The overlays that highlight 17th century London features are approximate and derived from Wenceslaus Hollar’s maps:
Open location in Google Maps: 13.193887, -59.543190
"Barbados was the seed crystal for the slavery regimes of the Restoration colonies.... In 1661, almost exactly at the moment that the strong Restoration push to establish slavery on the mainland was getting under way, Barbados became the first English colony to legislate extensively on slavery....[esp. with the landmark] Act for the Better Ordering and Governing of Negroes (1661), considered "absolutely Needful for the publique Safety.  " This Act served as the template for similar Acts in other Restoration colonies as far north as New England. E.g., in South Carolina "in 1669/70...a mixed expedition of English and Barbadian adventurers established continuous settlement under the sponsorship of [Samuel Pepys' nemesis] proprietor Anthony Lord Ashley (later the Earl of Shaftesbury).....[T]he Barbadians insisted [lands] should be granted to importers of 'negroes as well as Christians.' Ashley had also drafted (with the assistance of John Locke, his secretary) the "Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina," which confirmed in the course of establishing religious toleration that Carolina slaveholders would enjoy the same absolute power over their slaves that Barbados' "better ordering" statute had guaranteed. ...Carolina's first general statute,An Act for the Better Ordering of Slaves [February 1690/91, a] version of the Barbadian Better Ordering Act of 1661.400]
("Transplants and Timing: Passages in the Creation of an Anglo-American Law of Slavery," Christopher Tomlins, University of California, Irvine, Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 2012-24, 2009) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_i…
Since many Scots were present on Barbados, one way or tother, I found it interesting to see how early the University of Glasgow began to receive endowments from Scots trading families involved in the Caribbean and therefore slavery.
Cambridge and Oxford are currently reviewing their records and similar reports to this should be forthcoming during the early 2020's.
The lack of endowments during the Diary years and for decades afterwards indicates to me that income from slavery-related undertakings was at that time tenuous and formative.
A shout out to the British Library, which is undertaking conservation projects during Covid-19. A very good use of their time! One of this month's efforts focused on slavery in Barbados:
"Britain's slave plantation model began in Barbados in the 17th century before spreading throughout the Caribbean. Built on the enslavement of men, women, and children from Africa, it was a lucrative system that generated excessive wealth for many slave owners and drove the British economy. As the anti-slavery movement gained momentum in the late 18th century, plantation owners and merchants throughout the empire blamed abolitionists for their own economic woes. In tandem with calls to abolish slavery, they demanded reciprocal compensation on the basis that laws protecting inanimate property also applied to slaves. This campaign had political support from absentee proprietors in the UK parliament and when the 1833 Slavery Abolition Act came into force, it was in conjunction with a system that enabled 46,000 slave owners, including more than 80 MPs, to claim compensation.
"The British government paid a total of £20 million - 40% of its national budget - to compensate thousands of slave owners; the equivalent of approximately £17 billion today. It required enormous borrowing by the government, so much that the debt was not fully repaid until 2015.
"This statistic was announced to the world in a 2018 Fact Of The Day tweet by the UK Treasury and prompted a sharp rebuke by historian David Olusoga. The tweet was pitched as a pat on the back for UK taxpayers’ contribution towards abolishing slavery. Instead it was an unsightly reminder that 21st century taxpayers had continued to fund the ill-gotten gains of human enslavement."
What this excerpt doesn't say (it may make the point later) is that money paid off the owners who lost the use of their slaves, not the slaves who had lost years of their lives, their dignity, their homes, and often their families.
Lots of information -- but not about the 17th century -- at
My thought: The British government paid off the WWI and WWII debt to the USA at least 30 years before this. Perhaps the Americans had a higher interest rate?
Between 1624 and 1632, St. Christopher (St. Kitts), Barbados, Nevis, Monserrat, Providence and Antigua were settled by the English. The typical arrangement governing settlement was a grant by the king to a trading company, and the grant defined the parameters of settlement.
Wherever they settled, the English quickly asserted their rights and liberties against the mother country, and saw themselves as English abroad, whatever their motives for emigration.
In the Caribbean, the native Carib peoples with whom the settlers came into contact were subject to episodic violence by the English and French.
More slaves from West Africa were brought to Providence Island, off Columbia, than to any other English colony before 1640. Qualms by some of the investors and colonists over the legitimacy of slavery was overcome by the perceived need to acquire more labor than emigration from England could provide.
When the Spanish overran Providence Island in 1641, ending English rule there, they captured 350 English and 381 slaves.
In England, the opening of the Parliament in November 1640 provided the new arena for conflict between King Charles and the Puritan opposition, compared to which the failure of Providence Island was of no consequence, and the jarring discord of Black slavery in a colony founded to promote Puritan English liberties was simply not perceived or articulated at Westminster.
The Caribbean colonies were intended to be engines of trade, and in terms of the labor market, Barbados was by far the most significant. White labor there was provided by indentured servants. But neither the scale of white immigrant labor, nor the principles upon which it rested, were sufficient to service the new booming sugar industry, which took over from tobacco and cotton cultivation in the West Indies from the 1640s.
Sugar production was highly profitable, supplying an insatiable European market: by the mid-1650s sugar accounted for nearly half the cargoes imported into Bristol, England’s second largest port, and it all came from the Caribbean.
The scale and the processes involved in sugar production (crushing and boiling in continuous, 24-7 shifts, plus back-breaking cultivation, all in searing, humid heat) required cheap, expendable labor (European workers could not withstand the conditions), and West Africans were the answer. Slave labor grew in parallel with the scale of sugar production.
Slaves were regarded as the moveable property (chattels) of their white owners. The practice of chattel slavery in English colonies barely impinged on the consciousness of MPs in Parliament. Curiously the scale of chattel slavery in the Caribbean expanded when the champions of English liberties came into power, and then the scale increased dramatically after the Restoration.
In Barbados there were 6,000 slaves in 1645, but 42,000 in 1698. As the slave trade developed, the code governing ownership of slaves tightened.
After the introduction of the Slave Codes of 1661, slaves could be designated as real estate, by which they were regarded as unalienable parts of the estates from which they were forbidden to leave.
The distinction between offering the native American/Carib peoples the opportunities presented by European ideas of education and conversion to Christianity, exemplified in the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England (1649) were never extended to those who in the Slave Codes were called ‘heathenish’ and ‘brutish’.
As slavery advanced, there was still no significant discussion in Parliament, where Members were preoccupied with the rights and liberties of the English, and not with extending privileges to others.
Highlights and excerpts from Slavery, the Caribbean and English Liberties, 1620-1640
Admirals Penn and Venables always take the rap for the failure of the Caribbean adventure known as the Western Design. But a biography of Martin Noell Sr. MP, a Navy Contractor, has a different opinion:
Martin Noell Sr.’s money bought him political influence. He and Thomas Povey were closely involved in directing government policy on the Caribbean colonies, particularly Barbados.
Noell played a leading part in organizing and financing Cromwell’s ‘Western Design’ of 1655 against the Spanish colony of Hispaniola (present-day Haiti and the Dominican Republic). One well-informed observer identified Noell as ‘he who suggested the design of the West Indies’ to Cromwell.
In the event, the Western Design was a fiasco – partly because profiteering by Martin Noell Sr. and other contractors had deprived the expedition of vital supplies and equipment.
Repulsed from Hispaniola with heavy losses, Cromwell’s troops took Jamaica as a consolation prize. Not that Martin Noell Sr. was complaining. He had taken his usual cut regardless, and he was further rewarded with a grant from Cromwell of 20,000 acres on England’s new colony.
The seizure of Jamaica would provide a massive boost to the English sugar- industry and to the slave trade that sustained it. Noell Sr.’s plantation in Barbados was well-supplied with enslaved Africans to work the sugar-canes. But it was what he euphemistically termed his ‘Christian servants’ on the island, and the circumstances of their presence there, that landed him in trouble with his fellow MPs following his election for Stafford to Richard Cromwell’s Parliament in 1659.
Martin Noell Sr. MP was forced to defend himself against accusations in the House that he had violated English ‘liberties’ as a contractor for transporting Royalist prisoners to indentured servitude on Barbados. The victims of his ‘most unchristian and barbarous usage’ alleged that they been ‘bought and sold … from one planter to another … as horses and beasts’ (Diary of Thomas Burton, Esq. ed. J. T. Rutt (1828), iv. 255-73).
Noell admitted transporting prisoners to the island, but denied that he had effectively sold them into slavery or that they had been harshly treated. Indeed, he claimed that labor conditions for indentured servants on Barbados were better than those of the ‘common husbandman here’. The really hard work, the ‘grinding at the [sugar]-mills and attending at the furnaces or digging in the scorching island’, was mostly undertaken by African slaves, he insisted – and as he well knew, no one in the Commons cared about them.
Martin Noell Sr. MP shrugged off his grilling in the House, and he would emerge from the downfall of the Protectorate and the Restoration of the Stuart monarchy in 1660 similarly unscathed.
Chart showing the number of references in each month of the diary’s entries.