the historical map extended beyond the modern coastline, the elevation was more often than not zero meters above sea level (again, not accurate).
In addition, there may be issues of accuracy referencing the historical maps to the modern data anyway, as there may have been erosion that cannot be rectified for
(Cambers 1999; Last Chance Beach, Battling Erosion in Barbados 2014). Perhaps the historical coastline was not as different as is represented in this study. Also, elevation may have varied from what it is today, through erosion or the application of massive amounts of fertilizer (Starkey 1939).
Finally, an issue that was easily overcome stemmed from the fact that Moll’s map has parish boundaries while Ford’s does not. On the map by Ford, the lack of parish boundaries means that it is necessary to rely on Moll’s boundaries for classification.
However, it was noticed that some plantations on Ford’s map were not mentioned in the census in the parishes they should have been. In many of those cases, it was possible to check nearby parishes for the plantation name. Most of these plantations were at the edges of parishes, so the fact that they were found in adjacent parishes could mean that boundaries changed, Ford erroneously mapped the plantations, the plantations lands were in a different parish than Ford’s symbol, or simply that there were inaccuracies between the maps (figure 4.1). Of the plantations not found in the correct parish, the census allowed about three-fourths of them to be reclassified. Prior to Moll’s mapping, the
51 Figure 4.1
52 boundaries of the parishes were probably inexact or under some disagreement, and even at the time of Moll’s work, the boundaries would have remained inconsistent (as they still remain to some extent today). Therefore, when the census was taken, it is likely that the plantations were considered to fall in a certain parish, and the parish records would have shown this accurately. The boundaries may have changed by the time of Moll’s map, or perhaps the plantation owners and parish officials were simply misinformed.
Inaccuracies with the census have been discussed to some extent in the previous chapters. In most cases, issues with the census arise from the apparent multiple authors of the census having different styles of census-taking. Four of the parishes (John, Joseph,
Michael including Bridgetown, and Thomas) list white servants divided into hired and bought servants (that is, free servants and indentured servants). The other seven parishes list white servants as one value. Not only does this vagueness obscure the actual population demographics, but it does affect this study as well. The costs of white servants were difficult to assess as is (see below), but calculating a cost per servant that fits the unclassified servant is problematic.
The census also does not usually contain counts of women and children, except in the case of Bridgetown (see more below). In theory, this could mean that there were no women and children on the plantations outside of the town, but in practice this is far from likely. For one thing, women are listed as plantation owners, and in almost all cases they are widows. Therefore, they would have likely been married to the original plantation owner and taken responsibility of the plantation after his death. Presumably, then, many of these couples would have had children. Plantations often have the same surname on
53 both the Ford and Moll maps, so it is probable that they would have been inherited by sons and grandsons. Basically, the population numbers in the parishes (i.e. not in
Bridgetown) can be assumed to be significantly greater than what was recorded in the census. By how much the numbers would be augmented is impossible to say for certain
(who had wives? and of these, who had children, and how many?).
The census also does not explicitly include occupations for most people.
Presumably, most of the landholders outside of Bridgetown would have held the role of
‘planter’, but there may have been other professions mixed in among the plantations.
Most of the names listed in the parishes own acreage, but many do not have very many acres. Perhaps rather than try their hand at sugar planting, some of these small landholders would have provided other services (e.g. smithing, woodworking, other manual labor, provision of goods), and certainly some people were employed as clergymen, cartographers, census takers, and militia. Whether these latter professions would have excluded ownership of a sugar-producing plantation is not certain.
Bridgetown, also, does not include occupations for most people, and certainly the majority of the (male) population here would have had some job other than planter. In fact, only eight people in Bridgetown have professions listed (e.g. doctor, esquire, vintner).
The data from Bridgetown were not used in the calculation of wealth in this thesis because of the many variables differing from plantations. However, if there were some landholders in the parishes who did not grow sugar, then the representation of their wealth is not accurate, nor are the visualizations of wealth by parish accurate either. In
54 addition, while Bridgetown was surveyed separately in the census from the parish of St.
Michael, other towns, such as Speightstown (“Little Bristol”) in the parish of St. Peter, were not. Therefore, some people in the census would have lived in towns and therefore not held land for sugar (these may correspond with the names holding zero acres).
Finally, the census lists a number of names as the landholder “and Comp.” It is not clear what relevance this ‘comp.’ had in the census, but it may be an abbreviation for
‘complainant’. The census gives no further information in these cases, so it is not clear what legal issue the complainant would be related to.3
According to Dunn, the census values of acreage and slave and servant counts were modified to appear lower than the reality (Dunn 1972). Dunn suggests that because the census was a report of wealth to the Lords of Trade and Plantations in England, the misrepresentation of assets to be lower would result in lower taxation or production projections, and therefore more profit for the landholders. The smaller plantations would not differ from the truth as much as the larger plantations. Probably the larger plantations would have noticed a greater difference in profits and therefore consider it worth the risk of what could only be called lying to the authorities. In terms of this study, this misrepresentation of values cannot be adjusted for. If Dunn’s suggestion is correct, then all final values of wealth could be adjusted upward by some extent, but the degree of adjustment that would be necessary is not apparent.
A final issue with the census is that the acreages of plantations belonging to any specific landholder are not split between the separate plantations which that landholder
3 In fact, this ‘comp.’ was initially thought to mean ‘companion’. Because the plantations are listed by name, including the number of companions who may be sharing the business of the plantation would be useful for the census. Again, it is not clear which is correct.
55 owned. Although it is not known for certain, Dunn states that plantations would not have exceeded 200 acres (more or less), because this is the size that would allow the most efficient use of slave labor and overseers (Dunn 1972). This issue means that acreages may be attributed to one parish and denied another, depending on which parish the landholder was recorded in. For another, it is not possible to know in which parish the land actually was, or whether it was all found in one parish. For visualization purposes, it would be more useful to have the acreage split, as it would be helpful to calculate averages by parish. However, the consolidation of acreages does simplify the calculation of total wealth, as it is free of doubt that the acres belong to the same person, and not another with the same surname.
Analysis and Classification
In the previous chapter, classification of the data was discussed. Four categories of plantation were derived from the variables of wealth. To arrive at these values, these variables were calculated using available literature, and in cases where values were not explicitly mentioned, estimated based on values from similar regions. The four variables that went into determining wealth were the number of acres, number of servants, number of slaves, and building costs. Also considered as a variable was soil quality, but for reasons of accuracy this was not used to affect the calculations of wealth.
In 1679, the average cost of a slave in Barbados was £17.89 GBP. This value was derived as an average of the costs of men, women, boys, and girls in the same year as the census was first drafted. However, averages of five and seven years before 1679 are
56 higher than for 1679 alone. Because slaves would have been purchased before the census was taken, the seven-year average of £18.55 for 1680 was used in this calculation.
Slaves were a long-term investment. The average £18.55 GBP cost of a slave translates to at least £2,542 GBP in modern currency (~$4,000 USD). However, a slave would work for a plantation in most cases until death. In addition, any children born of a slave woman became the property of the slave owner as well. In 1655, plantation owners valued a slave child around £5 GBP. Therefore, slaves were a far more lucrative investment than indentured white servants.
A factor that had to be considered by plantation owners was the opportunity cost of slaves. Some slaves would have skills that would be useful to a plantation besides planting and harvesting sugar (e.g. smithing). A plantation owner had to determine if it was worth his investment to keep the slave in the field (and take in more profit from sugar directly), or put the slave to use in a different role. Keeping a slave out of the field may also prolong his or her life, making the initial investment even more lucrative. These decisions would not affect initial cost, but may affect later profits.
An indentured servant cost (on average) £3 per year around 1650 and £6 per year after 1662, (extrapolated to about £10 per year in 1679); a free servant would have probably cost more, given that they were not serving time. Therefore, a free servant would have been one of the most costly members of a plantation. It is not possible to determine the cost per year for a slave, given that it would include room and board, which is not mentioned in the literature. It is also not possible to determine the average length of service, because slaves would join a plantation and die at different ages. However, it is
57 quite likely that a slave would live longer than six years, and anything longer than that would be more cost-effective than keeping an indentured servant. For the purposes of this study, as mentioned in the previous chapter, a value of cost for a white servant was set at
£24. This value takes into account the higher initial investment compared to a slave, and if averaged by the years of service is substantially higher than the cost of a slave.
Building costs, as detailed in the previous chapter, can contribute a significant portion of the investment costs of a plantation. Smaller plantations would probably not have had many buildings (aside from, for example, the landholder’s house), and certainly did not in most cases have associated sugar mills. However, the larger plantations would often have had between one and three mills, sugar works, quarters, storage, and the estate house. The formula used to calculate building costs in this thesis is necessarily simplified based on available data. Optimally, calculations could have included values for the cost of simple versus large houses, more contemporary values, or data from Barbados, and not
Jamaica. The census of 1679-80 does not include any information on buildings
(presumably these were not taxed), but if it had, the values of wealth, or at least ratios of wealth would have been child’s play to calculate.
Soil quality was a variable considered for inclusion into the analysis, but eventually dropped. The map of soils found for Barbados (Starkey 1939) was not very precise, and neither the relative value nor the order of quality of the soils was given, so calculations could not be made from it. Starkey includes six kinds of soil on Barbados.
He states that the Scotland soils were of little economic importance, and were too thin for sugar cane, but he includes little information on the quality of other soils. Dunn mentions
58 that the parishes of St. George and St. John had the best quality soils, which would coincide with Starkey’s red soils (Dunn 1972; Starkey 1939). Dunn also says that the parish of St. Lucy had the worst soils, which does not agree with Starkey’s assertion of poor Scotland soils (St. Lucy has black soils). In reference to the locations of rich and poor plantations, it would seem that Dunn is correct to a point: the black soils of St. Lucy are also found in St. Philip, which has a paucity of large plantations and few millworks.
However, Starkey’s region of ‘shallow black soils’ would presumably be worse than the
‘black soils’. In this case, however, the shallow black soils abut red sandy soils and red soils, which seem to be of better quality, so the parishes containing shallow black soils are not adversely affected in overall soil quality. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, this order of greatest fertility to least is suggested: red soils, red sandy soils, deep black soils, Scotland soils, black soils, shallow black soils.
This is an insufficient classification of Barbadian soils, but it is based on the little information available. Because the sources are vague, the quality of soil was not applied to the plantations. If there were either better information on the quality of soil, or precise values of land in each region of soil, a better approximation could be provided.
Classification of the final values of wealth was not strictly necessary; previous authors tend to do so, however, and classification does allow for a more detailed analysis of the distribution of wealth. As discussed in the previous chapter, classification for this thesis was done using head/tail breaks, which divides the data into mostly equal groups of total wealth. Because there are many plantations with little wealth, and few with a lot, the lowest category encompasses approximately eighty percent of the plantations. Each
59 subsequent break divides the remainder into further 80/20 groups. The categories using this method coincide with Dunn’s more arbitrary categories for approximately fifty percent of the plantations. Most of the other half are categorized higher by Dunn; three plantations are categorized higher using this thesis’s method. What this means effectively is that Dunn’s category of a small planter included a wide range of wealth. Many of the poorer smaller planters (which would make up most of the ‘small planter’ category) would be indistinguishable from freemen by their wealth alone.
As mentioned above, Dunn’s purposes of classification differ from those given here. His aim was to show plantations by how much they could produce, which logically would be based on total acreage. Simply put, the more land a planter owned, the more sugar he could plant; the number of slaves, servants, and buildings would scale naturally with the acreage. For his purposes, the break at ten acres, and the subsequent arbitrary breaks do not detract from his analysis.4 This thesis, aiming to show actual wealth, benefits from classifying smaller planters with freemen. By doing so, the categories remove the political division of the ten-acre requirement for being a landholder and show that many of the smaller planters were effectively the same as the freemen. This also shows that the freemen, formerly servants, were not substantially worse off than much of the population of planters.
4 It is the opinion of the author that Dunn’s analysis may have benefited from the classifications presented in this thesis, simply because it groups like with like, be it wealth or acreage. The more equal groups would have aided his analysis of where the largest plantations were located. Dunn was not so much interested in the smaller plantations as the large.
60 Results
Broadly speaking, the patterns of wealth on Barbados around 1680 continue a pattern that began with colonization. In 1657, the plantations on Barbados were almost all on the west coast of the island, centered around the natural harbor of Bridgetown. As time passed, plantations spread eastward across the island, but in 1674, the population and the plantations were still not evenly distributed. The northern tip and the eastern projection of the island contained smaller, poorer plantations (which may coincide with soil quality, see below). Bridgetown, in the parish of St. Michael, had a large and relatively prosperous population, and many of the largest and wealthiest plantations are not far from Bridgetown or a road leading to it. Further studies would indicate if this pattern progresses as expected, towards the point where the plantations are evenly distributed, variable in wealth only because of soil quality. Moll’s map of 1736 would be a good starting point for such a study, but the lack of censuses after 1680 would add difficulty.
The distribution of wealth on Barbados can be examined at the parish level to discern where the highest average wealth could be found in 1680. Wealth by parish can be classified in two ways: by total wealth of all plantations in a parish, and by the average wealth of plantations. These can also be examined by all plantations (i.e. those found in the census), or only the plantations found on the map (excluding the 22.1% not found in or verified by the census).
Table 4.1 shows the sums of wealth by parish, sorted by total wealth in the census
(figures 4.2, 4.3). The total values of wealth found on the map are much lower than the
61 total in the census, but not, as shown by the percentage difference, by equal amounts by parish (see also figure 4.4, cf. figure 3.2). This table can show the absolute wealth of a parish, so the parish of Christ Church is wealthiest in total, both in the census and on the map. However, absolute wealth is not an accurate measure, because it does not take into account the area of the parishes (larger parishes would logically have a greater possible wealth, all other variables equal).
To show a more accurate account of wealth per parish, the averages of all plantations in the parishes were calculated, as shown in Table 4.2 (sorted by census wealth) (figures 4.5, 4.6). Not only does this table show values that are easier to understand, but the difference between the poorest and the wealthiest parishes is substantially greater. In total wealth (Table 4.1), the ratio of poorest to wealthiest is
1:2.51, whereas in average wealth (Table 4.2), the ratio is 1:6.21. Also of note is the
Table 4.1: Parish Wealth Sums
PARISH IN CENSUS▼ ON MAP % DIFF.
Joseph £124,613 £65,482 52.6%
Andrew £134,071 £88,348 65.9%
Lucy £148,828 £65,510 44.0%
James £176,576 £123,517 70.0%
Peter £182,853 £125,650 68.7%
John £198,907 £146,931 73.9%
Michael £201,811 £140,162 69.5%
Thomas £201,650 £148,968 73.9%
George £254,031 £200,096 78.8%
Philip £285,193 £189,392 66.4%
Christ Church £313,212 £218,035 69.6%
TOTAL £2,221,745 £1,512,092 68.1%
62 Figure 4.2
63 Figure 4.3
64 Figure 4.4
drastic difference in averages between the census and the map. The poorer a parish in the census is on average, the greater of a difference the average is on the map. This result categorically demonstrates that Ford gave preference to mapping the wealthier plantations. Table 4.3 supports this assertion, showing that the parishes with many plantations do not necessarily have more plantations on the map (figures 4.7, 4.8). The plantations in the heavily populated parishes (e.g. Lucy) were cherry-picked from the wealthiest to display on the map, leaving the many poorer plantations under-represented.
Another way to demonstrate the average wealth of the parishes is to use the plantation classes described above. The columns in Table 4.4 labeled 1–4 display the counts of plantations of each class in each parish (figure 4.9). The average class column takes the mean of the products of each class times the class number. For example, in the parish of
65 St. Lucy, the value is (406 × 1) (23 × 2) (4 × 2) (3 × 4) ÷ 436. Sorting by the average class shows a pattern of wealth where the higher average denotes more plantations of higher classes. Again, as in Table 4.2, George is the wealthiest parish and Lucy is the poorest. In fact, comparing Tables 4.2 and 4.4 shows a close correlation of poorest to wealthiest parishes.
In terms of soil categories, the results of this analysis can show the average wealth of a plantation for each class of soil quality (figure 4.10). This is an issue of correlation not implying causation, however. Are plantations in ‘red sandy soils’ poorer because the soil quality is worse, or are the poorer plantations simply clustered there? As seen in
Table 4.5, the highest average wealth of a plantation can be found in ‘Scotland soils’, which Starkey suggests were not of economic value and poor for growing sugar.
However, it must be taken into consideration that the plantations for which soil quality
Table 4.2: Parish Wealth Averages
PARISH IN CENSUS▼ ON MAP % DIFF.
Lucy £341 £1,724 505.0%
Philip £701 £1,754 250.3%
Peter £743 £1,933 260.1%
Christ Church £762 £2,535 332.7%
Michael £893 £1,774 198.7%
James £986 £2,573 260.9%
Thomas £1,050 £2,525 240.4%
Andrew £1,241 £2,945 237.2%
Joseph £1,272 £2,728 214.6%
John £1,604 £3,498 218.1%
George £2,117 £3,775 178.3%
TOTAL AVG. £1,065 £2,524 237.1%
66 Figure 4.5
67 Figure 4.6
68 Table 4.3: Plantations per Parish
PARISH IN CENSUS ON MAP % DIFF.▼
Lucy 436 38 8.7%
Christ Church 411 86 20.9%
Joseph 98 24 24.5%
Peter 246 65 26.4%
Philip 407 108 26.5%
James 179 48 26.8%
Andrew 108 30 27.8%
Thomas 192 59 30.7%
John 124 42 33.9%
Michael 226 79 35.0%
George 120 53 44.2%
TOTAL 2547 632 24.8%
was extrapolated are the plantations found on the Ford map, which are substantially wealthier on average than the population as a whole. However, the Scotland soils coincide with the parishes of St. Andrew and St. Joseph, which are both relatively wealthy. The deep black soils and red soils found in the parish of St. George are just under Scotland soils in wealth despite the higher wealth of St. George. However, the deep black soils extend into St. Michael and St. Philip (middling and low wealth, respectively), and the red soils into St. John, St. Thomas, St. James, and St. Peter (across the board in wealth). What Table 4.5 illuminates is that the generalizations of soil quality given by
Starkey and Dunn are either inaccurate, or do not noticeably affect the wealth of the plantations beyond the effects of other factors (e.g. social pressures, distance to towns).
69 Figure 4.7
70 Figure 4.8
71 Table 4.4: Plantation Classes by Parish
PARISH CLASS 1 CLASS 2 CLASS 3 CLASS 4 AVG. CLASS▼
Lucy 406 23 4 3 1.09
Christ Church 352 36 12 11 1.23
Philip 339 51 9 8 1.23
Peter 195 37 14 0 1.26
Michael 177 32 13 4 1.31
James 141 21 11 6 1.34
Thomas 144 31 14 3 1.35
Joseph 72 14 6 6 1.45
Andrew 69 27 8 4 1.51
John 83 25 7 9 1.53
George 70 27 12 11 1.70
Total 2048 324 110 65 1.29
Table 4.5: Soil Averages
SOIL TYPE AVERAGE▼
Red Sandy Soils £1,627
Black Soils £1,875
Shallow Black Soils £2,055
Red Soils £2,801
Deep Black Soils £2,834
Scotland Soils £3,059
72 Figure 4.9
73 Figure 4.10
74 Case Studies
Two case studies derived from the data used in this thesis were performed during the analysis phase of the study. The first is a case study of the wind-powered sugar mills of Barbados, examining whether there is any correlation between elevation and aspect
(hill direction) on the island and where the windmills were located. The second study was an examination of the population of Bridgetown drawn from the 1679–80 census. This study looks at the demographics of the town, discovers possible connections between residents of the town, and discusses further questions that could be studied about the demographics of Barbados at this time.
Windmill Study
As mentioned above, plantations were categorized based on the number of mills associated with each of them. Many plantations had more than one mill, so it is hypothesized that the plantations with more mills would probably be wealthier. The literature suggests that a few of the plantations on the island held a large percentage of the land (Meinig 1986, Galloway 1989). Therefore, it was thought that the plantations with more mills may be indicators of these larger plantations.
Following categorization by the number of associated mills, the plantations and windmills were both referenced to the elevation layer and the aspect layer previously derived from the elevation data. The aspect layer shows the direction that each slope faces. It was considered logical to reference the windmills to the aspect of hills to determine if there was any preference for construction of windmills on the windward side
75 of hills. It was assumed that wind direction has not changed substantially in the last 300 years. The primary wind direction today is from the east, varying between north-northeast and south-southeast (WindAlert 2012), so slopes facing between north-northeast and south-southeast were considered windward. The number of windmills and plantations each were counted in these zones (windward and leeward) to see if there was a statistically significant preference.
The same point features (windmills and plantations) were categorized by elevation, in regions by ten meters of increase in elevation. The island rises from zero meters to 339 meters in elevation, so there were thirty-three categories of elevation. For both aspect and elevation, however, simply counting the numbers of windmills and plantations in these regions did not reveal any useful information. In order to effectively analyze these categorizations, the regions under consideration were also measured by area. The cells from the original elevation data measured ninety by ninety meters (or
8,100 square meters, 0.0081 square kilometers). The data from the elevation and aspect layers were exported in .csv files, and then imported to Microsoft Excel for further analysis. The number of cells in each category were counted, and multiplied by 0.0081 to calculate the square kilometers of each category. The number of mills and plantations were then divided by this resultant area in each category to determine the ratio of features per square kilometer per ten meters of elevation.
The primary analysis performed upon these features was to find out if there was a significant preference to where structures were built. Because most of the mills on the island were wind-powered, it was hypothesized that these mills would be located on the
76 windward sides of hills, and potentially at higher elevations. To perform this analysis, the elevation and aspect data of all the plantations and windmills as well as the number of mills associated with plantations were exported from ArcMap into Microsoft Excel. The number of mills and plantations per category of elevation5 and aspect6 were counted, and then divided by the area of the elevation and aspect data to discover the number of each feature per square kilometer.
The results of these analyses are not promising. In the first test, analysis of only the windmills was performed. The ratio of windmills per square kilometer increases only slightly. In addition, the ratio of windmills to windward slopes is opposite to what was proposed. There is almost a 50% higher ratio of windmills on the leeward slopes than on the windward. These patterns persist for plantations. Many windmills are found clustered in plantations, so the spread may not be completely unbiased. Therefore, multiple analyses were conducted on the plantations: calculating all plantations regardless of mills associated, calculating plantations based on number of mills, and calculating all plantations with any mills at all. This last analysis is most important, because it exhibits a more accurate distribution of where windmills were built. In the test on only windmills, the clustering of mills at plantations was not taken into account.
The results of the plantation analyses are less favorable for the hypothesis than that for the windmills. First, all plantations were analyzed, regardless of associated mills.
There is a significant decrease in plantations at higher altitudes. In comparison, the number of plantations with mills shows a very slight increase at higher elevations. This
5 In increments of ten meters. 6 Twenty-two to 157 degrees were classified as windward, the remainder as leeward.
77 increase is less than that shown for windmills alone, so is even less significant. In analysis of plantations based on the number of mills that are associated with each, patterns are again not promising. For plantations with one mill, the ratio remains on average the same across all elevations. For plantations with two mills, there is again an insignificant increase at higher elevations. In terms of aspect, in all cases, the number of plantations, with or without associated mills, is distinctly preferential to the leeward aspect of hills.
Bridgetown Study
The settlement of Bridgetown was the largest town on Barbados during the colonial era. According to the census, there were 405 households with approximately
3,000 residents all told. This number included servants and slaves. The demographics of the town, though including a number of children and wives, had a remarkably different structure than similar towns in Europe at the same time (Dunn 1969). This could reasonably be expected, as Barbados was a colony designed for extreme production of a single commodity, and the import and export thereof. Therefore, the structure of
Bridgetown was far less family-based than similar English towns (Dunn 1969). In Dunn’s comparison of Bristol around 1680, the predominant household was a married couple with on average two or three children. In Bridgetown, there was a significantly greater percentage of single householders (with or without children). In addition, the greater majority of householders had no children at all, and rarely more than three. However, one family had the most at seven children, compared to ten in Bristol (Dunn 1969).
78 The total number of inhabitants in a household was far larger on average than the family itself because of the large servant and slave population. A substantial minority of
Bridgetown residents were black slaves (about half of the total population). White servants numbered much fewer, with fewer servants than households. Hired servants outnumbered indentured servants about two to one. It is not clear what the housing arrangement would have been for servants and slaves, whether they would have lived in the same building as the family. Dunn mentions that these households lived under one roof, but that may have been a turn of phrase (1969). Given the size of the population in the small area of the town, it is possible that the entire household would in fact have dwelt together, but further evidence is necessary to answer this question.
The census separated the Jews of Bridgetown from the rest of the population, but did not separate out the wives and children as was done for the English population.
Instead, the numbers given fall under the heading ‘persons’, which does not explicitly state whether the inhabitants of the household are wives and children, or even related to the head of the household at all. The number of servants and slaves is comparable to the
English population, which suggests that economically, there was no segregation.
An interesting facet of the population is the surprising number of single female householders. Fifty of the 405 are single females: thirteen of these are widows, four are titled Mrs., which may mean they are still married but without their husband local, and twelve are Jewish (with sizable households). Of the thirty-eight non-Jewish women, twelve have children (the Jewish women may have children too, but as mentioned before, the numbers are not separate from the rest of the household). This curious aspect of
79 family life is not discussed by Dunn at all. The ratio of single female householders, whether widowed or not, being about one in every seven seems to be very high for the time. There are a few possible explanations: the explicitly stated widows would probably have been married to a householder, and taken over upon their death; it is also possible that they moved to Barbados after the death of their husband to seek a different life.
Those who are not stated to be widows could have other members of their family either in town or somewhere else on the island. A brief search for information on some of these women’s names turns up only genealogical (or coat of arms) information, all of which state that the woman and her husband and servants settled in 1680. Therefore, it is quite probable that the man of a household might hold a plantation outside of town, and leave the running of the town house to his wife. While in most cases their surnames are not found in the census of the town, they may exist in other parts of the census. Some women do not have children, but still a number of servants. These again may be married to planters, or may be offspring of older families who are making it on their own. There are a few examples of single females with the same surname as someone else in town, so the latter explanation does merit some recognition. However, further information about these women seems to be nonexistent, so conclusions about these households are unlikely.
Some notable residents of Bridgetown show up in the census, whose names can be recognized from some important works of the time. Richard Ford (given in the census as Fford) was the cartographer responsible for the first known accurate map of Barbados showing all plantations (1680). Richard Ford was a Quaker; this is conveyed on his map by his omission of fort names and the word “church” due to his religious principles
80 (Black and Blathwayt 1970). He may also have been a physician, according to some documents (Gragg 2009). As there were approximately ten Quaker physicians in the town at the time, it was likely that they, like other tradesmen, would have held meetings of like-minded people (Gragg 2009).
Many names in the census of Bridgetown are likely related to noteworthy people elsewhere on the island. For example, Susannah Beeke, one of the single women, shares a surname with John Beeke, who was a schoolmaster, shopkeeper, lawyer, and a prominent
Quaker (Gragg 2009). Sarah Atkins may be related to the Governor John Atkins. These names are distinct enough to suggest relationship.
This case study and the windmill study add further levels of cultural understanding to the analysis of Barbados. While the results of these case studies are not used in the final analysis of wealth, they do illuminate areas for further study, which will be covered more fully in the final chapter. The results of these case studies could, with more work, be synthesized into more variables for the study of wealth.
81 Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion
Using Ford’s map of 1674 and the census of 1679, the population of Barbados has been examined in finer detail. Certainly there were difficulties drawing inferences from historical data, and the analysis of the population of Barbados will always be limited.
That said, this thesis took information that has been public for centuries and refreshed some aspects of the lives of the plantation colonists. For most casual observers, the population of 1680 Barbados is only ever a number, referenced here and there in primary and secondary literature as being between 53,000 and 65,000 people.1 A glance at Ford’s map expands the observer’s impression into a population of planters—visualized by the symbols of mills and houses—but seriously misrepresents both the population of the island (813 plantations, compared to 2,547 in the census) and the scale (realistic symbology suggests that the buildings are a lot larger than they truly would have been). If an intrepid scholar makes it to the census, the population is again reduced to numbers.
The picture of the population from the census and that from the map do not obviously match, so the planters lose some of their identity.
This thesis has synthesized the information that come from the map and the census and added a new element of wealth to the planters. Again, this has been reduced to a number, but the process involves examining features of the plantations such as the value of buildings, the number of servants and slaves, and the size of plantations that
1 A final sum of all mentioned people—men, women, children, servants, and slaves—comes to 43,582. This number does not account for the probable wives and children on the plantations.
82 address the broader lives of the planters and imply a richer existence than can be found on the map or in the census alone.
Barbados in the 1680s was undeniably an extremely wealthy colony, but the wealth was clearly not evenly distributed. To make a modern comparison, the top 1% of the population owned 14.3% of the wealth, and the top 20% owned 79.6%, while in contrast, the top 1% in the United States in 2010 owned 34.5%, and the top 20% owned
88.9% (Domhoff 2013). The distribution of wealth in colonial Barbados and in the modern U.S. therefore have a similar pattern, with the wealthy owning vastly more than the majority of the population together. The implications of this distribution of wealth are that there will be an uneven spatial distribution across Barbados as well. Some of the spatial disparity is due to an incomplete spread of the population from the initial points of colonization (e.g. Bridgetown, Speightstown). The spread of the population is in all likelihood not evenly distributed up to the modern day; loci of denser population would remain in the urban centers. However, the distribution of the population outside the urban areas may be more homogeneous; this is an area for further study.
An issue to consider, however, is the depiction of historical data in a computer environment. In the areas of digital humanities and historical cartography, historical GIS
(HGIS), and map symbolization, the data are often transformed from artistic representations of the past into colder calculations and visualizations. It is important for a modern historical geographer to keep this disconnect in mind, and strive to minimize the impact of technological filtering. For instance, mapping techniques could be employed to evoke the style of the historical map (Buckley, Barnes, and Richards 2013). Also,
83 representing the data in interactive, on-the-fly formats (e.g. Chang, Ge, and Song 2009;
Weaver et al. 2007) can foster insights that may not have been noticed otherwise.
Discussion
The research compounded in this thesis is but a small portion of what could be expanded into a much broader study. A logical continuation of this research would approach the question of patterns and movement of sugar wealth across time. Ideally, more historical maps could be added to the analysis, and demographic data would aid in the placement of wealth. A first step would be to examine Ligon’s map of 1657 and
Moll’s of 1736 in contrast to Ford’s 1674 map to see if there are identifiable correlations between plantations on each map. Such a comparison could illuminate the spread of both population and prosperity from the initial points of colonization on the west coast of
Barbados towards the more rugged eastern coast.
The work in this thesis was done remotely, and therefore lacks the power of on- the-ground research through survey, in local Barbadian archives, and possibly in the
Colonial Office records in London. Factors that would have been useful to this study but were impractical to include were the inclusion of soil quality and the use of polygonal acreage as a further visual representation of area. Soil quality, as previously discussed, was not clearly enumerated in the sources used. Perhaps this work would be better suited to a geologic or agricultural research field. Soil quality changed over time by the inclusion of fertilizers, growth of various crops, and through natural forces such as erosion. It is therefore a temporal issue, and would probably require field testing.
84 The use of polygons to show acreage was discarded for this thesis because of the lack of a complete dataset of plantations on the Ford map. Thiessen polygons scaled by acreage would not have shown accurate area, because the acreage of the island and that of the plantations on the map differ drastically. Further work in this area could include the use of default polygons to fill the gaps between the known plantations. For instance, if the island could be divided into the number of plantations known in the census, then acreage values could be added to the polygons that overlap known plantations. The remaining polygons would scale accordingly, adjusted for slope and soil quality accordingly. The symbols of plantations and mills on the Ford map ultimately stand for land as property, so a representation such as this would be in lieu of an official cadastral map. Other regions in the Caribbean show similar representations of land, which may aid in visualizing the extent of the colonial impact through time (Higman 2001; Harris 2004).
Further work could also be done adding features from the historical maps and other sources of data such as archaeological excavations, primary documents, or local cultural knowledge to bolster the evidence already presented in this thesis. Such data could expand the historical dialogue of the residents of Barbados, illuminating further aspects of affluence. Furthermore, archaeological data and local knowledge could add information about the plantations that were not included on the maps—based on the results of this thesis, these plantations would for the most part be the poorer and less represented members of society.
At the personal scale, analysis of the planters in conjunction with additional data could demonstrate a possible indebtedness of the Barbadian planters to the homeland,
85 especially to merchants in towns such as Bristol (England) or London. In comparison to this thesis, such research would serve as a reminder that Barbados was not an isolated point of affluence, but was one node on a larger commodity chain with many other points of profit. Merchant counting-houses in Bristol and London orchestrated the journeys of slave ships to West Africa to trade for the labor that was forced to work on the Barbados plantations, and later routed molasses, woods and sugar to an array of domestic markets.
For those merchants, and even some of the planters, prominent country estates in rural
England were a more desirable marker of wealth than the uncomfortable tropics
(Hancock 1997).
Another way to investigate Barbadian wealth at the height of the sugar trade would be to examine the number of ships and their cargo traveling to and from Barbados and European ports (notably Bristol in England). Not only would the value of exported sugar (and related goods, e.g. rum, molasses), and other commodities (logwood, dyes) show the assets of the colony, but the importation of goods could show the wealth of the islanders by how much they are able to purchase. Notably, an analysis of such imports and exports would exhibit the prosperity of Barbados as a whole, not at the level of the plantation. Such an analysis would therefore be more useful as a barometer of wealth across time than for a single year; used in conjunction with this thesis, such a study could situate the personal wealth of the planters in a broader scheme of time and place. An analysis of this sort would also show fluctuations in wealth over years and decades.
Further analysis could discover if such fluctuations were influenced by variables such as the market price of sugar, the movement of servants and slaves to Barbados, and
86 fluctuations of cost thereof, the impacts of natural events such as hurricanes, or the modification or disruption of shipping patterns during times of conflict. The exodus of small and middling planters to the Carolinas could be tracked at the level of plantations, parishes and personal names. It may also be possible to explore networks of Jewish and
Quaker merchants across the Caribbean and Atlantic world.
While the work done here focused primarily on the physical aspect of the geography of Barbados and the numerical data of the inhabitants, the topic is certainly part of a broader cultural framework. The map by Richard Ford can itself be considered a cultural text. While Ford’s map was not physically part of a larger work—unlike Ligon’s map of 1657, which was included in a substantial book (Sandiford 2011, 2000)—the map can be considered a cultural text of its own. The discourse on the inclusion of cultural aspects in the study of cartography is important to consider in projects such as this, because the historical maps that are drawn from inherently hide information. This alludes to the commentary by J. B. Harley (Harley 1988)—and subsequent discourse by Edney
(Edney 2005) and Cosgrove (Cosgrove 2007)—on the silences of maps. For example,
Ford’s Quaker principles led him to suppress certain aspects of the population by avoiding the use of the word ‘church’ and omitting forts (Blathwayt and Black 1970). He also focused his inclusion of plantations on the privileged end of the population. Ford also shows nothing of the substantial Jewish minority. Many Quaker Friends’ Meeting
Houses are left off his map as well, suggesting that his purpose of mapping sugar outweighed his spiritual background. Another aspect of Ford’s upper-class white English attitude that appears in the silences of his map is the total omission of slavery. Ligon’s
87 map acknowledges the slave population with unfortunate vignettes of runaway slaves being hunted by their masters, but Ford shows nothing. Ford’s descriptive cartouche also displays the imperialistic attitudes of the English (white) population. These silences, if
‘broken’, would aid future research in Barbados and the broader Caribbean and Atlantic worlds by giving voice to possibly overlooked groups of people.
Conclusion
As can be deduced from the above paragraphs, there are many directions that this research could take to extend it. Some of these sub-topics would have been useful for this thesis but were avoided because of time constraints or data that were not easily compatible. Many of the avenues this research could take would broaden the topic from a
GIS-focused humanities project to a more even blend of the technological GIS and the traditional historical facets. Some of the suggested future work may be impractical because of insufficient information. These are the topics that would have been most useful to this project. For instance, adding more maps and census data from other time periods could have shown movement and growth/decline of people and wealth over the centuries. Unfortunately, there are no censuses that coincide with maps as well as Ford’s map and the census of 1679–80 until much later.
This new research not only expands upon some earlier studies (viz. Dunn 1969) with its focus on wealth, but also sheds some light on other issues, such as slavery. While the population of black slaves and white indentured servants are only numbers in this thesis, the majority of slaves and servants are never named in the primary literature
88 either. The benefits of this work to the issue of slavery are that the numbers of servants and slaves are counted from the census, the distribution is shown, and (for better or worse) the importance of owning slaves to increase wealth is demonstrated. All of these issues are useful to historians who not only may appreciate the raw data, but might be pleased to incorporate these interpretations into future studies. The data from this thesis will be made available after publication (at, for example, slavevoyages.org (Trans-
Atlantic Slave Trade 2008)), so that further patterns can be drawn from them.
The focus of this thesis is small in scale, but the topic and the techniques could be expanded to incorporate a larger area. Barbados was significant as the richest colony in
1680, but a comparison over time and space to the broader Caribbean would be interesting to see. The techniques used to determine prosperity and the distribution of wealth, drawing from the historical documents, could also be applied to completely different areas and times. For instance, a project to understand the distribution, transportation and commodity chains, and fluctuation of prices of wool in medieval
England is underway using similar data-manipulation methods.
Much of the literature on the sugar trade of Barbados approaches the subject from a cultural perspective. The focus is more on the on-the-ground perspective, discussing individuals, incorporating primary documents, and relating Barbados to the broader
Atlantic world. This thesis is less comprehensive and focuses on the specific issue of numeric wealth. By drawing on some of the visualization capacities of computer cartography, this thesis can add a new component to the discussion of historical
Barbados.
89 Bibliography
Barbado’ed: Scotland’s Sugar Slaves (BBC Full Length Documentary). 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hoq3TjTw1BA (last accessed 20 May 2013).
Beckles, H. 2007. A History of Barbados: From Amerindian Settlement to Nation-State. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
———. 1989. White Servitude and Black Slavery in Barbados: 1627–1715. University of Tennessee Press.
Blathwayt, W. 1970. The Blathwayt Atlas. Brown University Press.
Blathwayt, W., and J. D. Black. 1970. The Blathwayt Atlas: Commentary. Brown University Press.
Bodenhamer, D. J., J. Corrigan, and T. M. Harris. 2010. The Spatial Humanities: GIS and the Future of Humanities Scholarship. Indiana University Press.
Buckley, A., D. Barnes, and J. Richards. 2013. Achieving Historical Map Effects with Modern GIS. Cartographic Perspectives (56):63–72.
Cambers, G. 1999. Coping with Shoreline Erosion in the Caribbean. Nature and Resources 35 (4):43–49.
Chang, D., Y. Ge, and S. Song. 2009. Visualizing the Republic of Letters: An Interactive Visualization Tool for Exploring Spatial History and the Enlightenment. :10.
Cosgrove, D. 2007. Epistemology, Geography, and Cartography: Matthew Edney on Brian Harley’s Cartographic Theories. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 97 (1):202–209.
Curtin, P. D. 1954. The British Sugar Duties and West Indian Prosperity. The Journal of Economic History 14 (2):157–164.
David Rumsey Map Collection. 2014. http://www.davidrumsey.com (last accessed 21 May 2014).
90 Domhoff, G. W. 2013. Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power. http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html (last accessed 6 May 2014).
Dunn, R. S. 1972. Sugar and Slaves: The Rise of the Planter Class in the English West Indies, 1624–1713. UNC Press Books.
———. 1969. The Barbados Census of 1680: Profile of the Richest Colony in English America. The William and Mary Quarterly 26 (1):3.
———. 1971. The English Sugar Islands and the Founding of South Carolina. The South Carolina Historical Magazine 72 (2):81–93.
Edney, M. H. 2005. The Origins and Development of J.B. Harley’s Cartographic Theories. University of Toronto Press.
Edwards, B. 1819. The History, Civil and Commercial, of the British Colonies in the West Indies 5th ed. London: Arno Press.
Elitis, D. 1995. The Total Product of Barbados, 1664–1701. The Journal of Economic History 55 (02):321–338.
E-Text of Richard Ligon’s History of Barbados. http://davidchansmith.net/the-richard- ligon-project (last accessed 28 January 2014).
Fernández-Wyttenbach, A., W. Siabato, M. Bernabé-Poveda, and M. Wachowicz. 2010. Evolution of Digital Map Libraries towards Virtual Map Rooms: New Challenges for Historical Research. In Mapping Different Geographies, Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography., eds. K. Kriz, W. Cartwright, and L. Hurni, 129–143. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Forde-Jones, C. 1998. Mapping Racial Boundaries: Gender, Race, and Poor Relief in Barbadian Plantation Society. Journal of Women’s History 10 (3):9–31.
Ford, R. 1674. A New Map of the Island of Barbadoes Wherein Every Parish, Plantation, Watermill, Windmill & Cattlemill, Is Described with the Name of the Present Possesor, and All Things Els Remarkable According to a Late Exact Survey Thereof [map].
Frere, G. 1768. A Short History of Barbados, from Its First Discovery and Settlement: To the End of the Year 1767. printed for J. Dodsley.
91 Galenson, D. W. 1982. The Atlantic Slave Trade and the Barbados Market, 1673–1723. The Journal of Economic History 42 (3):491–511.
———. 2002. Traders, Planters and Slaves: Market Behavior in Early English America. Cambridge University Press.
Galloway, J. H. 1977. The Mediterranean Sugar Industry. Geographical Review 67 (2):177.
———. 2005. The Sugar Cane Industry: An Historical Geography from Its Origins to 1914. Cambridge University Press.
Gardiner, M., and N. Mehler. 2007. English and Hanseatic Trading and Fishing Sites in Medieval Iceland: Report on Initial Fieldwork. Germania :385–427.
Gragg, L. D. 2009. The Quaker Community on Barbados: Challenging the Culture of the Planter Class. University of Missouri Press.
Gregory, I. N., and P. S. Ell. 2007. Historical GIS: Technologies, Methodologies, and Scholarship. Cambridge University Press.
Hall, D. 1962. Slaves and Slavery in the British West Indies. Social and Economic Studies 11 (4):305–318.
Hall, R. 1764. Acts Passed in the Island of Barbados, from 1643 to 1762,... by the Late Richard Hall,... And, Since His Death, Continued by His Son, Richard Hall. To which is Added an Index and Abridgement... R. Hall.
Handler, J. S. 2002. A Guide to Source Materials for the Study of Barbados History, 1627–1834. New Castle, Del.: Oak Knoll Press.
Handler, J. S. 1966. Small-Scale Sugar Cane Farming in Barbados. Ethnology 5 (3):264– 283.
Handler, J. S., A. C. Aufderheide, R. S. Corruccini, E. M. Brandon, and L. E. Wittmers. 1986. Lead Contact and Poisoning in Barbados Slaves: Historical, Chemical, and Biological Evidence. Social Science History 10 (4):399–425.
Handler, J. S., and R. S. Corruccini. 1983. Plantation Slave Life in Barbados: A Physical Anthropological Analysis. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 14 (1):65–90.
92 Handler, J. S., and J. Jacoby. 1996. Slave Names and Naming in Barbados, 1650–1830. The William and Mary Quarterly 53 (4):685–728.
Harley, J. B. 1988. Maps, Knowledge, and Power. In The Iconography of Landscape: Essays on the Symbolic Representation, Design and Use of Past Environments, eds. D. Cosgrove and S. Daniels. Cambridge University Press.
Harlow, V. T. V. T. 1969. A History of Barbados 1625–1685. New York: Negro Universities Press.
Harris, C. 2004. How Did Colonialism Dispossess? Comments from an Edge of Empire. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94 (1):165–182.
Hedges, S. B. Caribmap - a Cartographic History of the West Indies. http://www.caribmap.org/index.php?id=bdos&link=1671-barb-ogilby (last accessed 18 April 2013).
Higman, B. W. 2001. Jamaica Surveyed: Plantation Maps and Plans of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. University of West Indies Press.
Higman, B. W. 1987. The Spatial Economy of Jamaican Sugar Plantations: Cartographic Evidence from the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. Journal of Historical Geography 13 (1):17–39.
Higman, B. W. 2000. The Sugar Revolution. The Economic History Review 53 (2):213– 236.
Hillier, A., and A. K. Knowles eds. 2008. Placing History: How Maps, Spatial Data, and GIS Are Changing Historical Scholarship. ESRI Press.
Hotten, J. C. 1874. The Original Lists of Persons of Quality: Emigrants, Religious Exiles, Political Rebels, Serving Men Sold for a Term of Years, Apprentices, Children Stolen, Maidens Pressed, and Others, who Went from Great Britain to the American Plantations, 1600–1700. Empire State Book Company.
Hunt, T. 2011. Colonial Riches in Barbados. the Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2011/nov/13/travel-barbados-colonial (last accessed 14 October 2013).
Jiang, B. 2012. Head/Tail Breaks: A New Classification Scheme for Data with a Heavy- tailed Distribution. http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.2801 (last accessed 6 October 2013).
93 John Pinney: A Plantation Owner. http://discoveringbristol.org.uk/slavery/people- involved/traders-merchants-planters/caribbean-plantation-development/john- pinney-plantation-owner/ (last accessed 19 May 2014).
Knowles, A. K. 2002. Past Time, Past Place: GIS for History. ESRI, Incorporated.
Krygier, J., and D. Wood. 2013. Making Maps, Second Edition: A Visual Guide to Map Design for GIS. Guilford Press.
Last Chance Beach, Battling Erosion in Barbados. 2014. Coastal Care. http://coastalcare.org/2011/02/last-chance-beach-battling-erosion-in-barbados/ (last accessed 20 May 2014).
Ligon, R. 1657. A True and Exact History of the Island of Barbados. Hackett Publishing.
MacEachren, A. M., A. Robinson, S. Hopper, S. Gardner, R. Murray, M. Gahegan, and E. Hetzler. 2005. Visualizing Geospatial Information Uncertainty: What We Know and What We Need to Know. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 32 (3):139–160.
MacEachren, A. M., R. E. Roth, J. O’Brien, B. Li, D. Swingley, and M. Gahegan. 2012. Visual Semiotics & Uncertainty Visualization: An Empirical Study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 18 (12):2496–2505.
Measuring Worth - Measuring the Value of a Slave. http://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php (last accessed 17 October 2013).
Meinig, D. W. 1986. The Shaping of America: Atlantic America, 1492–1800. Yale University Press.
Minnesota Population Center. 2011. National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 2.0. University of Minnesota. http://www.nhgis.org.
Molen, P. A. 1971. Population and Social Patterns in Barbados in the Early Eighteenth Century. The William and Mary Quarterly 28 (2):287–300.
Moll, H. 1736. The Island of Barbadoes. Divided into Its Parishes, with the Roads, Paths, &c. According to an Actual and Accurate Survey. http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~3766~430102:T he-island-of-Barbadoes--Divided-in (last accessed 20 May 2014).
94 Offen, K. 2012. Historical Geography II: Digital Imaginations. Progress in Human Geography. http://phg.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/12/10/0309132512462807 (last accessed 24 April 2013).
Roberts, J. 2006. Working Between the Lines: Labor and Agriculture on Two Barbadian Sugar Plantations, 1796–97. The William and Mary Quarterly 63 (3):551–586.
Robinson, A. C., S. Pezanowski, S. Troedson, R. Bianchetti, J. Blanford, J. Stevens, E. Guidero, R. E. Roth, and A. M. MacEachren. 2013. Symbol Store: sharing map symbols for emergency management. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 40 (5):415–426.
Sandiford, K. 2011. Theorizing a Colonial Caribbean-Atlantic Imaginary: Sugar and Obeah. Routledge.
Sandiford, K. A. 2000. The Cultural Politics of Sugar: Caribbean Slavery and Narratives of Colonialism. Cambridge University Press.
Sauer, C. O. 1966. The Early Spanish Main. University of California Press.
Schreuder, Y. 2004. A True Global Community: Sephardic Jews, the Sugar Trade, and Barbados in the Seventeenth Century. Journal of the Barbados Museum and Historical Society 50:167–194.
———. 2006. Evidence from the Notarial Protocols in the Amsterdam Municipal Archives about Trade Relationships between Amsterdam and Barbados in the Seventeenth Century. Journal of the Barbados Museum and Historical Society 52:54–82.
———. 2002. The Influence of the Dutch Colonial Trade on Barbados in the Seventeenth Century. Journal of the Barbados Museum and Historical Society 48:43–63.
Schwartz, S. B. 2004. Tropical Babylons: Sugar and the Making of the Atlantic World, 1450–1680. UNC Press Books.
Sheppard, J. 1977. The “Redlegs” of Barbados, Their Origins and History. KTO Press.
Sheridan, R. B. 1974. Sugar and Slavery: An Economic History of the British West Indies, 1623–1775. Canoe Press.
95 Siabato, W., A. Fernández-Wyttenbach, and M.-Á. Bernabé-Poveda. 2011. Showing the Past: Integrating Cartographic Collections Through Virtual Map Rooms. International Journal of Applied Geospatial Research 2 (4):93–108.
Slingsby, A., J. Dykes, and J. Wood. 2011. Exploring Uncertainty in Geodemographics with Interactive Graphics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 17 (12):2545–2554.
Starkey, O. P. 1939. The Economic Geography of Barbados: A Study of the Relationships Between Environmental Variations and Economic Development. Columbia University Press.
Stieve, T., H. Stone, and W. Pape. 2010. The Rediscovered Map Collection of the John Hay Library: An Example of Creating and Promoting a Collection of Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-Century American Maps. Journal of Map & Geography Libraries 6 (2):82–111.
Taylor, A. 2002. American Colonies: The Settling of North America (the Penguin History of the United States, Volume1). Penguin.
The Manufacture of Sugar - Extract from “the Useful Arts and Manufactures of Great Britain” - London, 1846. usefularts. http://www.mawer.clara.net/usefularts.html (last accessed 2 April 2013).
Thompson, P. 2009. Henry Drax’s Instructions on the Management of a Seventeenth- Century Barbadian Sugar Plantation. The William and Mary Quarterly 66 (3):565–604.
Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. 2009. The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database. http://www.slavevoyages.org/tast/index.faces (last accessed 21 May 2014).
Wallerstein, I. 2004. World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Durham: Duke University Press.
Ward, J. R. 1978. The Profitability of Sugar Planting in the British West Indies, 1650– 1834. The Economic History Review 31 (2):197–213.
Watts, D. 1990. The West Indies: Patterns of Development, Culture and Environmental Change Since 1492. Cambridge University Press.
96 Weaver, C., D. Fyfe, A. Robinson, D. Holdsworth, D. Peuquet, and A. M. MacEachren. 2007. Visual Exploration and Analysis of Historic Hotel Visits. Information Visualization 6 (1):89–103.
Welch, P. L. V. 2003. Slave society in the city: Bridgetown, Barbados, 1680-1834. I. Randle.
Williams, J. 1809. On the Process of Claying Sugar. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 6:82–87.
97 Appendices
The following twelve appendices include all the data taken from the census of
1679–80. The census was retrieved in microfilm format, and the data was then manually entered into a spreadsheet for calculations.
The data are presented by parish, as well as the data from Bridgetown. For the parishes, the values are arranged in the same order, despite how they appear in the census. Bridgetown includes extra variables, so is presented as it was in the census.
The appendices are as follows:
Appendix A: the Parish of St. Andrew 99
Appendix B: the Parish of Christ Church 105
Appendix C: the Parish of St. George 127
Appendix D: the Parish of St. James 134
Appendix E: the Parish of St. John 144
Appendix F: the Parish of St. Joseph 151
Appendix G: the Parish of St. Lucy 157
Appendix H: the Parish of St. Michael 180
Appendix I: the Parish of St. Peter 192
Appendix J: the Parish of St. Philip 205
Appendix K: the Parish of St. Thomas 227
Appendix L: Bridgetown 238
98 LAVES 6 2 30571042 31 41 28 3 12 14 1486 10 8 5 19 130280200 2150 4 1 45 316 120 120 93 1 60 115 250 46 115 12 1 143 35 110 1 40 Appendix A: The Parish of St. Andrew Parish The of St. Appendix A: FoordGibbesLeake JohnEdwards John Thomas DanillWoodward Esq. Capt. Houlder Samuell Esq. Mr. John Capt. Mr. MorrisJordan Richard Edward Mr. Mr. LASTGibbes FIRST Bassill TITLE Lt. SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S Alleyne AbellHutchinsSwann Capt. AustenBoden John Samuell John Widow Mr. Richards Mr. Lammy Thomas Esq. Mr., HamerlyHurst Edward Martha Dr. George Mrs. Mr.
99 LAVES 4 1 53 18154060 6 75 330 4 9 1 36 12 33 10 6 402612 6 3 16 5 9 170105 1 150 109 41 3140266 60 2 6 51 167 100 28 JohnstonSandiford Anne Charles Mrs. Lt. Sandiford JohnMerrickBartlett Lt. John Allexander Mr. Esq. LASTSavery FIRST John TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S HawksworthThornkill William Timothy Mr. Hall Capt. JohnstonDolten Archibald William Hayward William Capt. Somerhaus John John Mr. Jephson Dr. Esq. Roach JohnBurgesSlye William Coppin John Mr. Gay John Thomas Mr. Abott Mr. Mr. Mr.
100 LAVES 5 682610 101910 12 10 1 20 1 1 60 5 76 7 60 6 3 3 25 100260 19 90 105152180180 30 2 51 28 186 48 92 MillsJeeves John Henry Lt. Mr. CanteyBeresford HellenReese Thomas Mrs. Rouse Bennet Mr. Caleb Lt. Richards Robert Mr. Mr. LASTGay FIRST TITLE SUFFIX Widow WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S FfollynShahanisseBustian Daniell AndrewWelchHine George Mr. Mr. Hewitt JohnKelsett Mr. Robert RobertReese Mr. Henry Mr. Mr. Bartholomew Mr. Snow Mr. Paine NathaniellWaterman Mr. Edward Humphrey Lt. Mr.
101 6 LAVES 1 55 1 6 9 4 829312 1 22 50 25 4 2010 5087 5 18 14 28 21012 8 26 86 5 14 5 21 10 LASTDavies FIRST William TITLE Mr. SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S WayteRosseWillis JohnDynegell PhillipFretwell Richard Danill Mr. Mr. Ralph Mr. BlackMichell Esq. Smith AndrewSmith DavidCobham David Mr. Hayter Stephen Mr. MaryGibbes Mr. Williams Robert Mr. Brookes Stephen Mrs. HughRawlings Mr. ThomasEllicot Dr. William Mr. Mr. Mr. Widow LockeRussell John Thomas Mr. Mr.
102 2 3 1 1 1 6 1 4 1 2 1 14 LAVES 89 54 2 1 1610 14 5 LASTTayte FIRST John TITLE Mr. SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S DunnBelfordMurfey HughCadle JohnBoothman Dennis Donavan Mr. Thomas John Mr. Swann Daniel Mr. John Mr. ColletThomasFallin Henry John ShanisStollard Andrew Mr. Dent Daniell James WebbEnglish George Charles James Smith Robert Philip Boy John Mr. Teague
103 3 5 3 1 2 8 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 5 LAVES 1 CampionBinney William HendersonPurss James Richard JohnstonRud William Thomas WillisDougle Symon Mahont Richard Mackhala Daniel Daniell Dermott Dennis LaytonLayton John Thomas Henry LASTNobb FIRST John TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S
104 7 LAVES 3 55 25 5 5 3 2 1 5 501010 1 20 13 18 21 20 6 301033 11 16 2 11 192 3 64 Appendix B: The Parish of Christ Church Parish B: The Appendix LASTAdams FIRST John TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S Arnett David AndrewsAdamsAlcorn Roger Anderson Conradt Ashburner John Adam Austine William AlsoppAddice Thomas Addis Richard Anderson Edward Austine John William AlsoppAshhurst John Ashhurst Edward Andrews John Arthur Benjamin Thomas Michaell
105 LAVES 3 1 3 5 51 1 7 1 11 60 851415 118 16 12 4 55 3 12 17 1 7.5 2.5 7.5 202188138 2 5 65 65 1 8.5 2 LASTArnettArch FIRSTAnderson Patrick Bishop Thomas John TITLE Joan SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S BuckworthBonnet Richard Bond Thomas Francis BrowneBarryBlanchard Stephen Bull William John BoxfieldBakerBrigstock Christopher Thomas Barns Esias Richard BurtonBarbey Olliver Bourne AngesBourn John John Widow John Jr.
106 1 LAVES 9754 7 4 2 1 2 7 5 2 2 1 30 8 1032 4 10 3 10 1 8 8.5 245 5 154 12.5 7 33.53.75 9 LASTBently FIRST Martyn TITLE Esq. SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S Brooks John BlakeBaylyBourne Nicholas Buenno Robert Buttline Samuel Briggs Benjamin Burk Henry Barry William Bateman Tobias Bayly Alice Bradly John Bradly Charles Banbrigg Ralph Buttler Robert Boyner Robert Burk William Budding John James Richard
107 5 LAVES 1 2 58 4 6 6 71 8 69 2 1 6 37 1 4 2060 11 31 211412 3 17 7 6 167 5 78 LASTBaylyBaxter FIRSTBeard Richard Clark Edward TITLE Richard Margaret SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTSCockton S ClarkCoppinger Daniell Carner John Edward CrichlowChrichlow Michaell Clark Elizabeth James Clark Roger Christopher Cooper Thomas Conner Bryen ClementClarkConoway William Coughlan Francis Cornelius Chaffin Teage Daniell
108 2 LAVES 88 5 2 3 6 2595 1 3 6 151010 4 3 2610 3 2 4 1.5 2.5 2.5 1 1 7 1 12.5 2 LASTCasonCrichlow FIRSTClancey Thomas Cudden Henry Collyer Cornelius TITLEComell John SUFFIXClark Tobias WIFEConney Dugwell COMP.Cloughan William CHILDRENCreede Edmond Elizabeth ACRESColley SERVANTSCorleene John S Chizell Thomas Ellinor CavanChappell Daniell Cooke John Chase Jonah Conneyland MargaretCoppine Pattrick(?) Stephen Widow John
109 2 1 LAVES 5 4 351 1 1 6 3815 13 56 6 37 2 31 10612370 8 10 25 4 37 2 2.5 LASTCarewChurcher FIRSTClark Richard Thomas CoddConnell TITLE Thomas Dorn James SUFFIXDorn Gilbert WIFEDowell John COMP.Dawson Francis CHILDRENDavis Richard ACRESDaniell Miller SERVANTSDrury Edward S Dennis Nicholas Dollar Richard Duke John Dumesnill John Davis Henry Carew DenhamDemster Margarett John John
110 LAVES 1 20 85 3 5 2 6 9 34 4 2 4 3 20 9 9852 10 3 70 12 2 121518 40 9 2 395180 5 150 80 LASTDillonDurane FIRSTDennis Garrett Dawling Nathan Daniel TITLE John Danby William SUFFIXDurane John WIFEEyton John COMP.Edney Thomas CHILDRENElliott William ACRESEvans Peter SERVANTSEnos Joan S Earl John Elliott Phillip Thomas Richard FrereFrereFrere Tobias John William Esq. Esq. FitzGeraldFa'well Morris James
111 LAVES 5 1 4 2 5 94 4 10 10 15251123 9 10 5 40182010 9 4 16 1 267150 5 47 55 LASTForestallFawne FIRSTFrere Richard Farrow John Foy TITLE William Fraine Robert SUFFIXFord WIFEFoster Hugh William COMP.Field CHILDREN Thomas Fairfield John ACRESFell Anthony SERVANTSGunning Richard S John Thomas GrayGreenidge Richard Richard GrayGreenidgeGaslee Jean Robert GormanGilham John Matthew John
112 7 10 LAVES 58585 3 9 8 2 5 1 4 1 10 301010 3 6 5050 17 220126170 1 1 90 2100 56 78 LASTGarneyGoodman FIRSTGriggs James Richard GilbertGary TITLE John Gregory Natthaniell SUFFIXGriffin Edward WIFEGilles Ormond COMP.Gordon Edward CHILDRENGilles Edward ACRESGrigson Peter SERVANTSGeorge Edward S Gibbs Robert Harding Thomas John Henry Jr. HargravesHaslewood Allis Hooper Thomas Jonathon HansenHooper Samuell Crispine
113 1 LAVES 9 56 3 2 9 3 5 3012 1 11 36 3 15253314 8 32 14 2012 10 18 10 4 10 6 2 LASTHarlestoneHorniold Edward FIRSTHagthorpeHyde William William Hanmerry TITLEHutton Henry Nicholas SUFFIXHarris WIFEHolmes Olliver COMP.Humphryes Zachariah CHILDRENHumphryes John Edward ACRESHolmes Edward SERVANTSHolder S Haringman James Hart Nicholas William HallamHaleyHarris Edward William Harman Thomas Henderson Anthony William Francis
114 LAVES 23 9 4 97 7 5 35 1 2 10 1512803713 6 4 30 28 16 6 1810 10 6 2 28.5 15 1 21 LASTHughinisHogman FIRSTHatton Pattrick Haywood Elizabeth Holmes TITLE Charles John Hackett SUFFIXHart Henry WIFEHayes William COMP.Harbert CHILDRENHackett Walter Thomas ACRESHaughtaine Edward SERVANTSHanbury Ann Richard S Hooper Nicholas Daniell HoughIreland William Thomas IlamJonesJelph'sJeames Richard Anthony John Margarett
115 1 5 LAVES 3 1 5 49 2 10121620 3 3 12 1 6 1015 2 15 1 10 1 6 340360 5 9 170 130 214172 8 72 52 LASTJonesJeames FIRSTKinsland Robert Margarett Natthaniell TITLE Esq. SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S KirtonKipps Phillip Jean LeighLewis Sarah David KellyKezarKey David Knights Teague KnowlesKendall William John King Andrew Lewis William Richard Edmond LucasLambertLinck Richard Lewes Arthur Thomas John
116 LAVES 979 1 5 6 5 72 1 2 2 3 2 194230 4 24 24 9 11 212 2 30 12 3 1315 2 2 3.5 17.5 6 LASTLeeLettis FIRSTLareyLeland James Thomas Lacksmith TITLE Thomas Lowre Christopher Thomas SUFFIXLowell WIFELongstaff John COMP.Maxwell Constance CHILDREN Elizabeth Matson ACRESMoore Thomas SERVANTSMurford Mathias S Merricks Robert Mason Richard Moore John Mitchell Thomas MaccGraugh Alce Moody Daniell Thomas Morris David William
117 2 LAVES 555 3 1 2 2 2 5 20131044 3 1 10 19 6 10 20 13 8 2 201048 12 1 7 7 4.5 581 15 260 LASTMattsonMaccDaniell FIRSTMunrow Smithell Alexander MorrisMarson Andrew TITLEMarkland Hugh SUFFIXMaccGraugh Edward WIFE Henry Morris John COMP.MaccBreechy CHILDRENMonk Bryen Edmond ACRESMoholland SERVANTSMay James Henry S MunrowMillingtonNewton John Alexander John Samuell Esq. Nemias David NobleNortonNusam Mark Katherine Arthur
118 LAVES 5 5 2 5 44 1 3 132869 12 9 22 67 110 17 373845 12015 20 1 11 12 3 4.5 7 116 28 910 8 180 LASTNusamNewman FIRSTNixon ArthurNurse Margarett Oker TITLE Mary Outram Robert SUFFIX George WIFE Jr. Dorothy COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S Oistine James Perriman Richard OvertonOistineOlliver Robert Outram Nicholas Pears Margarett Robert Pinchback JohnPile Thomas PilePerry Esq. Pead Theophilus Pockett Sarah John John William
119 LAVES 4 74 284 7 51 5 2 4 2 5 2 3 5 5 7 2 701315 15 3 35 5 15 10 2.5 LASTPannePerrott FIRSTPecock Elizabeth Poyer Ralph Parsons TITLE Robert Pittman Thomas SUFFIXPitts William WIFEPeak Arthur COMP.Price CHILDREN Hugh Price Christopher ACRESPrice Matthew SERVANTSPerry Henry S Potter William Porter Edward Pike Robert Poore Robert Pumfret Olliver Phelony Peter Phillips Ann John William
120 8 LAVES 7 3 8 3 12 6 5075 14710 13 3345 2 10 13 10 7 12 1510 8 17 8 7 6 4.5 2 315148 8 1 140 84 12.512.5 6 3 LASTQuiggenRichbell FIRST John Robert TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S RisleyRushbrook Henry Cressent RodmanRodmanRodman Sarah Richards John Richardson JohnRycroft John Mary RichardsonReynold Sarah David RobinsonRobinson Jr. Jean Thomas Rogers Robert Rawlines Widow Rose John John RichardsonRobinson George Elizabeth Manuss
121 3 LAVES 1 35 2 1 7 1 1 55 6 104410 10 1 16 3027 12 9 550365180 8108 11 206 1 184 2 40 41 LASTRosseRobinson FIRSTRainsford John William Renny John Renny TITLERycord Teague SUFFIXRuck Teague WIFERedman Samuell COMP.Robinson John CHILDRENRentfree Richard Edward ACRESRymore SERVANTS Jr. Seawell Robert S Allexander Richard Esq. SearlSilvesterScott JohnShurland Benjamin John Esq. Madam StanfordSmithStephens Robert Elizabeth John
122 1 2 LAVES 1 4 5 2 55 1 4 4386 1 2 3 30102236 32 21 6 20 21 19 1 23 7 1.5 21.5 3 1 LASTSheltonStrode FIRSTStrawne Samuell Sheron Henry Simpson Henry TITLESpeght George SUFFIXSisters James WIFESnerling William COMP.Sadler Elizabeth CHILDRENSlany Robert ACRESStone Thomas SERVANTSSkares Anthony S Sparrowhawk John Strode James George Margrett Spencer John SaundersonSlaughter John Studdy Thomas Shorte Thomas Owen
123 2 LAVES 55 1 81 18 4 8 1 1 1 1 1 1010 10 40 4 342112 10 21 4 10 6 17 1 6 7.5 3.75 2 LASTScruttonSawyer FIRSTSnipe John Shore Margarett Saunderson TITLE John Sutton Robert Richard SUFFIXThornburgh WIFETrowell George Henry COMP.Tyler CHILDRENTaylor Phillip ACRESThompson Robert SERVANTSThorowgood John John S Terrill Thomas TubbsTilney Samuell Thompson Edward Thistlethwaite Thomas Thomas Tichbourn Peter Tysoe Winnefred William
124 LAVES 5 5 21 5 3 1 6 6 4 172016 9 6 8 1019 5 7 101810 413 7 11 10 6 112340 28 18 170 406 2 200 LASTUnitonUfford FIRSTWattkines Thomas Wynn John David Walters TITLE Richard SUFFIXWright Christopher WIFEWalrond COMP. William CHILDRENWattkines Thomas ACRESWebster Thomas SERVANTSWise S Williams John Christopher Richard Wattkines Robert Wasley John Wright John WarnerWattkinesWilson Stephen David WhiteWilson Anthony Patrick Edward
125 LAVES 595 4 5 2 2 2 2014 6 3 102511 3 6 2 2.5 2.5 LASTWilsonWilson FIRSTWalters Charles White CharlesWard TITLE Richard Wilson Milicent SUFFIXWells William WIFEWilson William COMP. Jr. Ward John CHILDRENWaddine Margarett ACRESWyatt Richard SERVANTSWhitehead Thomas S Walton Thomas Christopher Richard
126 5 3 4 2 5 7 LAVES 6 2 1 6 2 47 1210 140 4 10 55 6 1910 15 1 9 10 305 8 200 400 190 106 42 Appendix C: The Parish of St. George Parish The of St. Appendix C: Dauers Robert Mr. Jr. Prothers Thomas Mr. LASTDauers FIRST Robert TITLE Esq. SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S RobinsonRobinson JamesDavis JohnKoker Mr. William Mr. John Mr. Bawdler Mr. Pye ElinorCatline Mrs. Edward Williame Esq. Mr., Holdip Mr. John Mr. BrowneHorswoodRoe Thomas SarahLullman Mr. Mrs. Margaret Job Mrs. Evans Mr. Holdip HenryBlackman Francis Mr. Brian Mrs. Mr.
127 1 LAVES 1 1 68 18 5 7 3 3015101250 38 3 40 10 130 8 37 20 13 118105325 76 1106140 12 60 172 5 186 1 1 60 317 64 81 160 Eastwick RichardGibbons Mr. Sutton JohnBriggesBattine Richard Mr. Webb GeorgBlackman Mr. JohnWilloughby Mr. Samuel Thomas Ann Mr. Mr. Mr. Lady The Sr. LASTSmith FIRST Francis TITLE Mr. SUFFIX Jr. WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S ToppinBurrellWeyley MilesBell HenryTemot Michael Mr. Eastwick Mr. Goldingham Francis Mr. John Henry JohnNicholas Mr. Mr. Bond Mr. Mr. MarmadukCleypole Mr. Francis Edward Mr. Mr.
128 6 4 LAVES 5 1 3 7 3 20209533 4 3640 6 27 54 70 22 60 8 11212 50 1010 50 8 5 5 4 515 10 220 235 8 120 1 272 Wilbraham Thomas Mr. Coussins John Capt. LASTCoward FIRST Samuel Mr. TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S SilvesterHarding GraceLine Henry Mrs. AltWilkins Christopher Mr. Miles Col. Martha JohnLyte Joseph Mrs. Mr. Coussins Mr. Snipe Paule JohnSedgwick Major WilliamSedgwick Mr. SamuelLahane Mr. JohnFasheir Mr. Sr. John Mr. Philip Mr. Mr. Chamell WalterRobinson Mr. Joseph Mr. Richards Latymore Mr.
129 2 LAVES 395720104010 5 10 40 10 6 1 46 6 7 8 7 37 14 19 100 30 144 2 60 100219217 2 4 42 117 120 125379140 58 130 43 Ridgway Mary Mrs. Sapster William Mr. HooperSalter Robert Richard Mr. Mr. LASTWeaver FIRST WIlliam Mr. TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S BarnesWoolverstonePrice Elizabeth ElizabethRidgway Mrs. Mrs. Roberts JohnBradshaw JosephCurtis Edward WilliamLintott Mr. Mr. Mr. Robert Mr. Marshall Richard Mr. John Mr. Mr. Greene William Mr. GorgesMiddletonWiltsheir Henry BenjaminDixwell John Mr. Mr. Bassil Mr. Mr.
130 LAVES 1 3 4 16 5732 6 110 105 20 12 152922 8 19 55 14 15 8 25 2 16 27 2 13 19 7 190 5165 80 1104 42 1 42 127336110 1 8 4 75 123 75 TullRenney John John Mr. Morecott Mr. John Mr. LASTHanson FIRST Samuel Mr. TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S HarmerWarnerBattine William SamuelMorgan Mr. JohnGunstone Mr. David Thomas Mr.HarrisDeane Mr. Mr. Keyser William Jr. GabriellWiddoc George Mr. Britland Mr. Willson Mr. BarnesButler Richard Mr. George Mr. James Mr. Mr. LeareLeareBaltson Thomas Peter Thomas Mr. Sr. Mr.
131 LAVES 9 7 7 7048 1 35 44 2620 40 37 6 10 10 72 288705420 7180 52 327 3 3 220 93 169 1 380 2 174 DraxBalkelyHusbants HenryWiltshier William SamuelMiddletonSmith Thomas Col. Esq. Esq. Bull Mr. Samuel Mr. Mr. Booth 1 Widow Mrs., 42 2 LASTPalmer FIRST Samuel Mr. TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S ButtallGreene Charles George Mr. Mr. WheelerRichardsAndrewes JohnPoore Robert JonathonApplewhite Mr. Mr. Mr. PeirseRenneyRobins Mr. Elliott JohnBendish Widow Mrs., John Mr. John Thomas Mr. Sr. Mr. Jr.
132 LAVES 7 6 6 6 10 15 1 15 LASTEvans FIRST John TITLE Mr. SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S MackoneClarke DarbyPooreLord WilliamDawson Mr. MichaellButler Mr. Anthony Robert Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.
133 4 LAVES 2 2 4 9 13 3 4 9620 2 70 7 1024 1 11 1010407820 11 115 2 17 22 7 228 120 2 67 Appendix D: The Parish of St. James Parish D: The Appendix LASTAflick FIRST Andrew TITLE Col. Lt. SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S AndrewsAndrewsAlling Euen William Jacob BlakeBetchem John John Bayley Richard Col. Byrne Dinnis Biggnett William BondBurhallBanbrig FfrancisBurrowes George Batt Robert Esq. John BalantBurgiss Dr. Burton John CharlesBissex Thomazing Capt. Mrs. Ffrancis William Capt. Sr. Mr.
134 LAVES 1 5 29 5 1 8 1 6 3 1 2027162345 16 8 8 8 5740 3 60 16 120247 1121 9 45 122 2 10 160317 6 55 120 2 6 CresswellCuta John ClementsDaniell Robert Mathew John Esq. CoxChamberlaineCollings FrancisChase Josias Capt. Christopher James Courtyere Capt. William John Camerrame George Chapeman John Challener Richard Robert DymockeDyer WilliamDollathyDalbey Capt. William Elizabeth Joane Chester William Mr. LASTBall FIRST John TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S
135 LAVES 34 5 1 7 3 7 4 3 5 7 1810 3 7 1032 1 10 30 14 25 171176 7245 3 78 70 8 120 174 7 69 LASTDownes FIRST Henry TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S DuceDamerell Giles Thomas FfuterFfeake Thomas Richard DuncingEvens Henry RichardFfeake Esq. Henry Fflint George FfurseyFfreemanGibbes Charles William Phillip Gibbson Mathew EbdingElmes EdwardFfitte John Ffoster Capt. Robert Robert Dr. GibbesGibbson Joseph John
136 7 2 LAVES 66 7 45 4 4 3 64 45 5 2 2 1014 4 60 3 50 98 134 4 52 100 3 32 1 4 HallHewes John John Higginson Margaret Holder Melitiah HillHarrison John Abraham HelmesHookerHabing Thomas John Capt. Thomas HolderHopekings John Samuel Housfield John Jr. GillhamGarrettGroncare Emanuell Garner Edmond John GarnerHelmes Mary Miller Thomas Major LASTGraye FIRST William TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S
137 3 LAVES 544 3 3 3 201362 6 315 1 37 2 9 2012161040 4 21 6 20 5 6 15 3 300 3 150 205 3 120 LASTJeffords FIRST Elizabeth TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S JohnsonKnightsKelley John King Benjamin Robert Esq. Kelly Robert Knightingall Nathaniel John KnatchbullKenn John MathewKantyLittlton Dr. Darby Edward Esq. LansLowtherLeach AnthonyLoue Luke Lawrence Capt. John Lewis Henry Mary LegayeLuke Hugh Jacob Elias Capt. Sr.
138 4 LAVES 5 7 5 3 825 5 2 1 3 2 2 4 1 477517 135 220 24 10 35 10 19 1 LeagerMellows Elisha Capt. Widow LASTLangham Thomas FIRST TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S MundyMullinexMerrell Elizabeth Mellows William Marting ThomasMaddox William Capt. John Thomas Middleton Richard MasslingMunnsMorraine William Morgaine ThomasMaccony John Robert Mackgerry Ensign Mackward Dinnis William Nelson Ffellen Thomas Maccony Dinnis
139 3 1 LAVES 1 3 77 1 5 6 153024 6 26 2 14 13 3 8 203013 2 120 10 2 29 5 9 198 2 85 LASTNorris FIRST Samuel TITLE Capt. SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S OdamPaige William Parker Sarah Pare Richard PearceBaine Edward Petter Benony Quale Tobias Samuell Hugh Odyne Edmond Pereing Sabasting QuerkeReid Richard John Esq. RichardRamsseyRussell Thomas RoasRiversRoass Philip Reid Intt.(?) William Thomas Adame Dr.
140 1 1 3 1 LAVES 75 2 5 5 4 25 10 1 1010201012 1 1 1 7 5 351133107 10 12 238 2 150 52 StroudeStretch JohnStaysmoreSage John Francis Mrs. Richard Sampson JohnScott Capt. John StanfastSparksScott JohnSteward JoyeSmithwicke Col. WalterSturman Amey William Madam Stout Capt. Smithwicke Mary Sumer Margaret John Thomas Lt. RichardReevesRobinson Nicholas Thomas John LASTRaven FIRST Christopher TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S
141 LAVES 92 4 3 3 65 6 5 3 2 1510 25 7 10 11 11 961213 27 2 10 305206 7 3 160 140 268 7 150 ThornehellTucker Timothy Ann VereingWalwyneWaltors Joshua James Richard Esq. Tovey Richard ThomasTindallVereing John Richard Alie ThorpeTemproeTaylor JamesThomson John Capt. Walter Christopher Dr. ShepeherdShawe John ShovellSteevens Daniell Thornehill Elias John Timothy Col. LASTSpencer FIRST Margaret TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S
142 LAVES 755 2 2 3 15 2 15 4 50 2 18 159 80 LASTWardle FIRST Christopher TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S WaleWilliams John Thomas WilliamsWhatsonWatty William Wright Richard Willey Henry Yeamans Henry Rawley Elizabeth
143 1 3 LAVES 4 1512 10 6 6546 210 83 25 155835 6 14 1 21 100 1111 54 2142 70 7425 90 618 6 23 179 300 77.5 28 Appendix E: The Parish of St. John Parish Appendix E: The LASTAdamsonAdamsonAllet Richard FIRSTBlanchod JamesBatricke Mr. TITLE William Adrian Mr. Thomas SUFFIX Mr. Mr. WIFE Mr. COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S Bromley JohnBemfield Mr. HonorBenson Mrs. FfrancisCodringtonCatthine Mr. Christopher Col. William Mr. BellBennyBeale FfrancisBrowne EdwardBaldwyn Alexander Mr. Capt. Batson Capt. John ThomasBasonColleton Mr. Capt. William Rockingham Peter Mr. Sr., Baron
144 6 LAVES 7 42 3 1 311415 1 1 20 16 10 6 11 101518 1948 10 10 6 4 32 140 95 330 6 118 13.5 1 49.25176.5 2 15 80 LASTCrossingeCombesCage William FIRSTCoulson MaryCurtiss Mr. Carmichaell TITLE AnthonyClarke Jeane Mrs. Cornish Archibald William Mr. SUFFIXCoombes Mrs. Capt. WIFEClaypole Thomas Mrs. COMP. Thomas John CHILDRENDixwell EdwardDeale Dr. ACRESDixwell SERVANTS Mr. Capt. Dickenson S Drinkwater Thomas Eastman Bazill FfrancisEstwicke Stephen Mrs. Estwicke Mr. Mr. James Henry Richard Mr. Mr. Mr. Sr. Downes Thomas Capt.
145 8 LAVES 477 1 6 75 2 1 5 10 372715 15 5 13 103970 5 29 70 381 12 80 108 163 6 65 6.25 132.5 102.5 4 37 LASTEstwickeFfoxFfoster FIRST RichardFfennillFfoster Thomas Mr.Ffenton Thomas TITLEGorge John Mr. Mr. Hester Jr. SUFFIX Agnes Mr. WIFE Henry Mrs. Sr. COMP. Mrs. CHILDREN Mr. ACRES SERVANTS S HendrickHollinsedHaynes William Nathaniell Edmund Garnham Mrs. HalletHicks John Robert Col. Lt., Mr. GaleGallopeGoodallGouis ThomasGunbee HenryHusbands William Dr. Capt. Richard Phillipe Capt. Samuell Esq.
146 2 3 12 LAVES 4 4 2 2020 3 20 8 106040 2 41512 55 21611 6 8 3 528 4470 150 11 150 104 4 38 140 5 68 1 77.5 29 LASTHaynesHothersall FIRSTKeith Edmund JohnKinneyKendall TITLE Mr. James Alexander SUFFIX John Mr. Dr. WIFE COMP. Mr. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S Harrison Phillip Kennard RobertLivesly Mr. Lawrence Mr. Meares John Mr. KingLeslieLeslieLondon Thomas AnnLovington JohnLloyd WilliamLowe Mrs. WilliamMeade Capt. Mr. Leolin Mr. Martine RichardMacolline Robert Dr. Mr. John Esq. Daniell
147 5 1 3 18 LAVES 46 2 1 1420 7 2 20 18 1 13 2510 17 3 4.5 3 348 8 106 126 2 70 39.5 4 40 32.517.5 19 6 188.25 106 1 10 LASTMillwardMooreMacolline FIRSTMacoy JohnMagrah John Allexander Manninge TITLE Mr. Morris Margrett Newman Mr. John John SUFFIXNowell WIFEPalmer Richard Robert COMP.Pearnell CHILDREN Abraham Mr. ACRES Mr. Anthony John SERVANTS S Mr. Capt. Pemberton James Mr. Rouse Thomas Major PettyPoolerPhillacotPalmer JohnQintyne Thomas ThomasReese Thomas Mr. Mr. Mr. Henry Lawrence Esq. Mr.
148 2 LAVES 3 1 3 51 5 6 6 10 1 10253319 6 16 5 11 9 8 36 44 3.5 4.5 3 295 7 157 25.5 18 21.67 103.5 50 LASTRennyRuskeRedman FIRSTSummer JohnStuddy Andrew MartinShunke TITLE George Mr. ShoreySherwood Thomas Mr. SUFFIXScott Mr. Valentine WIFESwallowe Mr. Anthony William COMP. plant. Guinny The CHILDREN James Slogrove ACRESStuddy SERVANTSSmith S RichardSedfordWidow Mrs., Trevanyon Robert Mr. Taylor William Todd Thomas Mr. Nathaniell Capt. Robert John Mr. Mr. Seales Ffrancis Mr.
149 5 13 LAVES 5 5 20 153 5 2 40 57 109 1 45 423.5137.5 9 7 198 70 1 10 12 LASTTurbervileTixloueTodd William FIRSTTaylorVaughan Mr. Walrond TITLE Thomas Walrond Phillipe JohnWoolfe Mr. SUFFIX Henry WIFE HenryWhite Mr. COMP.Wood Esq. CHILDREN Esq. ACRES Dorothy Sr. SERVANTS William Mrs. Jr. S Mrs. Woode Henry
150 LAVES 5 85 80 801711 415 3 29 16 25 2 8 6 220270140 12 18632 260 10447 150 100 80 16166 18152 190 4 85 6100 35 2 105 70 2 40 155 1 28 Appendix F: The Parish of St. Joseph Parish The of St. F: Appendix LASTSharpeWorsham FIRSTAndrews William JohnWhiteDettem Jonathon TITLE Esq. Waterman Esq. Mr. Dorithy SUFFIXWaterman Seger John WIFEHoulder Mrs. Bennony COMP.Lues Mr. CHILDRENWaldron Esq. John Mr. ACRESCook SERVANTS JohnThorne Allexsander Esq. S Macaskey HannahShepard Capt. Allen Eaton Mrs. RasinsPottores George Widow Mayne Samuel James Widow Mr. Thomas
151 LAVES 66 1 6 96 44 9 6 1 2 1 50 4860 2 3 28 45 1010 16 23 6 7 138188194 9340 7 105 14 192 85 100 10.75 2 11 BenneyFfosterGibbs EdwardDavis Thomas Weston Esq. JohnSuttle John Left. Capt. Widow Widow DaniellCollinsFflaid Patrick Williams ArthurBarnett David Conniers David Mr. Ffoster Henry Toppin Derman Widow Widow LASTMadasonKing FIRSTHinson RobertRileyTreuer Thomas Mr. TITLE Edward SUFFIX Hugh Julian WIFE COMP. Mr. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S
152 13 LAVES 7 2 432 5 1 43602620 3 5 35 16 23 16 1110 176 1 1 2 6 7 20 38 12 17 8 9.5 1 5 138 75 CoxCallopThorneHobbs William Henry JohnWhitacar Mathew Capt. Left. Benjamin BissickDavisPinfold Richard Richard Mr. Widow Left. ProserBickle Thomas Mr. Barnes Widow Engerfield Nicolas Wyett DavidWatsonPerfell Daniel Mr. John Widow LASTBrumleyHeed FIRSTWood JohnSmith William TITLE Mr. John Ffrances SUFFIX Mr. WIFE Mr. Mr. COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S
153 LAVES 5 5 35 1 4 8 784 2 1 3 1 6070 3 27 21035 11 10 2 1610 10 27 2 13 2 20 Coningham George Brewer William BrookesMackaboyYoung Thomas William Quarles Mr. John Allin John MirrickCator RichardCampion John Mr. Daniell Camberlin Esq. ParksMarshall JohnBrian RobertWilliams Corp. Mr. Peeter Hugh Mr. StevensMountstevens John David MascallPowell Robert Humphrey Capt. LASTWatts FIRST Charles TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S
154 LAVES 5 568 4 253 2 1 67 2 5 2 545 3 5 1 1 1 1730 120 8 5 40 10 2015 7 2 GrantLucas WilliamLangam William Mr. Richard Bateman Christopher WagettSmith John John RussellComins JohnMurroeTaylor Robert Mr. John Shaugan Robert ChandlerPrice Daniell Coleman Richard Endritt Edward Elmore Anthony Thomas Randall LASTWolfordLucas FIRSTMurphey Henry John Dennis TITLE Mr. SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S
155 LAVES 5 12 1010 1 1 7 22 LASTWalkerMannick FIRSTLow William Vaughan Andrew TITLE John Mr. Richard SUFFIX WIFE Mr. Mr. COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S
156 1 6 LAVES 26 2 3 2 22 1 1 1 6 7 3 13492410 2 3 15 1 53 6 1 21 36402015 5 7 1 4 2 Appendix G: The Parish of St. Lucy Parish The St. of G: Appendix ArmestrongAtwellAlmond John Alwin'sAlmond Henry Allen Benjamin Allen Thomas William Archer Oliver Belgrave Mathey Edward Robert Atkinson Anthony Arrowsmith Richard LASTAgardAbbottArmestrong FIRSTApplegate John Anderson Edward William Andrews Edward Arundell John TITLE William SUFFIX Richard WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S
157 LAVES 5 5 1 68 5 1210102010 3 1 1 6 25 13 152010 10 10 5 2 6 1317 3 3 1 10 1 Widow LASTBoyeeBrowneBrowne FIRSTBrowne Andrew Bycrofte Patricke Bacor James Browne James TITLEBuxtone RalphBrowne SUFFIX John Browne Daniell WIFEBarrat Samuell COMP.Burill Robert CHILDRENBarrow John ACRESBycrofte SERVANTS Sr. Bowing S James Beard Rice Bushapp RalphBoswine John Baker Randall Henry Lewis Samuell Jr.
158 2 1 1 LAVES 2 2 454 3 1 1 4 2 69 5 28 10 1 1 12 2 ButlerBrimleyBoyce Thomas Humphrey, Hugh Blayden John BarnesBraggBryant Jonathon Bullen Barnes Bullocke Andrew James Samuell Samuell Burden Marke BassnetBellgrave John Joseph LASTBurtoneBaineBradford FIRSTBankes John Brittaine William Robert BurgesBrowne Thomas TITLE Robert John SUFFIX John WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S
159 LAVES 656 2 5 7 5 1 1 6 1 7 3 4 3320101110 8 10 447 2 6 5 50 2 28 LASTCandellColebourneCullwell FIRSTClargey William John CallenderClarke Edmund Crone Thomas Richard TITLECummingsCudduging SUFFIX Andrew Cormedy WIFE William Thomas Cottell COMP. Thomas Connor CHILDREN Teague Cox ACRESCundell SERVANTS Thomas Collins Daniell S Connel Roger Callahaine John Chandler Phillip Cowley William Owen John Daniell
160 1 1 LAVES 8 2 3 3 8 35 5 1 5 11 10 11 8 11 2 CrickardColemanClarke William Corbin George CockeramCozier William Luke William Alexander ColemanConnellCorlis William ClareyCrawley Daniel William Daniell Thomas Charles Pawlo LASTCallenderCorbinCumell John FIRSTCareyCavanna John Cosier Hugh Canes John Oliver TITLE SUFFIX John WIFE William COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S
161 LAVES 537 3 1 5 1 8 4 7 9 1315 9 7 10 10 231027 6 9 233 1 69 11 11 6 LASTDowdenDaggerDowell FIRSTDowell ThomasDavis George Doeham John Draggon Thomas Capt. TITLEDoeham John John Deale SUFFIX John Dunn WIFE Patrick Duesberry COMP.Dymond CHILDREN Thomas Deere ACRES Daniell William Dowley SERVANTS Thomas Deborah Sr. S Dowell William Davis William John DowdenDearing Daniell John Samuell Ffinch Jr.
162 LAVES 4 4 8 4 5 1 85 7 3 2 224014 2 11 51 15 8 3 10 4 LASTDunstoneDaniellDavis Richard FIRSTDavisDowrage Teauge Daniell Jerimiah Diging Thomas William TITLEEnglishEmerson Edmond SUFFIXEvens WIFE James Edwards Jacob COMP. Stephen Edmunds CHILDRENEdwards ACRES Walter Hugh Emery SERVANTS Richard Ellis S Evan EdwardsEdwards Richard Eason Patterick Simon Elliott Anthony Anthony Peter
163 6 LAVES 5 1 6 6 3 5 1 1 22 7 2815102813 4 2 8 10 9 9 5 FfleetwoodGent John Robert Capt. LASTEmeryFfoydFfrench FIRSTFfisher William Ffleming Richard Ffletcher John Fferon John TITLE John Ffling Ffrancis Fflood SUFFIXFfarrington WIFE Cloud Ffinn COMP. William Ffrissell CHILDREN Thomas Arthur Ffleachone ACRESFfossit SERVANTS John Ffortune Daniell Teauge S FfurteloughFfarley Elias Thomas Thomas Henry
164 LAVES 66 18 8 3 888 1 1 1 301210 50 7450 13 40 1 11 2 6 22 29 5 10 14 10 3 100 2 42 LASTGouldingGrigoryGarratt FIRST GideonGroverGriffith Ann Gough Robert Griffith John Lt. TITLEGoodyeare Arthur Godden SUFFIX William Galloway John WIFE William Goddin COMP.Graves George CHILDREN Edward Grant ACRESGay Theophilus SERVANTSGraves Edward S Graves John Guyer John Graves Joseph Hancocke William Edward Hugh Peter Esq.
165 LAVES 56 435 6 1 6 1 1 3 4 28 1 121010 1010 1 2 10 11010 5 12 4 3 1 2 1 1 10 1 Widow LASTHoskinsHendersonHockley FIRSTHafeyard John Thomas HagganHough Peter Hoggan TITLEHussey Grigory Hambleton SUFFIX Henry Hambleton Daniell WIFE Jr. Harris Robert COMP. Alexander Holmes CHILDRENHunt ACRESHonan SERVANTS John Hill George S Henery William Hasell Teauge Widow HeatelyHaddocke Daniell George George James Ffrancis
166 LAVES 1 2 54 7 7 1 75 3 3 1 2 33 1 12 201298 7 4 20 3 54 4 3010 34 4 HayesHaggonHuntHarvey John Harris Teauge Harris Richard Hussey John Hussey John Hieris Richard Harte Edward Jones Mathew Richard John Jonathon Hoskins Richard D.V. LASTHailesHardaceHoldstaff FIRSTHunt Margaret Mathew Holloway Richard HollowayHoggerston John William TITLE John Oswan SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S
167 3 LAVES 5 2 5 2 1010 2 3040422526 14 15 20 15 10 11 10 7 21010 4 13 10 20 3 4 1 KendallKelley John Charles Kane John LASTJacksonJinkinsJames FIRSTJordane Thomas Jemott David James Alce Jemott William TITLEJones JonathonJemott SUFFIX William Jemott Jonathon WIFEJurden COMP. Hector Jones Thomas CHILDRENIrons Emanuell ACRESJones Sr. Samuell SERVANTSJames S George Jochum Jr. Ruth Thomas John John
168 LAVES 1 1 6 65 4 1 5 10 12131010 3 3 3 1014 12 1010 10 2 4 300 5 150 Lombarte Simon Col. LASTKellmanKelleyKelley FIRSTKing William Kill-Patrick Phillip Kelley James Keneda Roger John TITLEKelleyKerrey SUFFIX John Knights Humphrey WIFEKnights COMP. Marks King John CHILDREN Jonathon ACRESLong Thomas SERVANTSLewis S Edmond LawleenesLenice Patrick Luke James William Lewis Peter Mary John Jr.
169 1 LAVES 2 8 2 5 82 1 2010 1310 11 4 3 5 2 28 101012 3 10 1 3 4 127399 4 6 61 129 Maddocks John Esq. LASTLangLeacockeLeech FIRSTLewis Edward Nicholas LambarteLaruine Daniell Lambart Richard Oliver TITLELeeLong Nicolas SUFFIX Joseph WIFEGravesland COMP. Edward Maycocke CHILDREN John Murfee Samuell ACRESMackswine SERVANTS ThomasMackolaster S Morris Dennis Owen Mathias Daniell Munrow Capt. Marten John Matthew Dennis Marten
170 LAVES 5 838 2 3 5 3 5 5 76 6 83 6 4 17 2310 19 4 1010 8 10 1 2 3 1 LASTMarshallMerritMorgan FIRST William MacolasterMackenny John Marrane William Thomas Medway Daniell TITLEMims Derman Murfew SUFFIX John Morris WIFEMacknatt COMP. James Mullinex John CHILDRENMerret ACRES Daniell William Merricke SERVANTSMacoy John S Merricke John Humphrey MurfeeMurfee Thomas John Murraines Dermon Thomas John
171 1 LAVES 1 1 33 3 1 5 5 4 2 4 5 3 1012 1 4 1 20 NelsonNicoldsNewlandNorman Dennis Nicolds Richard David NicoldsNeale Walter Nicolds John John William George Sr. Jr. Newton Bassett LASTMorganMurfeeMathews FIRSTMany Paull Munrow Edmond Purlow MorrisonMacoy Cornelius TITLEMourton John George Mackelon SUFFIXMakenny Aron WIFE Morris COMP. Daniell CHILDREN Gilbert D. ACRES SERVANTS S
172 LAVES 8 54 7 5 5 1 37 6 1 1060 26312 11 10 12 26 1 6 11 11 35 1 14 220 5 95 LASTOndhamPickerinPickerin FIRST Edward PeterPoyer Joseph Pow Estate Elizabeth Pluncked Thomas TITLEParfitt Able Pinck SUFFIX Robert Elizabeth Paterson WIFEPaterage COMP. Augustine Pow CHILDREN Anthony Dunching Price ACRES Thomas Pirkins SERVANTSPirkins S Ffrancis Payder William Price ThomasPow ThomasPorter Mathew John Edward John Sr. Jr.
173 LAVES 8 2 2 58 1 334 3 3 1 1 4411 1910 18 13 8 288 8 1 38 158 LASTPearcePilgrimPotter FIRSTPaine John Pinck Philemon Roulstone Ralph Reade Samson TITLERollock Henry SamuellRoope SUFFIXRow Phillip WIFERoach Andrew COMP.Row Capt. John CHILDRENRyder ACRES Lawrence Reece Edmund SERVANTSRegan S Ryand Regan Edward Roach Andrew Rounton William Savory Owen William Peareifull John
174 LAVES 5 751011 111 713 18 1115 4 17 1 16 3 10 156 5 20 1 22 5 10 3 28 0 10 16 10 10 6 LASTStephensStephensStroud John FIRSTSwinney JohnSufflerSimmons Robert JosephSharpe TITLESober William Nicolas Swinney SUFFIXSinclar John WIFE Sr. Sanders COMP. Jr. Peter JamesHyde CHILDREN Sr. Booth Sr. Adam ACRES Thomas Stroud SERVANTSSinnet S SkinnerSutton Anthony Skiddery Sr. William Stephens Isaac John Richard Peter
175 LAVES 3 3 3 5 7 6 5 53 1 2 18 19 1 300 8 135 1 9 LASTSweelevanSweelevanSimson John FIRSTShoham Owen ShedeStockes John Dermon Steventon TITLESpellane Dennis Salter Jonathon SUFFIX William Sinnet WIFE Dennis Smith COMP.Stroud CHILDREN George Summers ACRES Marten Scott SERVANTS Jonathon Surple Robert S Walter SearesStephens Thomas Shee Ambross Titcombe William Thomas Jr. Edmond Samuel Col. Lt.
176 LAVES 5 675 7 58 1 7 1 2 2 254513 1 18 25 10 5 2 10 5 10 7 2010 2 6 3 210 11 98 1 121 1 10 3 7 LASTTerrellThomsonTavenner FIRSTTucker Michaell Grissel Tellstone Thomas Taylor Leggates Tayer & Marten William Capt. TITLETomasonThomas SUFFIX Robert Truslow WIFE Peter Thomas COMP.Turnham John CHILDRENTownsend John ACRESTerrill Even SERVANTS Robert Thomas S William ThomasTate Thomas Taylor RobertTibblin Peter John Ambrose Aron Jr. Jr.
177 LAVES 1 65 8 7 1 2 2 1020602713 4 1 2 17 20 12 4 1710 2 2 10 2 VinsonVnderhandWrightWaight John Phillip WilliamsWilliams Benjamin Waybourne William Even Williams William Whitfield John Wedlock John Witney John Wathins John Richard Thomas Vrquatt Thomas LASTTomasonThomasTibblin Roger FIRSTTailorTurner William Tirvill John Jonathon TITLE Robert SUFFIX Edward WIFE COMP. CHILDREN D.V. ACRES SERVANTS S
178 1 LAVES 5 5 3 75 4 2 29 1 1 25 10 1 1211 1049 3 1 3 10 20 1010 1 YeamansYarwoodYounge Willoughby William Thomas Dame 1 50 13 Walton Eleonar LASTWhitefootWeckesWright Amos FIRSTWilliamsWilliams Thomas Whitely Thomas Owen Whiteheade TITLE ThomasWalterWillson Mathew Edward SUFFIXWhitehead WIFEWelch COMP. Welch Lt. Whitney Sebellow CHILDREN Thomas Weston ACRESWarren SERVANTS Richard Weekes John S William Richard John
179 LAVES 1 3 49 1 38 2 1 11 10 5677 3 3 6 10 2 88 334 94 32 5 125 20 21 1 6 4619 1 15 15 160125130 8 2 93 60 60 Appendix H: The Parish of St. Michael Parish The of St. H: Appendix BateBurtonBatson William Ffrancis Thomas Collo. BordenBonettBond Joseph Edward FfrancisBattyne Esq. BoucherBirkehead JonathonBrandon Jonathon George Hugh Jr. Barradall Theodore LASTAshendineAldsworth Thomas FIRSTAnthony Bartholomew AustrianAllin Anthony TITLEAntor Cornelious Allen SUFFIX Thomas WIFE Allexander COMP. Jacob CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S
180 3 LAVES 6 2 487 36 5 4 4 4 11 5 2 8 3 1410301519 315 6 4 14 1 16 1 11 10 15 11 10 110 3 14 14 1410 2 2 1 9 14 LASTBirdBarron FIRSTBroydonBaines Jonathon Jonathon Barnes Humphry TITLEBarron Allice Barnett SUFFIX Jonathon Brett WIFE William Beedle COMP. William Busshey CHILDREN Jonathon Bignall ACRES Joseph Bignall SERVANTS William Burnell S JonathonBreagg JonathonBarramanBoucher William Alexander Brewster Sr. Bryan Jerreard Jr. Boyna Philip Mrs. Cornelious Daniell
181 LAVES 785 1 5 5 2 1 5 1 7 1 13 125688 1 315 4 5 60 7 1 40 20 313 8 1 24 22 210 20 4 1 6 20 16 39 1 3 4 300 6 137 LASTCappeCrisp FIRSTCowley William Cannings Jonathon Coather Roger TITLE William CarnockChace SUFFIX Esq. Carney WIFE Thomas Cleaver COMP. Jonathon Cliggatt CHILDREN Patrick Conle Mrs. ACRES Kathrine Cissell SERVANTS William Cleaver S Christopher Clark James Chandler Jonathon Cleaver Thomas Coale Nicholas Coddrington Henry Jonathon Thomas Esq. Child Thomas
182 7 LAVES 8 8 5 5 555 7 4 2 2 131420 280 3 8 5 11 6 26 25 1 13 1512 1 216 4 7 310 7 1 101 2 36 LASTCaimeCockman FIRSTClarke Benjamin William CooperCoachman George TITLEClark Symon Alexander Cordiu SUFFIXCattlin WIFE Henry Carter COMP. Paulus Dwight CHILDREN Jonathon Davis ACRES Boham SERVANTS Benjamin S William Dunidge William DraytonDaneffDick Thomas Deboyce James DowellDunn Jonathon Giles Embree Dennis Roger William
183 7 LAVES 7 12 1 1 88 1 1 3 1 3527 110 3 6 6 3 10 1225 110 430 8 19 10 22650 3 3 16 2 3 10 26 26 294179 10 129 8 93 LASTEllioltArd FIRSTEllacott Jonathon EnglandEgginton James TITLEFforstall Lawrence SUFFIX Seaborne WIFE Richard COMP. Mrs. CHILDREN Jr. ACRES SERVANTS S FfletcherFfoake George Henry FfarmerFfifield Jonathon FfowlerFfonsiere Richard Ffavell Jonathon Philip FfeaverFfuller Roger Ffrost Robert Grace Joane Gayton Ffrancis Gritton Benjamin Richard Ellizabeth
184 LAVES 75 4 1 5 1 10 5 10 1 8 20 163 6 140 18 10 17 12526 2 24 163 110 5 10 56 2 30 3 20 2 49 204 5220 85 9101 84 605 25 405 LASTGoodmanGriggory Ellizabeth FIRST Jonathon TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S Goding Peter Hutchinson Jonathon HasselHuntt Ralph Symon HarrisHallett Jonathon Hawksworth JonathonHanson Jonathon Esq. Guy &Howell Samiell RichardHardingHurlow Esq. Hooper Ffrancis Hallett Daniell Huntt Christopher Hawksworth Ffrancis Hatwood Jonathon Edward Handy Daniell Jonathon
185 3 3 LAVES 34 3 1 5 53 6 2 4 3010 20 2014 7 10 110 10 110 12 10 9 11 5 3 5 5 28 200 13 70 LASTHardingHyatt FIRSTHardwick Edward Ham Samuell Ffrancis Hamblin TITLEHarper Jonathon Heethrop SUFFIXHearst WIFE George William Hill COMP.Hare CHILDREN William Widow Higginbotham ACRESHathway Jonathon SERVANTS Jonathon Jonathon Hollinsworth S Jackson Samuel Ralph Jelly Christopher Thomas Jefferres Jonathon JennisonJohnsonJacobs Allex Jonathon William
186 LAVES 497 3 69 6 1 27 12 5 52 2 17 1353 5027 350 5 25 12 332 7 27 11 1035 2 5 12 234 20 160 144140 3180 5 100 3 72 52 LASTKenttLeer FIRST Humry Thomas TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S Lovell Roger MorganMartin Evan Morris Gabriell Richard LyneLancasterLedra Phillip Christopher LitonLayton Jonathon Lucomb William Langworthy Richard Lillington Nicholas LovellLinks George LucombMorris Mrs. Thomas Thomas Thomas Marchall Mrs. William
187 2 LAVES 67959 6 3 1 3 3 5 4 14 3 6 55 2 3 1 3 11 8 5040 3 1 16 33 152035 1 1 80 34 12 101 1230 17 8 76 LASTMacklaireMurrell Jonathon FIRSTMullinaxMullinax William Michell TITLEMurphe Richard Murrow SUFFIX Anthony Murrell WIFE Bryan Mrs. Neale COMP. Jonathon Osborne CHILDREN Jonathon Odiarne ACRES Thomas SERVANTS Samell S Thomas Oakley Ffrancis Pearce Richard OdellPrideaux Jonathon Pilgrim Nicholas ParrisPiggott Thomas Panton Edward Jonathon Mrs.
188 LAVES 57 745 1 3 5 4 7 5 12 3216 1 23 15 6 1112212 6 1 16 3 3 2810 5 5010 3 40 4 186 76 LASTParrisPaily FIRSTPirkins George Perriman Adrian Perridge TITLEPerry Jonathon Price SUFFIX Job Plumley WIFE Samuell Pollard COMP. Widow Henry Pollard CHILDREN Jonathon Rundall ACRES Richard Rowe SERVANTS Jonathon Robinson S Edward Robinson Anne Richard William Reynolds Thomas RoettShenkinghStrode Barnard Isaac Stanly Jonathon Mrs.
189 LAVES 8 45 2 5 3 4 4 10 39303912 1 18 2 22 18 30 12101019 110 1 6 1 12 25 7 12 8 10 3 49 3 3 3 6 33 129 4 105 LASTScottSimmons FIRSTSpenswick Benjamin Phillip SimmonsSteede TITLE Phillip Sutton SUFFIX Edwyne WIFE Mrs. Jonathon COMP. Esq. CHILDREN Capt. ACRES SERVANTS S Smith Alice SalmonSinklaireSweeting Joseph Turpin Alexander Richard TudarTaggart HenryTurton Richard Terry Allexander Twine Ffrancis Turwhitt Christopher Thomas Sr. Tyrwill George Roger Herculous Widow
190 2 LAVES 749 56 5 1 4 1 5 14 5 5 5 1010 201530 10 12610 9 9 13 6 8 40 8 1 1 13 13 LASTTurpinThomas FIRSTTrowell HenryWillis David Warren Phillip TITLEWood Jonathon Welding SUFFIX Joseph Withington WIFE Jr. Ffrancis Waters COMP. William William Willoughby CHILDRENWalton ACRES Mary Jonathon Willoughby SERVANTSWarner S George George WilliamsWelch Samuell White Jonathon Fferrell David Young Nathaniel Bridgett John
191 LAVES 1895 5 2 15 12 31 18 12 5015 6 13010 35 8010 827 115 4 14 6 5 37 9 3 179211110 3 2 1 70 80 13 210 3 7 Appendix I: The Parish of St. Peter Parish The of St. Appendix I: BallNoareWaley James James William Capt. Capt. Richards Thomas LASTGamble FIRST Ffrancis TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S HorshamSandiford Samuel Elizabeth Lt. TidcombeCollins SamuellFfosterClutterbuck Phillip Col. Lt. William Mary BotsworthWood Major Samuell HallJennings Samuell Jones Jonathon GilesFfloydHarris Henry Richard Capt. Margrett
192 LAVES 8 9 3 9463 310 415 32 18 20 1 28 20202075 10 220 3 2 10 2 36 15 150 4170 47 240 4125 6 70 115 1 77 6 32 138 57 4 113 Yeatman William FfosterOrman Jonathon Maverick Richard Samuell Bennet Jonathon Hutchings William LASTTottill FIRST Jonathon Esq. TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S JonesScantlebury Jacob Thomas GunnSomesBerringer Jonathon Danill Jehew Yeamans WillougbyeParkerLady The Gording Richard Rowlston George Samuel WickhamBaker Alec Baker Jonathon Henry
193 LAVES 107038 230 510 2 4 6 40 40 1 20 2810 5 2 9 460 1 18 10 40 110 1 40 5 34 100 2 7 22 136 5 115 167 14 70 200 8195 74 127 195 9 7 87 87 12.5 4 24 Henecoate Jonathon Swimsteed Jonathon Lewis Morgan LettletonHall Edward Giles Esq. Esq. LASTClinkett FIRST Sarah TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S WaltersClasotonCoale Richard Anthoney ClipshamBaylee Thomas Edmond Hancock RichardRawligh PeterRevill Col. Burgis Grisuell Morgan Esq. William WilliamKeare Richard Benson Capt. How Henry Marey William Esq.
194 LAVES 7797 610 440 31 20 37 10 225 340 2 26 6 133 5 1 5 2 10 15 1 20 20 9 255 6 30 2 10 20 12 2 30 4 188 8 70 147125 5 55 61 127 1 68 Knowles Matthew MoggsCoale Robert Isack LASTNoruall FIRST Thomas Lt. TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S SteartRuddock Gaberill AlexanderCammerenSober Jonathon Esq. Capt. DewsburyBenn Thomas William GoslingSober William Lockett Phillip Steart Thomas Thomas Jr. Browne JonathonGemonot William Major King Sr. JonathonMooreGaye Robert Jonathon Jonathon Sr.
195 LAVES 158455 117 316 235 3 1 20 3 20 15 10 5 10 31 25 20 450 131 5 111 11 20 12 101710 2 7 14 2 4 4 127 3 35 115 3 20 Loyd RichardDunn Jr. Jonathon LASTRossar FIRST Jenkins TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S ListonDossenGosling ThomasHutchings Allexander Arnoll Josias Capt. Nicholas Helmes WilliamVanderwarfe ThomasFfarmer Ffrancis Maxwill Capt. Bevin JonathonGray Robert Capt. Sr. George Webb Mathew HowardHoustone Jonathon Beadele Jonathon Robert Burrows Henry Hugh
196 6 3 3 2 LAVES 1 2 101635 220 112 110 4 12 10 120 7 10 4 1 12 18 120 2 2 16 4 110 9 61 25 5 10 8 LASTCooke FIRST Giles TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S DowdenLapthorne Joseph Monrow Marey MuddPerin Hector Scantlebury HenrySobber Robert Jonathon ShoorySandiford Capt. Jonathon Thorneburgh Ffrancis AnnWildgoose Edmond Wilsone Jacob Merrick Widow Goustone William Jonathon Robert Capt. JonesPaineWaterman Benjamin Johnstoune George Humphrey William Capt. Capt.
197 3 3 3 6 3 1 2 LAVES 2 31 1 2 5 1 4 33 3 6 8 3 8 5 1 6 1 1 2 PritchettGording Mary GouldDefonsequa Isabella Wadley Jacob James MathewsMackris Nicholas Mathew WebbMarkes Robert Allen Thomas Bregg Marey Browne JonathonGray William Mackerhall Hugh Capt. Booker Joane George CoxellBurgis George Barret George Deborah Charles LASTRobinson Grizuell FIRST TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S
198 2 2 3 2 3 2 1 3 LAVES 4 1 5 411 6 1 1 1 3 7 1 52 10 20 DavisRatsburdNewman Robert Thomas Walkings James Trefuse Jonathon SwimsteedCarpenter Jonathon JonathonGrant Christian CallahanBlake Allexander Charles JonesMonard Jr. Jonathon Quintyore Hugh Ffall Nicholas Thomas WeakwellHoward Peter Henry WaltersClaxton Jonathon Richard Anthony LASTJames FIRST Samuell TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S
199 3 1 5 2 3 3 6 1 5 10 10 LAVES 3 7 6 521 40 3 5 4 2 1 WhitlockHarrison Zachirah Jones RobertMillsChafs Henry Burgis Capt. Henry Parson Sollomon DeSliver Jerrimiah Turner Edward Abraham JonesMuenas Arthur Deane Jonathon Chelloe Joseph Delyon Jane Mendas David Usher Mesias Gosling Sollomon Helsoll Cutbery Jonathon Ann LASTOskin FIRST Robert TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S
200 2 2 4 2 1 3 9 1 3 2 4 10 LAVES 21 10 2 87555 8 3 1 2 5 1 LewgerBarrowLewger JonathonDickinson Abraham Capt. Arnoll William Jonathon TeageRugg Capt. RobertRobinson Thomas Reynolds William Paterick Lt. Mendas Edmond GillinghamMassias Simon Thomas Keane Jacob Henry LASTVelloa FIRST David TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S WellsWellsHunt Thomas ThomasRiligh Bartholomew William Sr. Jr. Warnall Richard
201 4 3 4 LAVES 2 4 4 1 1 1 77 3 1 4 1 5 5520 125 20 10 110 13 5 451010 1 10 18 3 3 Parker Ambros LASTMackawee Thomas FIRST TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S FfrettoMackris Simon KeaireHauston Robert James Samall FfarrDavisCompton Richard Wishett David NicholasPullen Andrew Lt. James GascoigneAlmond Edward Hewes Philip Edward Lawry Jonathon GreenSmith Jonathon Lt. BullenLewis JamesSwimsteed Jonathon Phillip Lt. Sr.
202 3 LAVES 1 4 2 5 85 8 55 5 5 1 6820 210 60 1027 1 15 4 6 2 1 2 12 2110 6 1 310 7 10 4 4 135 7 45 190 Ffewster George Hill Thomas LASTHurst FIRST George TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S WalkerBaker WilliamOrmount Jonathon Mr. Anderson Rebecah Dewsbury JonathonAnderson Danill Deurede Masson(?) Jonathon Paule MurpheeBateram Teage Hassill William Brevitor William Cooper Robert Trevage Fflorance James Hutchins Henry White Jonathon Baron Jonathon
203 4 3 LAVES 12 3 4 2 5 6 1 17 2 2 1 92 2 1 95 3 4 2 10 2 2 1080 2 3 1 20 25 1 10 PhillipsShoory Charles Ffrancis LASTRichards FIRST Phillip TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S Loue Richard BallSprice Benjamin Ffisher Ffrancis Ffar Richard Vines Richard Dum Thomas Teage DottenBayemanCossentin William Phillip Turburne Richard Ascoe Jonathon William Capt. LitteppBeadle Thomas William Swillivan Dinis Nash Thomas
204 LAVES 65 1 7 5 6 6 5 238036 1 115 6 11 13 21 1 9 13 8535 1 18 2 34 110 2 44 390138 1 90 5 57 Appendix J: The Parish of St. Philip Parish J: The Appendix AustineArcherAshill EdwardAdams JaneAdamsAlexander Mr. Thomas John Anne Mrs. James LASTArcher FIRST Edward TITLE Mr. SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S Ashby George Bushell George AxhamAckermanAllin John Henry Archer Willoughby AgradyAllin Mary Thomas Bushell Thomas Beeke John FferdinandoBanfield John Esq. Honor Esq. Mrs.
205 LAVES 783 3 1 5 1 155510 110 5 10 11610 11 1 6 23 18 1122 3 1021 1 10 1 72 9 30 3 8 13 15 BoucherBraithwaiteBressy RobertBurrows John Bowman FfrancisBaker Capt. Thomas Breakspeare Robert Brigs Mr. Edmund Bannam Richard BarnesBoscume Thomas John Barnard Ffrancis Billing Richard Best Robert BakerBoulton Nicolas Bentley John Bridle Margery John Martin James Mr. Mr. LASTBurke FIRST John TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S
206 LAVES 5577 4 3 7 3 3 2 2 5 35 1 3 2 3 5 1 38 13 10 15 1 23 113 BrowneBryanBrudin William BrowneBludes John Teige Bartlett John Blackmore John Boone Phillyp Buckshire Richard Barker Lawrence Binney Thomas Baldin Andrew Alexander Thomas Capt. LASTBawler FIRST Richard TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S Brumfield Thomas BrumfieldBleckeColleton Phillipp Cooke Joseph Chopman Thomas John Matthew Col.
207 LAVES 835 2 1 155 9 4 1 8 1 3 202525 6 9 8 25151517 14 15 3 17 1 7 14 4 2 100 3 45 CryerCarterClarkeCooper BenjaminCatlin James John Crockson Mr. Peter Curtis Roger Nicolas Emanuel Capt. 1 280 3 105 LASTCooper FIRST William TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S Clary George ChuglyCarterChapman William CookeClarkeson Daniell John Cole JohnChisman John ChapmanCole Robert Richard Clarkeson Richard Patrick Jr. Phillyp
208 LAVES 336 1 4 3 1 2 5 32 1 1 307412 1 260 22 22 10 145 5 24 1 4 8 301120 15 6 3 13 4 150 3 30 CullpepparClarkeCod FfrancisCleaver William Cave Mr. Cou Jasper FfrancisCurtisCave Ffrancis Connell Capt. John Culpeppar Nathaniel Sweeting Morris Allin Mr. LASTCrawford FIRST William TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S Curtis John CurtisCullamCoxDavis William John DavisDun William Dillaine Isaac Thomas Richard George Dearman
209 LAVES 1 10 4559 6 3 1 4 2 675 1 2 3 101480 4 7 220 50 4 202525 1 7 20 12 27 1 14 113 2 57 215 3 80 DavenporteDavis William DaleDempsterReyney William Drax John John Davis Edmond Dent Capt. James Jeremiah Vincent Capt. LASTDunken FIRST Andrew TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S Death William SheppardDruryDillapreEagle Richard John Evel Thomas Mr. ElliottEvarson Major Alexander Robert Matthew EvansEvans Peter John Mr.
210 14 LAVES 4 865 4 1 1 3010 1 6 1015122830 3 2 10 6 8 9 5230 4 19 8 114235100 1 4 53 2 75 40 EnosEasemanFauntleroy Patrick James James Esq. LASTEagelwick Henry FIRST TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S FfortescueFfinneyFfillam William Samuel Capt. Hope Mr. FfieldFfrizallFfranklandFfarewell Samuel John Ffreeman JonathonSpire GeorgeFfitsPatrick James Ffluellin Mr. James Tobias Jr. Ffloharty Peter Ffortescue Mr.Gittings Cornelius William John 1 Sr. 209 3 82 Ffrankland Jonathon Sr.
211 LAVES 6 2 655 2 3 4 62 8 4 1 4 6 88 20 48153412 13 3 1010 10 4 25 1 3 8 250 9 140 GriffithGoodall Margaret William Esq. LASTGale FIRST William TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S Gollison Michael GuyGuyGriffinGibbs Elias Gittings Absolam Gansford Harbert Groome John JohnGilbert Stephen Gee John Gittings Jared GibbsGuy John Isaak Goodin Jr. Gee Thomas Land Goudge's Henry John Widow Widow
212 LAVES 3 2 2 866 1 1 8 4 2 9 5 4 43101510 11 28 6 3 1 5 173535 3 4 12 150 1440 70 3 98 GoldingGlascockHarlstone Robert Hodgkinson Edward Hunter Edward Ann HaylyHudgwill Mr. John HuchinsonHarding Thomas Elizabeth Hunter John Harrison John Higinbotham Thomas John John Capt. Sr. LASTGibbs FIRST Robert TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S Harrison James Halse John HiginbothamHackitt Thomas Houlbich RobertHopkins Elizabeth Capt. Daniell Capt.
213 LAVES 5 2 4 555 4 5 2 2 5 3 2 45 10 10 12 908025 30 24 7 302448 5 8136 122 290 2 30 HickamHarrissonHarrisson Peter Huntly JohnHeading JohnHowlerHolligan William William Haddon John Homeyard Phillipp Sr. Hickey James Jr. Humphreys John Johnson Edward Patrick John Mr. LASTHilton FIRST William TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S JonesJackman Jones(?) John Jackman Mr. Robert Sr. Capt. JevisInceJames John John Joseph Capt.
214 LAVES 74 5 3 1 6 1 80262010 115 10 53 14 3 10 2 8014 3 3310 50 130 5 15 2 6 122 24 130 58 Jr. LASTJones FIRST Robert TITLE Capt. SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S Gennings Mellisent Mrs. Lord James John Sr. Jones JacksonJinnerKeith Mary KearneKerton John Kerton Thomas Thomas Kennis Nathan Kelly John Kempt John LivelyLambert John John Lord Lawrence SamuellLordLodwicke Lt. Capt. Lewis James Ffrancis John Edward Jr. Mr.
215 LAVES 3 5 7 5 56 3 2 4 1 10122180 5 4 5 10 1911 3 1010 12 5 4 100288 1 37 135 LightLightLightLord Richard Lamprire William Lucas John Lee Theophilus John Loftas William Katherine John LASTLoshly FIRST William TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S LucumbLinnoham Thomas David Mr. Lyder landLegouches Long James Locksmith Margaret LindseyMidleton Thomas John Morgan Elizabeth Moore Studley Sarah Ankrel
216 LAVES 6 6 7 2 103225673015 3 1 6 30 2 24 2910 8 10 3 6020 5 26 12 42 1 1 10 28 4 22 4 15 4 12 MaresMillerMollonyMorris John More Henry Dearman MondayMap Thomas Martin William Thomas MillsMedford Thomas Markland John Moore John Matthew Murrell HenryMorrellMunrow Susanna NicholasMartin Lt. Murphy James McLandin Mr. Dorothy Richard Bryan Widow LASTMosely FIRST Mary TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S
217 LAVES 27 8 4 5 2 2 3 3 3 6 1 10 80 20 16212714 13 40 11 5 4 14 288 2 95 150 24 MacoyMichellMancer Daniel Marshall RichardMcManus James McLaud Cudbert McFarson Capt. James Moore David Mar Alexande MacecrofteNightingale Robert Murphy Richard Granade Mr. LASTMurrow FIRST Christian TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S Norris Elizabeth Mrs. Nicksen James NewtonNylesNorgreave Ann NortheyNeale Thomas Margaret Daniel Richard Esq.
218 LAVES 55 2 3 7 4 2 53 1 8 4 1 15 7 47374010 25 19014 50 14 10 2 22 48 1 3 7 230 3 84 NortonNowellNyle William Nusum Abraham NugentNorris Joseph John Price Patrick John Phillipp Mr. LASTNyle FIRST John TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S Polegreene Thomas PainePowellParkinsProverbe John MaryPeacocke Thomas Pinkett Thomas Punnet William Mrs. Pattisson MatthewParsons Thomas Proverbe John Capt. Daniell John
219 LAVES 86934 4 3 4 7 3 2 2 1 1 8 3 6 1 83 1 29 1011221973 8 12 6 6 3 22 3 301 4 31 PearePocockeProutPrece Thomas RichardPinkettPadmore Thomas Esq. Pig William Christian Presley Thomas PresleyRice Henry William William George Sr. Jr. LASTPhillippo FIRST Thomas TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S Ruffley George RoseRobuckRusworthRing Thomas Edward Robbins John RiceRice Thomas Edward Edward Widow
220 LAVES 653 5 2 655 64 7 2 3 5 4 1816 1 5 1140 7 1 17 15 16 278192 3 4 142 62 100 1 60 RichardsRichardsRowden Robert Raineham Sarah Rouse John Edmund John LASTRice FIRST Mary TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S Rouse Reade George RawlingsRiceRowbotham ThomasRobinson William Rouse Walter Capt. Rawlings Thomas Ramsey AmbroseRoy Ffrancis Robinson John Rouse Capt. Skeete Richard John Thomas Edward Major Capt.
221 LAVES 4 82546 2 4 2 2 5 2 3 2 2 2 6 5010 23 1760403439 9 29 20 23 6 10 9 7 6 ScaresSquireSheppard John Stuart Ralph Smith Roger SummarsSimes John Say Elizabeth Robert SudberrySaunders Cornelius Smith John Richard Sargiant Thomas SargiantStart John JohnStanton JohnSymondsSheppard Thomas Henry Sheele Humphrey Robert Sr. Vibin Jr. LASTSmith FIRST Thomas TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S
222 LAVES 33 2 2 2 4 2 29142315 10 8 6 8 2020154212 2 17 7 18 5 20 13 19 3 2 4 18 3 173 2 70 SmithSoleySandfordSteele SamuellStanton John Arthur Shrowsby Major Saymore Thomas John Travanion John John Nathaniel Capt. LASTSealy FIRST Thomazin TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S Thomson John Mr. ThwactsTaylorThwaites Michaell ThomsonTaylor John Taylor Thomazin TownsendThomson Thomas Taylor Sarah George Widow John Margaret
223 LAVES 83 4 3 6 2 4 3 53 1 1 10 6 371210 112 10 10 8 1360 2 1 1 3 15 140150 1 38 2 28 TaylorThomsonTickbourneThomson John William TaylorTerry John ThomasVinter Richard Widow John David Richard Capt. LASTTrund FIRST John TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S UsherWeddington Nicholas William WalrondWard GeorgeWebbarWithers Capt. Watt Robert John White John WarrinWilkinson Alexander William John Peter Sr.
224 LAVES 55 1 4 3 45 7 4 1018432427 5 6 16 22 20 8 44 6 10 3 43 7 17 22 7 12012 12 6 5 4 WrightWeoleyWake Edward Witlock Vallentine WelchWay John Thomas WeoleyWilliams Edward Williamson Nicholas William Wilshire Ering Wormlaton Nathanael Wilshire Ralph Wilse Robert Ward James DoodroffeWard FfrancisWilliams Thomas Jonas Watt Mr. William Anthony David LASTWilkinson Peter FIRST TITLE SUFFIX Jr. WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S
225 15 LAVES 763 7 4 2 2 4 103810 2 7 11 4 10 7 WillockWeekesWibourne William Wilkinson Ralph Wald Dorothy Yarde Thomas Robert John Ward Thomas Watts John LASTWitherhead David FIRST TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S
226 LAVES 5 922 2 7 482110 17 81 22 26 10 75 53017 41 15 18 16 10 27 6 6 192272100 11 13 53 4 216 37 Appendix K: The Parish of St. Thomas Parish The of St. K: Appendix LASTAyshford FIRST Robert Lt. TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S ApplewhiteAssambey HenryAyshford William Lt. James Capt. Mr. ArisAndersonAntrobus Michaell JohnArnould JohnBannisterBeasant Thomas Mr. RichardBread Lt. Bullard Mary Mr. Bannister ElizabethBoyle GraceWidow Mrs., RobertBrowneWidow Mrs., BurgesWidow Mrs., James Mr. Baylie RobertBottley Edmund Mr. Mr. Thomas Mr. Nicholas Sr.
227 3 LAVES 2 4 76 1 5 2 1 55 1 67 5 4 2614 314 20 25 1540 511 23 14 207105 8 5 92 54 235 9 100 LASTBreadBrowne FIRSTCarter William Robert TITLE Mr. Mr. SUFFIXCol. Lt. WIFE Jr. COMP. CHILDRENClarke ACRESCampion SERVANTSCox S Thomas William CurleyConnell JosiasCampion William Currey Teague Kimberlyne Cox Capt. Robert William ChesterCantwell William John Mr. Surgeon Mr., Charles William CarletonCooperCockraine JosiasCason Ann Eliazer Coe Mr. William Widow Mrs., Thomas ptnr(?) Dr.,
228 LAVES 5 3 71 41 10 67 7 64 4140 1068 110 61 10 11 2 35 152838 2 15 8 127 4105 95 5147 45 1 53 200110 5 2 136 62 LASTColeDavies FIRST Priscillah John TITLEWidow Mrs., Esq. SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDRENDunnavant ACRESDavies SERVANTS David Edney S Elliot Thomas Peter Marrinor John Capt. Capt. Dymmocke William Capt. Dunn RichardDrewPlantation Mr., Dennis Widower EastchurchEarle William Mr. Thomas DearosteDeane DavidDry FfrancisDunn Mr. Duboyce Robert Mr. Downes Herculus Giles Lt. Thomas Surgeon Lt. ElfordFfarmer Ann John Mrs. Major
229 LAVES 5 53 2 415 1 23 5 4 3 2015 12 74 12 91 328 6 38 15 57 37 4 10 1 2 17 2 310195 14 8 250 166 LASTFfarmer FIRST Elizabeth Mrs. TITLE SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S FfretwellFfeake Ralph Richard Mr. Lt. FfagonFflahartyFfarmer Ellinor Timothy FforstallGodard Katherine Widow Gibbs Richard Widow Gadeing Nicholds Mr. Gill Joseph Capt. Gibbs Thomas Glassbrooke Mr. Goreing Christopher James William Gubbins Mr. Gasskine Patricke Mr. Gillham John William GallowayGrimsditch Emanuel Mr. Bryon Elizabeth Widow
230 1 LAVES 37 3 3 6 4 65 6 10 58 25301515 10 19 7 18 11 32 1 6 10 13 15 12 12 4 LASTGoddardGardener FIRST WilliamGoodall James Hancocke Lt. Hiekes William TITLE Samuell HaiesHeard Capt. MichaellHeard SUFFIX Thomas Heely Lt. WIFE John Harris COMP. Richard Howard CHILDREN Nicholas Harford ACRES FfowellHolloway William SERVANTSHolmes Henry S Mr. GeorgeHoweHeard James Mr. Hailes William Hutchins Augustine Harwood Thomas George Richard Capt. Mr.
231 LAVES 1 6 1 3 3 5520 11313 25 14 10 4 47 20 1420 29925 8 2 7 36 169 4170 65 140 13 6109 72 65 1 22 LASTHaiesJames FIRSTIsaac John Jones JohnJoyce TITLE JohnJohnson James Mr. Knights MaryKing Whinifrid Lt. SUFFIX Benjamine WIFE Widow Widow COMP. Esq. John CHILDREN ACRES Capt. SERVANTS S Kelley AmyLillingtonLaurenceWidow Mrs., George William Capt. Mackerness William Mr. KeatonKeetchLane William James AnthonyLeggLane Capt. AnnMorgon RalphMiller JoaneWidow Mrs., Mr. Samuell Widow Mrs.,
232 LAVES 2 54 53 3 75 5 2 4 7 7 212020 112 8 15 3 4 5 8 1010 12010 1 3 10 24 15 104 48 LASTMorrisMartin FIRSTMiller LewisMounter JonathonMann TITLE William Mr. Surgeon Moore Robert Moore Jonathon Morrison SUFFIX MaryMansfield WIFE Thomas JoyceMackarty COMP. John Widow Mansfield Mr. CHILDREN Daniell Northeast Widow ACRES JohnNichollson SERVANTS JohnNowell S Allexander OrsbourneOwen Mr. John RobertPaige Sr. Symond Mr. Jr John Esq. Pearson Richard Capt. Perry Sebaustine
233 19 LAVES 85 4 5 26 7 4 4 5 101710 19 10 68 323 45 1 10 1061189914 9 10 810 17 9 46 8 4 278 2 48 LASTPealePoynes FIRSTPain Mary Pearson Patricke Pearcehouse TITLE Richard Pearse Elizabeth John PoveyWidow Mrs., Patiner SUFFIX Bennony(?) Paddinore WIFE WilliamPare COMP. Mary EllinorPrediox CHILDREN Capt. ACRES Widow Widow Edward Nicholas SERVANTS S Lt. Queene(?) Jeofrey ReadRootesRanton JohnRootsey JohnRedword James Reece John Esq. Capt. JohnRichardson Robert William Lt. Mr. Mr.
234 3 LAVES 5 34 1 1 2 5 2 10 54 7 70 10204714 8 12 1 22 10 2 5 327260 21200 202 7 90 LASTRobinsonRoss John FIRSTRossRoss Daniell Ross TITLE John Read Phillip Read Daniell Sampson SUFFIX William WIFE Mary John COMP. Mr. CHILDRENWidow Mrs., Capt. ACRES SERVANTS S SuttonSholley JohnStephens Thomas John Capt. Mr. Lt. Sharpe WilliamSmithSholley Esq. Seaward MarySouthwood Thomas Mallathy Spikeman Edmund Mr. Widow Swan John Smyth John Margrett Widow
235 1 LAVES 2 33 5 1 1 78 3 442010 130 9 14 10 6 20 266720 18220 8 39 112 2 35 6 10 220 11 90 LASTStandfastTurpine John FIRSTTennantTurtonTrotman Mary TITLETowell Edward Towell ConstantWidow Mrs., Usher SUFFIX Daniell Widow Mrs., Vass WIFE Durmon Wardall COMP. Peter CHILDREN William Thomas ACRES SERVANTS Esq. S Wallwyne James Esq. WrightWilliamsWest EdwardWiffies WilliamWheeler Dr. Joane Mr. Walke Richard Williams John Widow West Richard Edward Mr. Capt. William
236 LAVES 8 3 15 105 4 60 LASTWattsonWiseman FIRSTYates William James TITLE Richard Mr. SUFFIX WIFE COMP. CHILDREN ACRES SERVANTS S
237 6 6 5 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 4 4 2 3 SERVANTS NEGROES 112 2 3 1 1 2 5 1 11 11 3 5 1 1 111 1 1 Appendix K: Bridgetown K: Appendix LASTLydeMosely FIRSTBishop Allan Duffield Henry Grace William Michell Edward TITLEGarrett Jr. Benjamin Waker AnthonyLangford Thomas WIFEPearce COMP. Sarah Barker Abraham CHILDRENBurrows George SERVANTS HIRED Tathill John BOUGHT Hutton John 1Bruntts George Clancy 1 Olliver Jones 1 Samuell Orpen Daniel 2 Rebeccah John 5 2
238 4 1 6 4 3 2 7 1 21 3 4 SERVANTS NEGROES 13 1 8 1 3 1 1 3 11 1 1 111 31 1 1 3 1 1 2 6 5 1 8 1 2 LASTSmithBulkly FIRSTHarbin Joseph Harding William Benthall AlexanderCarpender William TITLECosteen Walter Samuell HarbinSlickland John WIFEEmperor Joseph COMP.Williams William CHILDRENLangton ThomasSERVANTS HIRED 1Deuillermas Richard BOUGHT Sicklemore Stephen Henry Bushell James DoxyHutton John Sr. 3 Wattson Thomas Buttler John 1 Thomas Lucy 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 8
239 5 5 2 2 3 1 4 2 1 2 SERVANTS NEGROES 112 5 1 4 5 4 21 3 1 12 111 2 1 2 1 1 6 2 1 4 LASTWhettstonGofts John FIRSTHowlerDearsley Henry Smith Christopher Baker Richard TITLEClarke ThomasOglesby Peter Bate WIFE ThomasDraper Jonathon COMP.Smith CHILDREN Letticia Harvey Robert SERVANTS HIRED Fforstall BOUGHT Jonathon Grove Jonathon Mercer Richard 1Perce Joseph Lennon 1 Jonathon 1Ffelton ThomasPoke Richard 1 Jonathon James 1 4 5 1 3 1 1 2 3 1 6 4 3 5 5 8 16
240 8 4 1 3 1 4 6 12 1 6 SERVANTS NEGROES 2 14 11 1 1 2 6 2 1 1 6 5 1111 71 4 1 2 3 2 1 21 1 3 1 2 8 7 1 LASTCristionWolford FIRSTOwen Ffrancis Collins Mase Sherman Anne Critchlow TITLE Charles Harper Richard William BatteJohnson George WIFESmith COMP.Smartt Jonathon CHILDRENBrearlySERVANTS HIRED Olliver Cooke Jonathon BOUGHT CaptainBancks ThomasSmith Colonel Jeremiah Pitt Elizabeth 1Davis William CrispGwyne Jonathon Owen Paul 4 1 Widow 4 3 20
241 5 3 1 1 3 1 6 2 2 1 4 1 2 3 1 8 SERVANTS NEGROES 41 2 12 7 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 LASTGoldBrowne FIRSTClossens William Ffletcher Humry Jonathon MorrisRaymon George TITLEMountaine ThomasSharpe Jonathon ThomasHollard WIFEHigginbotham James Captain COMP.Newbolt Jonathon Thomas CHILDRENCockSERVANTS HIRED Thornbrugh Jonathon BOUGHT 1Searle Jonathon BlakeAshendine 1 ThomasMason Thomas ThomasMageltess 1 3Toyer Widow 1 George 1 Kath? 3 3 1 Mrs 1 2 1 11 11 18
242 2 5 9 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 4 SERVANTS NEGROES 2 11 5 31 1 8 6 1 1 111 4 3 11 11 1 2 1 4 6 LASTLamborneBristow Thomas FIRSTHollydayBrooke Richard Hallett William Corbitt TITLE William Prince JonathonBicknall Roger Geamer WIFE AnthonyCholemley Esquire William 1 COMP.Emberee Martin CHILDREN Jonathon CrispSERVANTS HIRED Barker William 1 BOUGHT StuardJr. Jonathon Trantt Richard Archer JonathonSnouks 1 Richard Nedham 5 Hugh Sanders George George William 1 3 1 2 14
243 2 2 1 1 9 2 1 4 1 3 SERVANTS NEGROES 2 2 21 1 211 5 3 1 1 1 1 111 11 1 1 1 1 3 2 LASTTurpinTatte FIRSTPriceBaynes Robert Vickars William Bishop William TITLEDyer James Bunney Widow ThomasJues WIFE Roger Hancock Richard COMP.Nusum CHILDREN Charles Doue JonathonSERVANTS HIRED Attwood Richard BOUGHT Davis Mary Mead Richard Laroch 1 Capps SamuellPuddifordBrewer 1 William Jonathon Mrs Daniell Widow 1 1 3
244 2 1 3 2 4 1 1 2 15 2 SERVANTS NEGROES 1 1112 3 2 1 311 2 3 4 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 LASTGamaliellBush Ellis FIRSTSearEldredJohnson StephenPoore TITLE NathaniellAnderson JonathonBoles Richard Roger Molder Widow WIFEHudson COMP. Jonathon Prince Nicholas CHILDRENHopecroft JonathonSERVANTS HIRED Landall BOUGHT 1 Jonathon 1 Jonathon Gray 1 Smith Robert Deane Robert FforesterAkers Abell Greswell Thomas 1 1 Christopher 1 Jonathon Widow 1 1 1
245 1 3 4 1 5 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 4 2 3 11 1 5 SERVANTS NEGROES 3 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 LASTHawkinsLane FIRSTJacobs Andrew Wrightt Hester Coocke Henry Read TITLE ThomasCoppin JonathonSimson ThomasBesttSr. Jonathon WIFEAddams Thomas COMP.Cragg CHILDREN Ffrancis Parris Ambrose SERVANTS HIRED Lanier BOUGHT William Ffrankling 1 William 1 Ffifield Robert ChristopherOlliver 1 1 Barnes AbrahamRawlings 1 John Peirceson Benjamin Jonathon 1 Widow 1 1 1
246 2 1 8 4 6 6 2 11 11 13 11 2 1 4 11 5 SERVANTS NEGROES 41 1 4 21 1 1 3 2 1 3 11 2 1 3 1 3 1 LASTSourtonHallott FIRSTMattson Samuel Sturdivantt Richard Hall Benjamin Edward Barnes TITLEDevenishFfirebrass Hugh Jonathon JonathonHussey WIFE JonathonHaviland COMP.Legay Robert CHILDRENMan Mathew SERVANTS HIRED 1Beckles BOUGHT Jacob SparrowFfisher Jonathon Robert Rich Judith 1Bragg 1 Henry 2 Gifford Jr. Robert Hayes Samuell 2 Marlin 1 Widow 1 5 1 1 2
247 4 8 2 4 5 1 1 7 11 10 1 1 2 SERVANTS NEGROES 1 2 2 11 4 1 2 111 21 3 1 4 2 1 2 1 12 3 9 11 LASTStokerWarner FIRSTCannings SamuellCollett Thomas William LoweBallard TITLE Bridgett Ffercharson ThomasTrauers Thomas SamuellNewton WIFEBayley Phillip COMP.Parsons 1 George CHILDRENBarrowman 1 JonathonSERVANTS HIRED Newman Edward BOUGHT ChapmanAddamson Gabriell 1 Mary Hassell 1 1 2 Richard Stone 3 Dod Widow Benjamin Wilson Robert 1 Thomas 5 1 William 2 2 1 1 1 17 1 5 5 1 2
248 3 3 6 6 3 6 3 16 1 3 SERVANTS NEGROES 121 1 3 2 22 1 11 111 21 2 1 21 1 5 2 3 1 11 1 14 2 1 5 1 1 1 5 LASTBordenParris FIRSTTudar Joseph Deane Samuell Hassel Richard Shenton TITLE Mathew Guy JonathonLitton SamuellLelland WIFELegay COMP. William Heslerton Henry CHILDRENJefferresSERVANTS HIRED Jonathon ThomasSeay BOUGHT Pilgrim Edmond 1Bread 1 Jordan ThomasCope George Eles William Horner William 3 Widow 1 Thomas Thomas 1 2 1 1 1 1 20 1 2 4 4
249 2 2 4 1 2 2 2 4 1 3 1 2 3 SERVANTS NEGROES 2 3 111 10 1 2 2 1 1 3 1 11 1 3 11 1 1 2 1 5 2 LASTPreswellBarrodall FIRSTDaniell William Taggartt Theophilus Claire Downes Hudson James TITLEGilhampton NathaniellClouan Jonathon Olliver Maynard WIFEOates Thomas COMP.Man Nicholas CHILDRENDavisSERVANTS HIRED George Murrell BOUGHT Bouey Barnard JonathonHarding 1 Jonathon 1TichnerCopman WilliamShipton 1 Thomas 1Cheyney Vallentine Vintner William 2 George Widow 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3
250 3 9 111 8 3 1 1 1 1 4 SERVANTS NEGROES 1 1 4 5 2 5 2 11 111 11 11 1 1 11 2 1 21 1 2 11 1 1 2 6 4 2 3 4 3 2 5 3 10 5 1 3 LASTBradhamDayley FIRSTWood Jonathon Byrch Owen Hole Ffrancis Willox TITLE Henry Heaton Robert Wilson Mathew Biddle Jonathon WIFEHoskins Richard COMP.Elly CHILDREN William HannahSERVANTS HIRED Hunter BOUGHT Alford Benjamin George Whiteing JonathonBringhurst Richard Mrs Hayward Thomas ThomasFfreemanPlumly Jonathon Henry Jonathon 1 1 Browne Th. El: 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 3 14
251 3 2 1 1 5 5 1 2 3 12 3 3 SERVANTS NEGROES 1 73 1 6 1 1 3 1 1 111 1 1 3 31 31 1 1 13 LASTTowneBayne FIRSTWalden Edward Jones LaughlineCliggatt ThomasReed TITLE BenjaminNewilt William Huntt LawrenceBranker WIFE Robert Smith COMP. Edward Gascoyne Nathaniell CHILDREN 1 SteedSERVANTS HIRED Nathaniell StephenDweightt 1 BOUGHT Reynoldson 1 EdwineStepping Benjamin Thomas EsquireFford 1 Harvey Henry Esquire 1 Ffrederick 1 Richard 1 Parker Henry Jonathon 1 1 Thomas Cartographer? 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 7
252 5 4 7 3 1 2 1 2 2 7 1 5 1 SERVANTS NEGROES 27 4 1 3 2 1 1 11 3 3 1 11 1 5 13 1 3 7 LASTElyHutchinson FIRSTPea Jonathon Hall James WeldingBowden Urselah TITLELegard Richard William Sanders Theophilus Clay Jonathon WIFEMackerness Jonathon COMP.Sidney Jacob CHILDREN StephenBiffinSERVANTS HIRED Barrett William BOUGHT Rowse ThomasTothill Richard Smith ThomasBeeke 1Michleborne SamuellFfisher William Susannah 1 Jonathon Mrs. 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 13
253 2 1 4 1 1 7 1 1 1 2 1 SERVANTS NEGROES 11 7 1 2 1 5 6 21 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 LASTLegayJacson FIRSTMackerness Sr. Jacob Haywood William ChristopherPrestonBaldwine TITLETownsend Edward Munrow JonathonShroesberry WIFEMills Jonathon Jonathon Widow COMP.Roett 1 CHILDRENLeeSERVANTS HIRED Widow JonathonBird BOUGHT Isaac DunkleyDallison Charles Lister Benjamin 1 Basell 1Kew Martin 1 1Whiteing Mary Hunter Anne Kathrine 1 1 2 Jonathon 1 1 5 2 1 1
254 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 2 1 3 1 1 4 SERVANTS NEGROES 2111 4 2 9 5 2 1 1 111 1 11 2 1 3 1 4 LASTSpencerMaxwell FIRSTLawford JonathonParris William Rainsford RichardDyer TITLE Thomas Edward PeiresonNoble Doctor Samuell Lovell Edward WIFEChason COMP. 1 Marke Beale CHILDREN Ffrancis Jones John SERVANTS HIRED Swaine BOUGHT William Ladston 1 Daniell Walter Peter 2Williams JonathonLamply Ellinor Busher JonathonWilson 2 Jonathon 3 Mary Mary 1 1 1 3 4 1
255 4 3 8 1 2 2 1 5 3 4 8 2 3 11 11 2 1 1 SERVANTS NEGROES 1 1 4 7 5 2 2 3 6 2 3 1 111 1 1 1 6 1 1 2 LASTRawlingsMiller FIRSTFfennell JonathonTaylor James Simmes Edward Webster TITLE Jonathon Paine William Paine Robert Stedham WIFE Robert JamesFfits 1 COMP. JonathonNunes Jonathon CHILDRENNauaroSERVANTS HIRED Barruch Ffranco Jacob BOUGHT Deurede Aron Perera Aron Demereado Madam Paul Dias David Ralph Isaac Qay 1 Barruch Lewis Abraham Abraham
256 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 2 2 5 2 2 4 3 10 11 SERVANTS NEGROES 5 3 2 7 2 2 2 3 5 3 2 2 2 5 1 5 3 4 6 LASTIsraellRodrigus FIRSTSousa David Medina Anthony Abof Abraham Aron Leah TITLEHamias Isaak Decompas Burges Abraham Simon Moses WIFE LeahBoyna COMP.Lopes CHILDREN Hester Bar ValverdeSERVANTS HIRED Daniell Torez Mrs BOUGHT Abraham Mercado Abraham Serano Judieah Lopez Moses Gomez Jaell Senior Eliah Perera Isaac Joseph Isaac
257 4 2 2 2 5 2 4 1 6 1 2 4 1 4 1 4 1 SERVANTS NEGROES 3 3 2 4 9 4 2 1 1 2 4 6 1 2 1 5 4 5 4 LASTMezaCordoza FIRSTObediente Isack Risson Solomon Abraham NamiasArrobas TITLE Judith Antunes David Preett Moses Atkins Gabriell WIFECostanio COMP. Jacob Navarro CHILDREN Sarah Burges Abraham SERVANTS HIRED Palachs Samuell BOUGHT Pachecho Rachell Barruch Mordecah Rebecah PacheoLopez Rebecah Vale Jacob Sarah Rachell Ffonceco Jacob Mordecah
258 4 2 1 3 2 SERVANTS NEGROES 2 5 2 2 2 5 6 LASTDechavisSwarris FIRST Samuell NavaroNoy David Israel Judith Desavido TITLENoy Hester Judith Moses WIFE Isaac COMP. CHILDRENSERVANTS HIRED BOUGHT
259