The Anguilla Councils of the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries have left us only fragmentary records of their
activities in our period 1650-1776. The
surviving court records in the Anguilla Registry of Deeds mainly date from the
period 1750-1780.[1] They give us occasional glimpses of the lives
of the people and of the island government at work. There are several patents and deeds dating from
the earlier period 1650-1750. These were
preserved, as explained, when they were introduced into the trial record as
evidence of title in subsequent land disputes being adjudicated by the
Council. There are many more deeds and
wills surviving from the later period 1750-1780. After that, there is a gap until the year
1820. The first volume of deeds and
wills preserved in the Anguilla Registry of Deeds dates from that year. Several volumes of Council papers from 1792 lie
in the St Kitts archives. They were
deposited there after the union of 1825,[2]
and we can hope that they will one day be returned to us in Anguilla.[3]
We have already seen several examples of
early deeds and wills being produced as exhibits in later trials. That was certainly the case of Thomas
Romney’s 1673 patent,[4] John
Lake’s 1684 certificate,[5] Thomas
Connor’s 1695 certificate,[6] Jacob
Howell’s 1698 patent,[7] Edward
Lake’s 1704 patent, David Derrick’s 1708 deed,[8]
and Thomas Lake’s 1711[9]
and 1717[10]
deeds. We have seen Robert Lockrum’s
1717 conveyance being proved in 1738 before William Gumbs.[11] Joan Glading’s 1720 marriage contract is
preserved because it was produced in litigation in 1775.[12] We have looked at Ann Williams' conveyance of
1711.[13] We have seen it being proved in 1726 by Thomas
Howell before Bezeliel Rogers. We shall
shortly look at John Bryan’s and Daniel Bryan’s 1724 patent when we come to
examine the short-lived sugar industry of Anguilla.[14] We have already seen Lieutenant Governor Francis
Phips performing his functions in Anguilla in 1731 when Peter Rogers’ will of
the same year was proved before him.[15] The note at its foot indicates it was
produced in evidence in a trial in the year 1760.
With the dawning in the 1730s of the sugar
era, government, albeit without any supporting law, arrived in Anguilla. With government came all the paraphernalia of
courts of justice and bailiffs on a much-reduced scale as a result of the lack
of a supporting legislature. A review of
the decisions made by the Council is revealing.
They list for us the names of the attending members of Council. The decisions themselves illustrate the way
the Council performed its judicial functions.
We learn something of the customs and practices of the time. We see the sorts of problems adjudicated by
the Council. We see some of their prejudices
at work. We can reconstruct from the
Council minutes a list of the eighteenth-century deputy governors and their councils
(see table 1).
1. William Watts, appointed by Lord Willoughby in 1660
William Watts, deputy governor
None } Members of Council
2. Abraham
Howell, elected by the settlers in 1666 and subsequently confirmed by Sir
William Stapleton in 1672, dismissed in 1689
Abraham Howell, deputy governor
John Mereweather, from 1672 } Members
of Council
Richard Richardson Sr, from 1672 } appointed
by Sir William
Humphrey Seward, from 1672 } Stapleton. In 1680
Thomas Bushell, (Secretary from } Stapleton
reports there are
1680) } no Councillors, only Bushell
3. George
Leonard, appointed by Governor Codrington in 1689, emigrated to Antigua about
1720, confirmed by Governor Hart in 1724, died about 1735
George Leonard, deputy governor
Bezaliel Rogers (from 1724) }
Thomas Howell (from 1724) }
Unknown } Members of Council
Unknown }
Unknown }
4. Colonel
Francis Phips, appointed Lieutenant Governor in 1724 by Governor Hart to
supervise the deputy governors of the Virgin Islands
5. John
Richardson’s Council of 1735, appointed by Governor Mathew
John Richardson, deputy governor
John Harragin }
Abraham Chalwell }
Richard Richardson } Members of
Arthur Hodge } Council
Bezaliel Rogers (died by 1737) }
Thomas Howell (died by 1737) }
William Gumbs (appointed by 1738 }
6. Arthur
Hodge’s Council of 1741, appointed by Governor Mathew
Arthur Hodge, deputy governor
John Harrigan }
William Gumbs }
Thomas Gumbs } Members of
Richard Richardson } Council
John Welch }
Abraham Howell, Clerk to the council }
John Hughes (later appointed) }
Benjamin Gumbs (later appointed) }
7. John
Welch’s Council of 1749, appointed by Governor Mathew
John Welch, deputy governor
Unknown }
Unknown }
Unknown } Members of
Unknown } Council
Unknown }
Unknown }
8. Benjamin
Gumbs’ Council of 1750-1768, appointed first probably by Governor Mathew
Benjamin Gumbs, deputy governor
John Farington } Initial
six Members
John Hughes } of
Council
William Gumbs }
Arthur Hodge }
John Harrigan }
Joseph Burnett, (Clerk to the Council) }
Benjamin Roberts, (Clerk to the Council) }
Thomas Gumbs, (Clerk to the Council) } Subsequent
Abraham Howell } Members of
Thomas Rogers } Council
Edward Payne, (Clerk to the Council) }
(appointed 1751) }
Nicholas Dunbavin, (Clerk to the
Council) }
(appointed 1751) }
James Maliom (appointed 1755) }
Edward Rogers (appointed 1755) }
John Smith (appointed 1761) }
David Hunter (appointed 1764) }
Edward Warner (appointed 1766) }
John Payne (appointed 1766) }
Morgan B Marchant (appointed 1767) }
9. Benjamin Roberts’ Council of 1768,
appointed by Governor Woodley
Benjamin
Roberts, deputy governor
John
Smith }
John
Hughes }
Isaac
Arrindell } Original six
John
Romney } Members of
Peter
Gumbs } Council
Richard
Richardson }
David
Hunter } Subsequently
John
Payne, Clerk to the Council } appointed
10. John Smith’s Council of 1771-1776,
appointed by Governor Payne
John
Smith, deputy governor
John
Payne, President } Original six
Benjamin
Gumbs III } Members of
James
Nihil (appointed 1772) } Council
Peter
Gumbs }
John
Hughes }
Edward
Hughes } Subsequent
Paul
Ruan (appointed subsequently ) } Members of
Rev
John Shepherd, Clerk to the Council } Council
11. Benjamin Gumbs III’s Council of 1776
Benjamin
Gumbs III, deputy governor
James
Nihil }
Unknown } Esqs,
Members
Unknown } of
Council
Unknown }
[The archives for the period 1779-1791 were
removed to St Kitts after 1825.][16]
12. Thomas Hodge’s Council of 1782,
appointed by Thomas Shirley
Thomas
Hodge, Deputy Lieutenant Governor and Deputy Ordinary
Paul
Ruan Sr }
William
Rogers Sr , Clerk to the Council } Esqs, original six
Joseph
Romney } Members of
William
Richardson Sr } Council
Unknown (not present in 1793) }
Unknown (not
present in 1793) }
Arthur
Rogers (resigned 1799) } Subsequently
John
Payne, Clerk to the Council } appointed
in 1797
Thomas
Hodge Jr (resigned 1801) } by
Hodge on the
Jonathan
Fleming } authority
of Gov
Benjamin
Richardson } John
S Thomas
13. William Richardson appointed by Lord
Lavington in 1805
William
Richardson, deputy governor, 1805-1825
Unknown }
Unknown }
Unknown } Members
of
Unknown } Council
Unknown }
Unknown }
|
Table 1: Anguilla’s Councils 1650-1825.
Most of the records of the Anguilla
Council that are preserved deal with the judicial decisions of the
Council. The early patents and
certificates to land that were produced as exhibits in litigation before the
Council sitting as a Court of Common Pleas in the early period are the only
ones we have. In later years, the Record
of Deeds preserves deeds of manumission, powers of attorney, and home-made
deeds to land.[17] There are no minutes of meetings of the
Council as there are for the other Leeward Islands of the period.
The court cases range over a variety of
causes of action. There are maintenance
of children cases mixed in with land disputes and disputes over wills. From the earliest times the Anguillian
planters, like their contemporaries in the other richer islands, played fast
and loose with their slave girls, servant girls and neighbour's daughters. Unwilling fathers evaded their moral responsibilities
towards their offspring then as now.
Mothers were forced to bring proceedings before the Council to obtain
orders of financial support for their children.
In one 1752 case, Susannah Roberts sued William Bryan Sr on behalf of
his young son William Bryan Jr for the cost and expenses of her daughter's confinement. William Bryan Jr was obviously not yet
twenty-one years of age and able to be sued in his own name (see table 2).
Anguilla.
January
4th, 1751/2. At a Meeting of His Majesty's Council being present:
The Honourable Benjamin Gumbs Esq, Deputy
Governor
John Hughes ]
Joseph Burnett ] Esq's and
Members of
Thomas Gumbs ] this Council
Susanna Roberts sues William Bryan Sr as security for William
Bryan Jr for the charges of ye lying in of her daughter.
It is the opinion of this Council that ye said William Bryan Sr
be obliged to pay to Susanna Roberts the sum of nine pounds, one shilling and
one and a half pence on or before the fourth day of February next ensuing
this date with costs of suit.
Signed by
Command
Thomas
Gumbs, Clerk to the Council
|
Table
2: Susanna Roberts v William Bryan.
The first interesting thing about this
decision is the date. This is given as
1751/2, almost as if the clerk did not know which year it was. The explanation is that the Gregorian
calendar was not introduced into Britain and the Colonies until the year 1751. It was ordained by Pope Gregory XIII as early
as 24 February 1582 that the Julian Calendar previously in use made the year
too long. Ten days in the calendar needed
to be repressed for the year to begin on 1 January. On 4 October 1582, the calendar jumped 10
days. What should be 5 October became 15
October. This reform is referred to as
the introduction of the Gregorian Calendar.
The new calendar was adopted in every
country in Christendom, including Scotland, except in England and the countries
of the Orthodox Church. The principal
objection to the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar reform was religious.[18] Staunchly Catholic countries immediately
complied with the Pope's Bull ordering the change. Protestant nations found difficulty in
adopting a reform introduced by the papacy by way of a bull. It took many years for the reformed calendar
to be adopted throughout Europe.[19]
Throughout the seventeenth and the first
half of the eighteenth centuries, therefore, there was an entire want of
harmony between the calendar system prevailing in England and her colonies and
that prevailing in the greater part of Europe.
While Catholic countries began the New Year on 1 January, England and
the colonies continued to begin it on 25 March.
1 February 1730 in French St Martin was 1 February 1729 in Anguilla. In Anguilla the year would not change until
26 March under the old calendar. The
custom grew among those in England and the colonies concerned with
international trade and other affairs of dating documents made between January
and March with both the 'old style' and the 'new style' years. It is not unusual to see a document made
between the months of January and March dated with both years.
By the eighteenth century there was a
difference of eleven days between the Julian and the Gregorian Calendars. When Britain decided by the Calendar Act
of 1751 to adopt the Gregorian Calendar, the year began on 1st January instead
of 25 March, and eleven days from 3 September 1752 were suppressed. The day which was 3 September 1752 was made
14 September. So, the date '1751/2' in
Susanna Roberts' case above is perfectly correct and indicates that the year
was 1751 in the 'old style' calendar and 1752 in the 'new style' calendar.
In another case, Ruth Beal sued Edward
Lake for the maintenance of the baby she bore for him (see table 3).
Anguilla. January 20th, 1751/2. At a Meeting of His
Majesty's Council being present:
The Honourable Benjamin Gumbs Esq,
Deputy Governor
John Hughes ]
Joseph Burnett ] Esq's and
Members of
Thomas Gumbs ] this
Council
Ruth Beal sues Edward Lake for the maintenance of her bastard
child.
It is the opinion of this Court that Edward Lake be obliged to
pay the sum of forty one pounds, six shillings and six pence with costs of
suit.
Signed by Command
Edward Payne, Clerk to the Council
January 20th 1752
|
Table 3: Ruth Beal v Edward Lake.
Edward Lake is not done with being ordered
to pay child support. On the same court
date, before the same members of the Council, Johanna Bryan sued him for the
maintenance of the child that she also bore for him (see table 4).
Johanna Bryan sues Edward Lake for the
maintenance of her bastard child.
It is the opinion of this Court that Edward Lake be obliged to
pay to Johanna Bryan the sum of eleven pounds one shilling and five pence
with costs of suit.
Signed by
Command
Edward Payne, Clerk to the Council
January 20th 1752
|
Table
4: Johanna Bryan v Edward Lake.
Edward Lake was not the only Anguillian
since then to have children by two or more women born in the same year. Hopefully, there won’t be many who suffer the
embarrassment of both mothers bringing him to court on the same day.
It was then as now difficult for a young
woman to keep her virtue and reputation intact.
If a young man of a prominent local family spoke loosely and
slanderously of her, it was for all practical purposes impossible for her to
get any satisfaction from the island Council, made up as it then was only of
men.
In 1756, we see Catherine Keagan suing Dr
Michael Vanspy Brooks for slander (see table 5). Brooks was a medical doctor, the first known to
practise in Anguilla. He was no
gentleman. He did not stay long on the
island after this case. He disappears
from the record, and we hear nothing further about him. His slander was a boast that the young Miss
Keagan was his lover. Ms Keagan chose to
take him to court. The incomplete court
record reads:
At a meeting of His Majesty's Council
this [ . . . ] day of [ . . . ] 1756 being present:
The Honourable Benjamin Gumbs Esq,
Deputy Governor
Joseph Burnett ] Esq's and
Edward Rogers ] Members of this Council
Catherine Keagan
versus
Doctor Michael Vanspy Brooks
for scandalizing her good name to the prejudice of her
character.
It is the opinion of this Court that as
Catherine Keagan has sworn herself clear of Doctor Spy Brooks of having any
carnal copulation with her, that there shall be a sufficient jury of twelve
able women to prove whether she is a proper maiden or whether she ever has
had any copulation with any man.
|
Table 5: Catherine Keagan v Dr Michael
Vanspy Brooks.
The decision is as unfair and unjust as
can be imagined. The Council found that
Ms Keagan proved that she was slandered.
She did not necessarily win the case.
They did not award her damages immediately. They ordered that there be appointed a jury
of twelve ‘able’ women to prove whether she was still a virgin. She must submit herself to a physical and
intimate examination by twelve of the island's wives. If she condescended to do that, and if she
could show them that her maidenhead was intact, then, perhaps, she might hope
to get damages against Dr Brooks. There
is no indication in the record that she ever elected to go through with this
ordeal. She never claimed she was a
virgin. She proved the false words were
uttered. All she asked the court to
believe was that she was never intimate with Dr Brooks. That, the Council failed to do, one way or
the other. You may well consider it was
a cowardly and unjust decision by an all-male panel in a case brought by a
woman against one of their associates.
Boundary and land disputes were frequent
topics for lawsuits, then as now. In
1741, John Downing sued John Ruan for the possession of Richard Downing’s land
(see table 6). The court record of the
decision reads:
Anguilla. At a Meeting of the Honourable the Governor
and Council of said Island at the house of Arthur Hodge, Esq, deputy
governor, this 30th June 1741.
Being
present:
Arthur Hodge Esq, Deputy Governor
John Harrigan ]
William Gumbs ]
Thomas Gumbs ] Esq's
and Members of Council
Richard Richardson ]
John Welch ]
Abraham Howell ]
John Hughes ]
Benjamin Gumbs ]
John Downing of Tortola sues for land in possession of John Ruan
of Anguilla, said John Downing being attorney to the children of Richard
Downing deceased.
Ordered that John Ruan still hold the land in his possession
that said John Downing sues for as attorney to the said children of Richard
Downing deceased. Ordered that, after
the just debts of Benjamin Downing deceased be duly satisfied and paid, the
residue of his movable Estate be equally divided between the brothers and
sisters of said Benjamin Downing now living and the children of those his
brothers and sisters deceased.
(sd)
Abraham Howell
Clerk
to ye Council
|
Table
6: John Downing v John Ruan.
From this record, it appears that John
Ruan took possession of Richard Downing’s plantation, perhaps under a mortgage
of some kind. Richard Downing was John’s
brother, and Richard was dead. John was
trying to recover the estate for Richard’s children. The decision of the Council is cryptically
worded, and one must read between the lines to follow what their decision
meant. They ordered that the property be
sold and the debts of Benjamin Downing paid.
After the debts were paid, the residue was to be divided among
Benjamin’s brothers and sisters, or their children if they were dead. Benjamin was not a party to the suit, and one
is mystified as to how he enters the picture.
It is possible that the Council found that the land did not belong to
Richard as the family claimed, but to his deceased brother Benjamin. Both Benjamin and Richard were dead. Benjamin left no heirs of his own besides his
brothers and sisters. Benjamin owed John
Ruan a sum of money. There were other
debts. Perhaps, the Council was not
allowing John Downing and the Tortola family of Benjamin Downing to defraud the
Anguilla creditors. The estate was to be
sold, and after Ruan and the other creditors were paid, the balance, if any,
was to be divided among Benjamin’s brothers and sisters. There is no apparent explanation how there
came to be eight sitting members of council plus the secretary to hear and
determine this case. It must have been
of exceptional importance in the little community.
There is another case brought by John
Ruan. In 1750, he sued Richard
Richardson over an encroachment or trespass on his Valentine Blake Plantation
(see table 7).
At a meeting of His Majesty's Council,
being present
Honourable Benjamin Gumbs Esq, Deputy Governor
John Hughes ]
Benjamin Roberts ] Esq's and Members of ye Council
Joseph Burnett ]
Thomas Gumbs ]
John Ruan sues Richard Richardson for encroachment or trespass
on a parcel of land known by the name of Valentine Blake's.
It is the opinion of this Council that Richardson shall run
Southerly to a Step Rock in the old path as appears by strong proof.
Signed by Command
Benjamin Roberts,
Clerk
to Council
|
Table
7: John Ruan v Richard Richardson.
It is a pity that we no longer know where
this ‘stepping rock’ is. Wallblake Plantation
was one of the most important in the Valley Division, so its boundaries were
well-known. It stretched from the Statia
Valley and George Hill Estates of Governor Gumbs in the west to the North
Valley plantation in the east. John Ruan
was one of the elite members of Anguillian society. Deputy governor John Richardson described him
in his will as his "well beloved
couzen".
Richard Richardson was not the sort of
planter one crossed lightly. One 1752
judgment reveals the following facts (see table 8):
Anguilla. ]
May the 5th 1752 ] At a meeting of his Majesty's
Council, being present
The Honourable Benjamin Gumbs, Esq
John Hughes ]
Benjamin Roberts ] Esq's
and Members of this Council.
Joseph Burnett ]
Thomas Gumbs ]
Edward Payne ]
John Harrigan sues Richard Richardson for his Negro Scipio
shooting the said Harrigan’s mare.
It is the opinion of the majority of the Council that Richard
Richardson must pay the said Harrigan’s value of the mare
Signed by command,
Edward
Payne
|
Table
8: John Harrigan v Richard Richardson.
From this, it appears that Richardson's
man, Scipio, shot and killed Harrigan's mare.
The mare made the fatal mistake of trespassing on Richardson's
land. No slave would loosely commit the
capital offence of shooting a planter's horse.
He was acting with Richardson’s authority. Scipio was not prosecuted, because he was
only carrying out Richardson's instructions.
So, he suffered no penalty.
Richardson was ordered to pay the cost of the horse.
We saw that in 1764 deputy governor Gumbs was
falsely accused of selling forged customs declarations to ships carrying
produce from other islands.[20] Such a customs clearance fraudulently declared
that the cargo was exported from Anguilla.
If the cargo was really, say, from St Barts or Statia, it could not,
according to the Navigation Acts, legally be carried from one colony to
another or to the UK, except in a British or colonial ship. To get around this restriction a customs
officer might, for a fee or bribe, issue a ship carrying foreign produce with a
customs declaration to the effect that the goods were produced in
Anguilla. Cargo from the international
trading depots of St Barts would then be able to enter New York, St Kitts or
Antigua as if cleared legally from Anguilla.
This was a serious offence under the Navigation Acts. It was eventually discovered that a St Kitts
merchant named Claxton doing business with St Barts produced the forged
Anguilla clearances. Deputy governor
Benjamin Gumbs was cleared. The Governor
in Chief declared him to be innocent of the accusation.
The charge of issuing false clearances
made against deputy governor Gumbs was of long standing. Eight years earlier in the records of the
trials held by the Anguillian Council we see the first stirrings of the
rumour. And, it is a surprise to note
that the charge comes out of Anguilla itself (see table 9).
At a meeting of his Majesty's Council
this 5 day of June 1756, being present:
The Worshipful John Hughes Esq,
President
Joseph Burnett ] Esq's, and Members of the Council
Edward Payne ]
Honourable Benjamin Gumbs Esq ]
versus ]
John Watts ]
for writing and sending a scandalous
letter wherein said Watts accuses said Benjamin Gumbs Esq of giving out blank
clearances.
It is the opinion of the majority of this Court that John Watts
having produced a blank clearance with Benjamin Gumbs Esq's name signed
thereto as Governor and Principal Officer is a false and forged blank
clearance, as it appears to us not to be the Governor's hand writing, as also
John Watts declaring he never received nor ever sent to said Benjamin Gumbs
Esq for any such clearance and refuseth to give said Benjamin Gumbs Esq the
satisfaction of letting him know where he got the same, that the said John
Watts be liable and obliged to pay upon sight to the Honourable Benjamin
Gumbs Esq the sum of one thousand pounds current money for such scandalous
letter and false report with cost of suit as said Watts did not prove the
contrary.
Signed by Command
Joseph
Burnett, Clerk to the Council
|
Table
9: Hon Benjamin Gumbs v John Watts.
The case was tried by the deputy
governor's own court in Anguilla. Not
surprisingly, the decision of the Council was in his favour. What is surprising, is that it was only a
majority, not a unanimous, decision. One
of John Hughes, Joseph Burnett or Edward Payne appears not to have believed
that the Hon Benjamin Gumbs was innocent.
Another case in 1769 illustrates the lives
and times of the churchmen of Anguilla.
Life was brutal in Anguilla and the other Leeward Islands in the
eighteenth century. This case shows just
how brutish it could be. John Carter
brought a prosecution against the Anglican parson, Rev Jonathan Fleming (see
table 10).
Anguilla
At a Meeting of His Majesty's Council this 14th day of November
1769,
being present:
The Honourable Benjamin Roberts Esq.
Deputy Governor
John Smith ]
John Hughes ] Esq's
and Members of Council
John Romney ]
Peter Gumbs ]
John Carter prosecutes two Negro men belonging to the Reverend
Jonathan Fleming named Bristol and Cruix for the murder of a negroe man
belonging to said Carter named Venture.
It is the opinion of this Court that as the Reverend Jonathan
Fleming doth acknowledge he gave his Negroes orders frequently whom he
appointed as watchmen to kill any Negro or Negroes destroying him in his
canes and that the said Jonathan Fleming shall pay Mr Carter for his Negro
the sum of sixty pounds current money agreeable to the appraised value, as
there have been sundry proofs appeared that he was not killed when first
apprehended but was murdered after he was taken, and Parson Fleming to pay
costs of suit £4.19.
By Command,
John
Payne, Clerk to the Council
|
Table
10: John Carter v Rev Jonathan Fleming.
The facts as set out above indicate that John
Carter prosecuted Rev Fleming’s two slaves Bristol and Cruix for the felony
offence of murder. However, the court
found that the Reverend set them as watchmen over his sugarcane fields with
instructions to kill any slave they found stealing his cane. On the night in question, Bristol and Cruix caught
Venture in one of the cane fields. They later
killed him. Killing him was not the
problem. If they killed him on the spot
when they caught him, all was in order.
It was perfectly legal under the system of plantation slavery for Parson
Fleming to shoot and kill on the spot the slave of another planter for chewing
on a piece of his cane. The problem was
that Venture was caught and then murdered sometime afterwards. Perhaps he was brought before Parson Fleming
for questioning, and Parson Fleming then ordered him to be killed. The record is not clear how long after he was
seized he was killed. The planters of
Anguilla thought this excessive. Not
that Parson Fleming was liable for any criminal act. Under the laws and customs of that
slave-owning era, he committed no crime.
He was merely liable to pay compensation for the damage Venture’s owner
suffered. The Parson was ordered to pay
₤60 current money to Venture's owner, John Carter. No penalty was imposed on Bristol and Cruix.
To offer some small excuse for the
Council, it is perhaps necessary to remind ourselves that at this point, over a
hundred years since the founding of the colony, there was still no judge or
court appointed with jurisdiction to try felonies committed by free people in
Anguilla. Even if the Council wanted to
charge Parson Fleming with murder, there was no court to try him in. Slaves, on the other hand, were frequently
prosecuted and convicted by the Council, to the extent of being hanged by the
neck at the scaffold in Crocus Bay until, as the sentences read, they were “Dead, dead, dead.”
Parson Fleming first appeared in the Anguilla Archives
in the year 1749 when William Gumbs Sr
appointed him one of the executors of his will.
In 1754 we see him paying a debt of £100 in cotton, suggesting he was a
major cotton planter by Anguillian standards.
He passed from the scene in 1774 when he made his last will jointly with
his wife Ann on 17 January. He died the
same year, and his will was proved before deputy governor John Smith. He was a grandfather when he died, leaving
eleven children and at least one grandchild.
He left his estate, his slaves and appurtenances to his three sons,
Jonathan Jr, Thomas Hodge Fleming, and John Hodge Fleming. To each of his six daughters he left five
slaves under the age of twenty and £500 on the date of their marriage. Two of his children were challenged in some
way, for he instructed his three eldest sons to take care of their needs for
the balance of their lives. On his
death, he gave his faithful slave Mingo
his freedom. Parson Fleming was the
ancestor of all the present-day Flemings of Anguilla.
In addition to its executive and judicial
functions, the Council occasionally tried its hand at a little informal if
unauthorised law-making. Deputy governor
Gumbs seems to have done his best to bring his rude and unruly little island
under some form of government. Getting
the citizenry to respect the bailiff was no easier then than it was to be in
later years. In a decision of 1756, the
Council made an enactment (see table 11).
At a
meeting of His Majesty's Council this 29th day July 1756, being present:
The
Honourable Benjamin Gumbs Esq, Deputy Governor
John Hughes ]
Edward Rogers ] Esqs,
Members of Council
Joseph Burnett ]
It is this day ordered by the aforesaid Governor and Council
that all persons in this Island that judgments hath been obtained against for
debts and executions against them and will not come to any compliance with
their creditors in making payment but on the contrary stand in contempt of
the law and keep their Negroes out in the woods, that the Marshall can no
ways come at anything, therefore it is ordered as above said that all such
persons' Negroes or effects shall be sold as if the same was levied upon by
the Marshall to the highest bidder for ready pay.
Signed by Command,
Joseph
Burnett, Clerk to the Council
|
Table
11: Order of the Council.
The meaning of this Order is that whenever
in future a judgment was given against a planter for a debt, and that planter
indulged in the subterfuge of hiding his slaves and possessions out in the
woods so that the bailiff could not find them to seize and sell in execution or
satisfaction of the debt, the bailiff might still hold the auction in the
absence of the goods. He might sell the
slaves and effects of the defaulting judgment debtor as if they were in his
possession and he was able to exhibit them at the auction. It was then, presumably, for the brave
purchaser to venture into the woods to seek and locate the hidden goods that he
bought. He must use whatever force was
necessary to take them into his possession.
It is difficult to see how this attempted solution did not cause serious
beaches of the peace. It was a prescription
for causing more problems than it was designed to solve.
This is called an Order, but it is not a
decision made in any court case. It is
really a form of legislation, a sort of statute, something that only a
legislative assembly could validly make.
Yet, for all the shortcomings of the measure, it shows the Anguillians
casting about by experiment for some method of making themselves more amenable
to the Courts and to a system to law.
This example of law-making is unique in the record and was not repeated.
Two other cases of 1756 show the Governor
and Council imposing stiff fines against unruly subjects who obstructed or
assaulted the bailiff (see tables 12 and 13).
Anguilla. At a Meeting of his Majesty's Council this
[ . . . ] 1756
Being present:
The
Honourable Benjamin Gumbs Esq, Deputy Governor
John Hughes ] Esqs Members of
Joseph Burnett ] the Council
[ . . . ] Brooks ]
versus ]
William Richardson ]
for assaulting him in a riotous manner when using his authority
in commanding his Majesty’s Peace in the Highway.
It's the opinion of this court that William Richardson shall
immediately give in security for his better behaviour and also to pay a fine
of fifteen pounds with costs of suit.
Signed by command,
Joseph
Burnett CC
|
Table
12: Brooks v William Richardson.
Here we see William Richardson being fined
£15 for assaulting the bailiff who was trying to stop an altercation
in the highway.
In the other 1756 case the bailiff
prosecuted Abraham Arrindell Jr for assaulting him in the execution of his duty
and for resisting arrest.
At a meeting of his Majesty's Council
being present:
The
Honourable Benjamin Gumbs Esq, Deputy Governor
John
Hughes
Joseph
Burnett
[ . . . ] Brooks ]
versus ]
Abraham Arrindell Jr ]
For loading a gun with powder and ball and saying he would shoot
said Brooks, and also being the occasion of making a riot to wrest himself
out of the Marshall's custody.
It's the opinion of the court that Abraham Arrindell shall pay a
fine of 25 pounds for opposing the Governor's authority and give in security
for his good behaviour until the next Sessions with costs of suit.
Signed by Command,
Joseph
Burnett, CC
|
Table
13: Brooks v Abraham Arrindell Jr.
Arrindell loaded a gun with powder and
ball and said he would shoot him. He also
wrestled himself out of the Marshal's custody.
He was fined £25 pounds for opposing the Governor's
authority and was bound over to keep the peace and be of good behaviour until
the next Court Sessions. The case is
interesting in that it shows the Anguilla Council attempting to set itself up
as a criminal court with the power to fine and imprison a free man. The members of the Council possessed no
appointment other than as justices of the peace with power to try summary
cases. They would not attempt to try a
more serious charge, say a felony, as any appeal to the Governor in Chief must
succeed.
Two cases provide us revealing glimpses at
the conditions of slavery on our island at that time. In 1769, Benjamin Gumbs III prosecuted Andrew Johnston for what the
planters considered at the time to be the extremely grave offence of "harbouring and entertaining"
slaves. This expression did not
necessarily refer to some form of social entertainment. It was a common charge brought against
Methodist and Baptist preachers who were caught preaching to slaves (see table
14). Throughout the islands, Methodists
and Baptists were particularly disliked by the Anglican clergy and their parishioners
precisely because, unlike the Anglicans and Roman Catholics, they preached to
the slaves.
Anguilla. October 3rd 1769. At a meeting of his Majesty's Council being
present
The Honourable Benjamin Roberts Esq, Deputy
Governor
John Smith ]
John Hughes ] Esq's,
Members
Isaac Arrindell Sr ] of Council
Benjamin Gumbs 3rd Esq. ]
Versus ]
Andrew Johnston ]
For harbouring and entertaining his the said Gumbs’ Negroes
which was at that time run away for several days before.
It is the opinion of the majority of this Court that the said
Andrew Johnston shall immediately be imprisoned in the Common Gaol of this
island and there to continue for six weeks and also to pay costs of this suit
£3 12s.
By
command,
John
Payne, CC
|
Table 14: Benjamin Gumbs 3rd v Andrew
Johnson. (Anguilla Archives)
Whether Johnson was merely preaching to
them, as is likely, or whether he was an anti-slavery advocate trying to assist
the slaves to escape, is not clear. But
he was, not surprisingly for the times, punished with six weeks imprisonment
and ordered to pay the costs of his trial of £3
12s.
Five years later, in 1774, Thomas Hodge
prosecuted a runaway slave Exelius for burning cane fields of his owner Edward
Gumbs and of Benjamin Gumbs Sr (see table 15).
The record of the case reads:
Anguilla. [ . . . ] 1774
At a meeting of His Majesty’s Council. Present:
The Honourable John Smith Esq,
lieutenant governor
John Payne ]
Benjamin Gumbs 3rd ]
Paul Ruan ] Esqs,
Members of the Council
Peter Gumbs ]
John Shepherd, Clerk ]
Thomas
Hodge and others has made complaint that a Negro man named Exelious the
property of Edward Gumbs is suspected and accused of burning a parcel of
canes the property of Benjamin Gumbs Sr and Edward Gumbs and that the said
Exelious made his elopement for some months past and has killed and destroyed
many stock in this island of which being very hurtful and injurious to many
poor families.
The above
said Governor and Council have fully examined and enquired in the merits of
the said accusation and that as there is positive proof that the said
Exelious was guilty of putting fire to the said piece of canes maliciously,
but as it is believed he has been guilty of sundry misdemeanours the said
Court orders that the said Negro man Exelious shall be banished off the
island in six weeks from the date hereof and never more to return under the
penalty to be paid by his owner of sixty six pounds current gold or silver
money.
By
command.
John
Payne, Clerk to the Council
|
Table 15:
Thomas Hodge v Exelious. (Anguilla Archives)
In 1776 we see a case of blasphemy tried
by the Council. The Rev John Shepherd is
clerk to the Council, as well as the resident Anglican minister. He takes his two duties seriously. He brings a prosecution against John
Henville, a local tailor (see table 16).
Anguilla
May 28th 1776 At a
Meeting of His Majesty’s Council being a Special Court. Present:
The Honourable John Smith Esq,
Lieutenant Governor
John Payne ]
Benjamin Gumbs ] Esqs,
Members of Council
James Nihil ]
John Shepherd, Clerk to the Council
John Shepherd Esq, one of His Majesty’s
Council, in behalf of our Sovereign Lord the King
prosecutes
John Anville, tailor
for
making use of several unbecoming expressions in public company as a blasphemy
to the Lord our God by saying if God Almighty did come and tell him contrary
to some passages that he passed or expressed, he would tell Him that He the
Lord was a liar which heinous expressions is an abhorrence to God and Man.
It is the
opinion of the Majority of this Court that John Anville be imprisoned from
this hour until nine o’clock on Saturday morning which time he shall be taken
out of jail by the constables and be obliged to walk barefoot from the jail
door with a label on his forehead with the word on it “Blaspheming” to the
breastworks in Upper Quarter and return from thence in the same manner to The
Road and walk around the Pond and confess himself a great sinner, ask God
pardon, and pay cost of suit being £4.1s.
By command
John Payne, Clerk to the Council
|
Table 16: John Shepherd v John Henville. (Anguilla Archives)
Besides the quaintness of the punishment
imposed on Henville by the Council, we learn some pieces of historic
information. The original name of the
part of The Valley we now call The Quarter was evidently 'The Upper Quarter' as
appears in the sentence of the Council.
The word 'upper' in Anguilla as we have seen means 'eastwards'. The use of this adjective here indicates that
when the original Valley Plantation was divided into four parts in the late
seventeenth century, the part that was easternmost was described as the upper quarter
which eventually became its name. We
know that two of the others were North Valley and South Valley
Plantations. What the fourth quarter was
is not certain, but it was most probably the Statia Valley Plantation. The word 'upper' has fallen away, and we now
refer to that part of The Valley simply as 'The Quarter'.
A breastwork usually means an earthwork
thrown up to breast height providing protection to men firing over it from a
standing position. The reference in the
sentence of the Council to ‘the breastworks’ to which Mr Henville was sentenced
to walk from the prison suggests that the local militia at some point in time
erected a temporary fortification in this area, probably for protection in case
of an invasion. The exact location of
this fortification in the Quarter is now lost.
Justice in Anguilla during our period was
rough and ready, and occasionally perverse as some of the cases above show. Such few powers of government as there were towards
the end were jealously guarded by the planters and merchants that wielded
it. All things taken into consideration
it was a marked improvement over the lawless conditions that existed for
generations of Anguillians in earlier times.
Next:
Chapter 18 - Sugar
Arrives [Part 1]
[1] These were originally photographed by
Heather Neilson and Martha Burrows and transcribed by Heather Neilson and made
available to the Anguilla National Trust, the Anguilla Archaeological and
Historical Society and the Anguilla Public Library, and subsequently
photographed and placed on a website by members of a project funded by the
British Museum, details of which are outlined here: https://eap.bl.uk/sites/default/files/legacy-eap/downloads/eap596_survey_web.pdf
[2] There
is another reason for the gap in our records.
Unscrupulous persons have removed whole sections from the Anguilla
Archives for their own private use.
[3] Since this was first
written, Martha Burrows and Heather Nielson have located, photographed, and
transcribed from the St Kitts Archives the volume titled “Anguilla Record of
Deeds, 1792-1803” with the permission of the St Kitts Archivist.
[4] Chapter 5: The Second Generation.
[5] Ibidem.
[6] Ibidem.
[7] Ibidem.
[8] Ibidem.
[9] Ibidem.
[10] Chapter 14: The Third and Fourth
Generations.
[11] Ibidem.
[12] Chapter 15: The Settlement of St Croix.
[13] Chapter 14: The Third and Fourth
Generations.
[14] Chapter 18: Sugar Arrives.
[15] Chapter 14: The Third and Fourth Generations.
[16] The Anguilla Record of Deeds, 1792-1803, were
photographed by Martha Burrows and transcribed by Heather Nielson.
[17] Located in the St Kitts Archives in
Basseterre.
[18] DE Duncan, The Calendar (1998).
[19] Bavaria
converted the calendar in 1583. Germany
and Austria adopted most of the reforms in 1700. The Swedes adopted the new calendar in
1753. Most of the Eastern Orthodox countries
converted to the new style only in 1923.
Russia waited until 1918, after the Bolshevik Revolution, to drop 13
days to make up for the accumulation of days by which the Julian Calendar was
then in error. The Japanese adopted the
new calendar in 1873, while China resisted until the new calendar was
proclaimed by Mao Zedong on 1 October 1949.
To this day, Muslim countries begin their calendar in 622, the year of
hegira when Mohammed fled from Mecca to Medina.
[20] See Chapter 8: Pirates.
