THE MOUNTRAVERS PLANTATION COMMUNITY - INTRODUCTION P a g e | 680 PART 2 The enslaved people Chapter 6 The son takes over (1794-1808) ‘My whole fortune, at this instant, hangs by a thread.’ John Pretor Pinney (JPP), 18011 When JPP’s son John Frederick came of age in March 1794 it was time to transfer the entailed plantation to him.2 In May 1795 JPP made over to his heir the land and the majority of enslaved people but retained ownership of the upper estate, Woodland, and of 21 people. When the absentee proprietors changed, this did not directly affect people on Mountravers, but a new era did begin and it seems a suitable point at which to start a new chapter. In addition to the owner changing, from then on the plantation was managed by people who were not related to the Pinneys: first by two Welshmen, the brothers James and Henry Williams, and then by a Creole, Joseph Webbe (Joe) Stanley. Under these men, the numbers increased from 203 in 1794 to 215. In Britain a Parliamentary campaign to end the transatlantic slave trade had started. JPP’s business partner in Bristol, James Tobin, became the public face of their company when he gave evidence to a Parliamentary Committee charged with enquiring into the slave trade. Subsequently Tobin exchanged very antagonistic, published correspondence with Revd Ramsay, an abolitionist who had lived in St Kitts. The revolution in France led to the temporary ending of slavery in French colonies and set off a number of slave uprisings in several Caribbean colonies. The longest, bloodiest and most significant took place in St Domingue (Haiti) and led to its independence. ◄► ▼◄► The James Williams period, 8 May 1794 to 31 March 1803 After serving as overseer on Mountravers for over a decade, James Williams finally became manager. He worked under the supervision of JPP’s friend, the planter John Taylor. Living just a short ride away on his Tower Hill estate, Taylor was within easy reach and could be called upon at any time. Equally well, he could turn up at any time to check that everything was in order. 1 PP, Dom Box S3: JPP to Azariah Pinney, 6 August 1795 2 The transfer of property happened on 1 May 1795 when JPP gave his ‘patrimonial estate in the parish of St Thomas’ to his eldest son ‘as his portion’. Woodland he rented to John Frederick at S£100 a year and also the houses in Charlestown (PP, AB 41 f30; also ECSCRN, CR 1794-1797 f458, see also f443). The last inventory on which the entailed people were listed separately from the purchased ones was compiled on 1 May 1795. In total 212 individuals were recorded: 32 adults entailed by John Frederick Pinney and 62 adults whom JPP had purchased, and 61 children of the entailed and 36 children of the purchased women. In addition to these 191 people, JPP did not convey to his son 21 people – people he had bought. Another two, Christianna Jacques and Pero Jones, were in England. THE MOUNTRAVERS PLANTATION COMMUNITY - INTRODUCTION P a g e | 681 While Thomas Pym Weekes had busied himself and the workers with erecting and repairing buildings, Williams was charged with improving the plantation’s landscape. One of his first tasks was to oversee a new lay-out of the slave village. It was then situated to the south of the Great House on sloping land near a ghut. Slave villages, like African compounds, were ideally built on inclines so that, instead of rainwater stagnating around the houses, it could drain off, clearing away any debris in its path. Not only was this healthier but it also prevented the bases of the houses from rotting or eroding. JPP’s main concern was that people had sufficient yard space around their homes so that they could grow food and keep small animals. He did not specify how much everyone was to be allowed; he merely asked Williams to oversee that the houses were ‘built at proper distances in right lines to prevent accidents from fire and to afford each negro a proportion of ground around his house.’ 3 This suggests that formerly the houses were randomly spaced and close together – more like an African village than the uniform layout James Tobin described. Tobin claimed that ‘The houses of the negroes are commonly placed in regular rows both ways, and situated in the centre of a square of nearly a quarter of an acre of land, planted by them in provisions, fruit trees etc.’ Assuming that, roughly, four people lived in each household, by Tobin’s measure the slave village at Mountravers would have covered an area of between about 11 and 15 acres (4.5 to 6 hectares).4 In his submission to the parliamentary enquiry into the slave trade James Tobin went on to describe some of the different modes of construction of slave housing in Nevis: They are constructed of timber and thatched round the sides and upon the roof; the poorest are divided into two apartments, a sleeping and an eating room, with a wooden partition between them. Some of their houses are much larger, consisting of three or more divisions, with kitchens 3 PP, Misc Vols 7 1783-1794 List of Deeds and Papers at Nevis: JPP to James Williams, 8 May 1794 According to Revd Smith, slave villages, kitchens and boiling houses in Nevis were on the western side of dwelling houses so that its inhabitants could breathe ‘the pure Eastern air without being offended with the least nauseous smell’ (Smith, Revd William A Natural History). On Mountravers the works at Sharloes lay to the west but the kitchen and the village to the south of the Great House. 4 Dr Robert Thomas, too, submitted that the ‘usual quantity of ground allotted each slave, besides that about his house, may be about ¼ of an acre, and generally some mountain-land.’ (Lambert, S (ed) House of Commons Sessional Papers Vol 71 p256 Dr Robert Thomas’s evidence). The extent of the Mountravers slave village has not yet been established. Its size would have depended on the number of houses, and the number of houses on the number of households. The number of households, in turn, would have depended on the ratios of Africans to Creoles, males to females and adults to children. This claim is based on Higman’s research. He has identified three forms of household structures: Firstly, individuals without families lived with friends as solitaries. This mostly applied to male Africans but also to Creoles as they grew old. Secondly, there were ‘nuclear units’ and thirdly, ‘extended family households’ (Higman, BW Slave population and economy in Jamaica p168). By the 1790s relatively few male Africans lived on Mountravers and, given that the plantation population was stabilising, most people would have lived as nuclear units or with members of their extended families. Including those who permanently lived outside the village (domestics and watches) or temporarily away from the estate (people hired out on long-term assignments), the slave population on Mountravers in 1794 was made up of around 210 adults and children. It is possible to roughly calculate the number of houses they would have inhabited, based on the sizes of three known plantation villages in the same parish: Jessup’s in 1755 measured about six and a half acres, Oliver’s in 1760 measured just over six acres and Clarke’s around the turn of the eighteenth century measured about eight and a half acres. The populations for these three villages have been established: Jessup’s in 1748 had 111 inhabitants, Oliver’s in 1790 had 115 and Clarke’s in 1815 had 117 inhabitants. This meant that, on average, on Jessup’s 17 slaves occupied an acre, on Oliver’s it was 19 and on Clarke’s 14. This is very much in line with the situation in Jamaica where on three plantations 864 people lived on 51 acres. This translates into a density of 17 people per acre. Assuming that each house was situated in about quarter of acre of land, households would have consisted of between 3.5 (Clarke’s) and 4.8 (Oliver’s) people. By that measure the slave village at Mountravers would have consisted of between about 44 and 60 houses, covering between 11 and 15 acres. This would have included trenches around the houses and communal spaces such as paths and trees. This calculation does not take into account the different composition of the plantation populations. On Jessup’s, for instance, about half of all the people were men (49 percent) and women and children a quarter each (26 and 25 percent). On Mountravers the population was quite different: children constituted the largest group (46 percent), while the proportion of men and women was about equal at 27 and 28 percent. It is not known how many people on Jessup’s were newly arrived Africans without families, or their ages. Any of these factors would have changed the household density and, therefore, the area occupied by the slave village. THE MOUNTRAVERS PLANTATION COMMUNITY - INTRODUCTION P a g e | 682 and hog-sties detached. Some are wattled, and plaistered round the sides. Some have even shingled roofs and sides. These differences depend on the industry, wealth or vanity of the respective possessors; many of whom, particularly the tradesmen, are seldom in want of money to make things very comfortable about them. Tobin claimed that slaveholders provided buildings materials such as hinges and nails, or that people could buy them, and he denied that anyone had the need to steal these.5 In fact if hinges were not available, people knew how to adapt and held themselves: they used straps fashioned from undressed leather and, ingeniously, carved locks, bolts and keys from wood.6 Over a decade earlier, when JPP had left for England, he had instructed Joseph Gill to plant fruit trees by the ghut at Sharloes and to encourage the inhabitants to raise trees in any part of the estate - as long as the greenery did not interrupt the view and was kept well clear of the canes.