An introduction to the plantation journals of the Prospect ... - Microform

An Introduction to the
Plantation Journals of the
Prospect Sugar Estate
by
Simon D. Smith
with contents
of the microfilm
MICROFORM ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS

An Introduction to the
Plantation Journals of the
Prospect Sugar Estate
by
Simon D. Smith
University of York
with contents
of the microfilm

© Simon D. Smith, 2004
ISBN 10: 1-85117-074-X
ISBN 13: 978-1-85117-074-6
Published by:
Microform Academic Publishers
Main Street, East Ardsley
Wakefield, West Yorkshire WF3 2AP
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1925 825700
Fax: +44 (0)1924 871005
Email: map@microform.co.uk
Web: www.microform.co.uk/academic

An Introduction to the Plantation Journals of
Prospect Sugar Estate, Jamaica
Prospect is the name of a sugar estate that once operated in the parish of
Portland in the north-eastern corner of Jamaica. 1 For five decades prior to the
abolition of slavery in 1834, this plantation was the home and workplace of a
population numbering up to 162 enslaved men, women, and children. 2 Approximately
half of Prospect’s inhabitants were born into slavery, most of them on the property
itself; the others were forcibly shipped to Jamaica from Africa in order to replenish a
labour system unable to reproduce itself naturally. Condemned to a lifetime of toil,
the majority of the enslaved worked in the cane fields, boiling house, and crushing
mill to produce rum and sugar for the benefit of absentee owners in Britain.
Much remains to be discovered about the inhabitants of this previously
unstudied sugar estate. This introduction is based on a general survey of a batch of
manuscripts preserved in the Barclays Group Archive, Manchester. 3 The collection
primarily consists of eight volumes describing the daily operation of the plantation
between 1784 and 1793. 4 Some insights into the later history of Prospect (from 1817
until 1834) have also been gleaned from the slave registration and compensation
commission records preserved in the National Archives in London. 5
Provenance is the first issue that must be addressed when encountering a
new documentary hoard. The precise circumstances under which the manuscripts
came into the possession of Barclays are not known, but it is clear that the Bank has
provided the materials with a resting place for a great many years. In Matthews and
Tuke’s 1926 history of Barclays, the documents are mentioned briefly:
It must not be inferred from this catalogue of famous names that the Bank did
business only with people at one end of the social scale; the majority were not
notable, like many who have been mentioned, nor even notorious, like poor
Comte d’Orsay; but one at least has left behind him some interesting books and
papers. This gentleman, who was one of the earliest customers, was the owner
of a plantation, and as such was an employer of slave labour. Amongst his
papers is his stock book, the first page of which contains an account of the
slaves for the year 1784. The fact that the succeeding pages deal in a similar
way with horses, cattle and implements shows that the slaves were looked upon
merely as part of the livestock on the property. 6
Matthews and Tuke discreetly omitted to name the owner of Prospect Estate,
referring to him only as a ‘gentleman’, but they did suggest a route by which the
papers were acquired by the Bank; namely, as part of a miscellaneous deposit by
one of its earliest customers. The owner of Prospect can now be revealed as the
London and Kingston merchant, Stephen Attlay, who in an account current of 1785-6
was accorded the title of ‘Esquire’. Over the years, many strange items have been
left in safe deposit boxes across the world by banking clients who, for a variety of
reasons, have never returned to claim them. Do the Prospect papers fall into the
category of misplaced personal effects?
1

Prior to their relocation to the Manchester archive, the manuscripts were
stored in the strong room of the Pall Mall branch of Barclays in London, along with
other old banking records. An retired employee of the Bank, Mr. A.J. Tubb, recalled
in 2001 how, early in his career, he was shown the ledgers belonging to a lateeighteenth
century West Indian plantation. Mr. Tubb remembered being taken aback,
as a young man, by the fact that the journals ‘were kept in exactly the same way as
an account ledger’, as slave purchases or births were added to the credit side, whilst
‘when a slave died or escaped, a debit was recorded.’ 7
Barclays' Pall Mall branch had begun life in 1782 as the home of a separate
and independent banking partnership between Griffin Ransom, William Morland, and
Thomas Hammersley. The bank became a branch of Barclays in 1888 when their
successors, Ransom, Bouverie and Co., merged with Barclay, Bevan, Tritton and
Co. of Lombard Street. 8 The earliest surviving ledgers from the banking house
founded by this trio reveal that Stephen Attlay’s son, Stephen Oakeley Attlay Sr.,
held an account with the bank in 1802 and 1803. He had probably also been a
customer for some years prior to this. 9 Although the Attlay family were clients,
however, it does not follow that the records survived because they were deposited
there for safe keeping. An examination of the history of Oakeley Attlay family
suggests that the manuscripts survived for different reasons.
Some of the earliest private British banks can trace their foundation to
eighteenth-century merchant partnerships. Indeed, a number of London merchants
acted as the commission agents of plantation owners who either resided in the
colonies or who were absentee owners in Britain. The services provided by the
commission houses included account current facilities, overdrafts, and, in some
cases, longer term credit secured by mortgages. There is evidence that during the
eighteenth century the relationship between bankers and merchants grew
increasingly close in the financing of the sugar trade. 10
To monitor large-scale agricultural enterprises, situated thousands of miles
away, the managers and overseers of West Indian estates were instructed to draw
up detailed records of the day-to-day operation of plantations under their care. The
seven journals and the plantation book that comprise the bulk of the Prospect Estate
collection were compiled for this purpose. Historians rarely enjoy the luxury of
studying a complete documentary example of a West India business relationship. In
some instances, an extended run of correspondence survives between the merchant
and the owners and managers of a sugar estate; in other cases, such as Prospect, it
is just the journals that have found their way into an archive. 11
Significantly, Stephen Oakeley Attlay Sr.’s account with Ransom, Morland,
and Hammersley does not make any explicit reference to Prospect. A sample of
Ransom, Morland, and Hammersely’s other customer accounts also unearthed no
evidence that the firm combined banking with commission trading in plantation
produce. The failure of the Attlay’s bank account with Ransom and partners to
mention the sugar estate contrasts with an account statement (dated 1785-6)
prepared for Stephen Attlay by the London merchants William and Thomas Bond.
The Bonds’ account clearly records the receipt of sugar from Prospect and the
2

shipment of plantation stores to the estate. 12 Similar entries would also have
appeared in the ledgers of Ransom, Moreley, and Hammersley if this concern had
likewise been involved in the plantation trades. Moreover, the Bonds appear to have
handled Prospect’s account only as a temporary expedient owing to the illness and
subsequent death of Attlay. In his will, dated 9 April 1786, Attlay bequeathed the
Bond brothers money to buy mourning rings as a gesture of gratitude for the late
services they had rendered him. The account current itself notes that Attlay’s death
occurred shortly afterwards. 13
One of the bound volumes in the Prospect archive, entitled the ‘Prospect
Plantation Book’, records cargoes of sugar consigned to British ports between 1784
and 1791. It is notable that, for the first two years spanned by this document, sugar
was despatched addressed to Stephen Attlay in his own right, whilst in 1787 Stephen
Oakeley Attlay Sr. took over receipt of the cargoes. Unfortunately, for the remaining
years, the source records only the quantity of sugar shipped with details of the vessel
carrying the cargo, omitting all reference to the recipient. A detailed examination of
the Accounts Produce volumes in the Jamaica Archives (a record of the crops
produced on plantations owned by absentees) would perhaps establish whether
Oakeley Attlay Sr. continued to receive sugar, as is conjectured here, or whether the
cargoes were consigned to commission merchants. 14
The available evidence suggests strongly that, as merchants engaged in the
West Indian trades, the Attlays dispensed with the services of agents and supervised
their own business affairs, with Ransom, Morland, and Hammersley acting merely as
the family’s bankers. Stephen Attlay is known to have held victualling contracts to
supply troops stationed in Jamaica with provisions during both the Seven Years’ War
(1756-63) and the War of the American Revolution (1776-83). 15 He specialised in the
supply of beef and at his death a balance of £2,746. 1s. 1d. was still owing from
government commissioners on this account. Involvement in victuals provides an
indication of the Attlays’ standing as merchants, since contracts to provision troops
were generally granted to well-financed merchants possessing excellent colonial
connections. 16
Additional information about Attlay’s wealth and his activities as a merchant is
provided in an inventory of Jamaican assets, compiled after his death in December
1786. This document valued Prospect Estate at £8,674. 5s. currency (£6,193. 15s.
sterling): an under-estimate of its true value since the inventory excluded the land
and sugar works, rating only the enslaved and moveable property. 17 Interestingly, the
sugar estate accounted for less than half of Attlay’s gross inventoried wealth on the
island. In addition to Prospect, he was the owner of a livestock pen named Dirty Pit,
which was leased to William Patrick Brown (a member of Jamaica’s Council) at £980
currency per annum. Alongside the 162 slaves at Prospect, a further 40 enslaved
workers belonging to Attlay were rented to Brown valued at £2,340 currency. 18
Brown was also a creditor of Attlay’s and in 1786 owed him £1,222. 7s. 6d. currency
secured by bond. Six further debtors are listed in the inventory, which details
£1,731.0s.6d. currency of loans granted by Attlay on the island between 1772 and
1784. In total, therefore, Attlay’ gross assets on Jamaica, exclusive of real estate,
amounted to £14,947.13s. currency (£10,696 3s. 6d. sterling). 19
3

Stephen Oakeley Attlay Sr., like his father, possessed commercial interests.
His account with Ransom, Morland, and Hammersley records a turnover of £12,118
sterling between 1802 and 1803, made up principally of securities transactions. In
addition to stocks and shares, Oakeley Attlay Sr. invested directly in companies. His
name appears, for example, as a director of the Teignmouth and Shaldon Bridge
Company in 1825 and 1827. The extent of Oakeley Attlay Sr.’s wealth is suggested
by his draft will of 1817, which contemplated leaving his wife an annuity of £500 a
year and his daughter a legacy of £10,000, in addition to bequeathing Prospect and
the residue of his estate to his son Stephen Oakeley Attlay Jr. 20
The business activities of the Attlays indicate that the system of management
that oversaw production on Prospect was a modified version of absentee ownership
that excluded reliance on London commission merchants. Regular reports on the
health and numbers of the enslaved workforce were sent direct to the Attlays in
Britain, rather than to intermediaries, along with accounts of crop production and
sales. The kernel of this information is contained within the plantation’s surviving
journals. On Jamaica itself, the daily tasks carried out by the enslaved were
supervised by overseers living on the property. The names of seven different
overseers between 1787 and 1791 are recorded as declaring the number of slaves
and livestock to the parish vestry. 21 Among these seven individuals, the name of
Thomas Oakeley is of particular importance since he played a major role in looking
after the interests of the absentee Attlays on Jamaica.
Thomas Oakeley (b.1744) was the brother of Stephen Attlay’s wife Parnel
(1735-1815). In 1786, Oakeley was resident in Port Antonio as a merchant, handling
sugar and rum sent from Prospect for export. By 1817, an individual named Thomas
Oakeley had become the owner of two properties in Portland parish that collectively
employed sixty enslaved workers. Three years later, the slave registration return
prefaced the owner’s name with the word ‘Honourable’: a title reserved for members
of Jamaica’s Council. The person named was either the Port Antonio merchant or his
nephew Thomas Oakeley (b.1773), who in 1796 was living on Jamaica under the
care of his uncle, but by 1816 had returned to England in order to re-marry. 22
Thomas Oakeley senior and junior were both members of the Snakecroft (later
Bagnall) Oakeleys: a scion of the gentry Oakeley family of Shropshire. 23 The
Snakecroft Oakeleys originated from Bishop’s Castle in Shropshire, where brother
and sister Parnel and Thomas were both born, but the family also possessed land in
Monmouthshire. Parnel Oakeley lived out years of widowhood at Lydart House); after
her death, members of the Oakeleys resided at Lydart and the 1851 Cenus provides
an indication of their social status. The head of the Oakeley household was a
freeholder and farmed 136 acres, while his three sons were occupied as a solicitor, a
curate, and an Oxford undergraduate. 24
Sufficient evidence has been identified to ascertain that Prospect Estates’
owners were British merchants and planters with gentry connections, who managed
the plantation as absentees largely without recourse to agents other than their
kinsmen. Yet if the Attlays were directly involved in the management of Prospect and
maintained their own records, by what route did the journals find their way into the
4

Barclays Group Archive? The solution to this mystery probably lies in Stephen
Oakeley Attlay Sr.’s response to the abolition of slavery, coupled with the decision of
his son and heir not to pursue a business career. In 1834, the parliamentary
commissioners charged with compensating slave owners valued Prospect’s 141
enslaved workers at £6,420 sterling. Oakeley Attlay Sr. assigned the resulting
compensation award of £2,809. 19s. 1d. to the merchant partnership of Jegon and
Rutherford, who had granted him a mortgage of £5,842. 12s. 9d. At the time of
emancipation, Prospect also carried an additional debt of £1,000 owed to the
merchants Langmead and Jordan. This second loan was also paid off as part of the
settlement with the compensation commission. 25 Though the net financial positions
of Stephen Attlay and his son at the time of their decease cannot be determined, it is
striking that by 1834 Prospect had itself become encumbered by debt, in contrast to
the position in 1786 when debts were owed to the Attlay estate from local planters.
Oakeley Attlay Sr. died in 1839, the year following full emancipation on
Jamaica. His son and namesake was the Revd. Stephen Oakeley Attlay Jr., vicar of
St. Stephen’s church, Norwich. 26 Portland had always been marginal land for sugar
cultivation and it was not to revive as an agricultural area until the banana tree (a
crop better suited to the region’s relatively high precipitation levels) was introduced.
By the end of the four year period of slave ‘apprenticeship’ in 1838, only 112 workers
were left at Prospect, signifying that sugar and rum production was in the process of
being run down. 27 It appears probable, therefore, that Prospect was disposed of
shortly after the death of Oakeley Attlay Sr. and that the plantation’s journals were
deposited with Ransom and Company during the winding up of his estate. If this
hypothesis is accepted, it is likely that the bank acted as trustees for the Revd.
Oakeley Attlay Jr. and was responsible for administering the various legacies
charged on Prospect that were assigned along with the compensation claim.
There are thus no direct links between Barclays Bank and the owners of
Prospect Estate. On Jamaica, Stephen Attlay’s business associates included a
George Barclay (Attlay’s partner in the victualling trade during the Seven Years’ War
was one George Barclay), whilst the list of debtors owing Attlay’s estate money
refers to a James Barclay. A plantation named Barclay’s was also in operation in
Portland parish in 1804. None of these circumstances, however, explain the
subsequent deposit of Prospect’s records in the Barclays Archive, and there is also
no evidence to link any of these individuals to the Bank. Barclays itself grew out of a
late 17th century London goldsmith partnership, as did several others in the decades
after the civil war. Sometime later the Barclays entered into a marriage and banking
alliance with another Quaker family, the Gurneys of East Anglia.
Prospect Estate represented a last link between the Attlays and slavery in the
Caribbean, but how long had this family connection existed? In 1832, the Bridgwater
and Somerset Advertiser recorded the marriage of the ‘Revd. Stephen Oakley Attlay
of Teignmouth’ to Catherine Robinson of Ilfracombe. As has already been noted,
Attlay’s father was a director of a Bridge Company at Teignmouth. The regional
connection is further strengthened by Oakley Attlay Sr.’s draft will of 1817, which
names as trustee the Revd. Henry Woollcombe of the nearby community of Ashbury.
Indeed, the surname ‘Attlay’ may be derived from the place name ‘Hatherleigh’,
5

located five miles from Ashbury. A striking feature of Hatherleigh’s parish registers is
that in 1604 and 1606 they record the baptism of two Africans. 28 Outside of the port
communities of Plymouth and Barnstaple (home to the region’s merchants),
Hatherleigh appears to be unique in documenting a cluster of black inhabitants in this
region of Britain as early as the end of the sixteenth century. The implications of this
finding are not clear. One possible inference that might be drawn, however, is that
the involvement of inhabitants of Hatherleigh in transatlantic slavery extended for a
far longer period of time that spanned by the surviving records of Prospect.
The parish of Portland is the smallest in Jamaica, outside of Kingston,
occupying an area of just 14,000 acres. During the period of slavery, Port Antonio
formed the region’s largest settlement and its commercial hub, providing a maritime
link with the outside world. Prior to the later eighteenth century, Portland was one of
the most isolated and scarcely populated parts of Jamaica. A rugged and exposed
coastline discouraged commerce, the absence of a dry season hindered sugar
cultivation, and the geographical barrier of the Blue Mountains hampered
communications with Spanish Town and Kingston. 29 The development of Portland
was further discouraged by the presence of the rebellious Maroons, who remained a
threat to white settlers until the conclusion of the Maroon Wars in 1739. 30 In
consequence, by 1740 only an estimated 775 slaves (less than one percent of the
enslaved population of Jamaica) were recorded as living in this section of the
island. 31
The relative insignificance of Portland is reflected by the fact that it was not
until 1723 that the parish itself was created and named after the then Governor of
Jamaica. Beginning in the 1740s, however, plantation agriculture made significant
progress in the region. Table 2 reveals that by 1789 the enslaved population had
risen to 4,537 (2.2 percent of Jamaica’s total) and twenty-three sugar estates were in
operation. The outlook for sugar planting was boosted during the third quarter of the
eighteenth century by the high prices commanded by plantation staples in European
markets. Unfortunately for the planters, sugar’s prosperity in Portland proved to be
short-lived and investors sinking capital into sugar estates let themselves in for a
bumpy ride. After peaking in the early 1770s, sugar prices declined as trade with
Britain was disrupted during the War of the American Revolution (1776-83). The
outlook for all Jamaica’s sugar planters then brightened considerably as a
consequence of the St. Domingue slave revolution of 1791, which crippled the
world’s largest sugar and coffee exporter. In 1804, a total of thirty-three sugar estates
were growing cane in Portland: a figure that probably marks the peak output attained
by the region. 32 Respite from adversity, however, proved brief as the Napoleonic
Wars (1803-15) brought further serious difficulties for sugar producers and
unwelcome competition from the newly acquired colonies of Trinidad, Tobago, and
Demerara-Essequibo. Portland’s sugar estates were particularly exposed to the
resulting down-turn in the fortunes of exporters due to their location along a coastal
strip of marginal agricultural productivity. 33
Prospect was situated just a few miles from Port Antonio, along the East Town
river. 34 The plot occupied by the sugar estate was among the tracts of land allocated
sometime after 1772 by Jamaica’s Colonial Assembly. 35 The following pieces of
6

evidence indicate that Prospect was probably established around the time of the
Treaty of Paris (1783):
(1) Earnings from wartime victualling contracts may have financed Attlay’s purchase
of the estate.
(2) In February 1784, the sum of £40 was paid to Dugall McPherson for carrying out
a survey of the property: a task usually undertaken early in the operating life of a
plantation.
(3) The first recorded crop was harvested in 1784 and it usually took between four
and five seasons for a plantation to attain full production.
(4) In April of 1784, forty-three slaves were purchased to supplement the 114
workers already present on the Prospect at the beginning of the year. 36
Understanding of Prospect’s topography must remain limited in the absence of
either a detailed contemporary survey or data derived from archaeological fieldwork,
but some deductions can be drawn from the size of the enslaved population and the
quantity of sugar produced by the plantation. The estate’s labour force ranged from
141 to 162 workers during the years from 1785 until 1834, whereas output averaged
120 hogsheads per season between 1786 and 1790 (Tables 3 and 8). These
statistics imply that, once fully established, Prospect probably had between 160 and
180 acres planted in cane, since ratios of one slave per acre and two acres per
hogshead of sugar commonly described production on Jamaica’s sugar estates.
These estimates in turn suggest that Prospect occupied somewhere in the region of
480 and 540 acres in total on the assumption (again derived from contemporary
observations) that land was fairly equally divided between cane cultivation,
woodland, and pasture or provisioning. 37
Whilst the scale of cultivation on Prospect appears small relative to other
absentee owned properties, it may have been close to the average prevailing in
Jamaica’s sugar sector as a whole. A sample of estates surveyed between 1750 and
1839 suggests that the mean size of sugar estates (including woodland, provisions,
and pasture) lay in the region of c.1,060 acres. Plantations located near the coast
and established during the 1770s or early 1780s can be expected to have been
smaller than this average figure, since mean size increased over time. 38 Two
contemporary estimates of the average size of slave populations on the island’s
sugar estates exist: Edward Long gave a figure of 144 slaves in 1774, while Bryan
Edwards suggested 181 slaves was typical in 1789. In comparison, Jamaica’s
accounts produce returns for 1832 (prepared largely for estates owned by nonresidents),
record a higher average of 223 slaves per property. 39
Prospect thus fell somewhere between the minimum efficient scale required to
repay investment in a central crushing mill and distilling equipment, and a threshold
size of around 200 slaves that marked the point where a sugar plantation became
large enough to support a planter and his family in Britain. 40 The scale of cultivation
7

on the estate heightens, rather than diminishes, the significance of its records as an
historical source. A labour force of between 140 and 160 was still sufficient to render
the plantation one of the largest production units in the pre-industrial world.
Furthermore, a significant proportion of Jamaica’s enslaved experienced life and
work on agricultural units of similar scale. The slave registration returns for 1832
indicate that no less than 25.6 percent of the colony’s un-free population lived on
holdings that ranged in size from 101 to 200 slaves, whereas in Portland the
corresponding figure was 36.2 percent. 41 Surviving sources consist primarily of the
correspondence and accounts prepared by overseers and attorneys for British based
proprietors of larger estates. This evidence over-represents the bigger properties
because as size increased so too did the probability that a plantation would be
absentee owned. A valuable exception to this general rule is provided by the journals
and ledgers of Prospect Estate. Indeed, if Long’s and Edward’s observations are
accurate, Prospect could even be considered an ‘average’ Jamaican sugar plantation
in terms of its scale. 42
Plantation journals often give an illusory impression of completeness and
exactitude. 43 The manuscript volumes of Prospect share this characteristic: they list
the enslaved workers at regular intervals, provide annual accounts of births and
deaths, and record how the labour force was divided into smaller gangs, or work
groups, in order to accomplish specific tasks during the crop season. It must be
emphasised, however, that the conventions adopted by the overseers and
bookkeepers in compiling these records are nowhere stated clearly and the accuracy
of the entries is also difficult to ascertain. In consequence, the evidence must be
handled carefully by researchers.
An example of the kind of problem contained within the journals is provided by
the ‘net-purchases’ column in Table 3, which presents estimates of Prospect’s
enslaved population. The annual listings are not always consistent with the
statements of slave increase and decrease recorded in the records. One frequently
finds that there are more or less enslaved workers on the property at the beginning of
the calendar year than the accounts imply. The discrepancies partly arise from sales,
purchases, manumissions, and runaways that are not consistently enumerated in the
surviving sources. It must also be emphasised that Prospect was not the only
property owned by the Attlays and that transfers of slaves to and from Dirty Pit pen,
for example, were possible during the 1780s. Similarly, the influence of Thomas
Oakeley’s plantations in Portland parish must also be reckoned with early in the
nineteenth century (and possibly earlier). 44
Another significant deficiency in the records is that the journals fail to record
all vital events occurring on Prospect. The omissions are probably most serious in
the case of still-born babies and children dying a few days after birth. One interesting
entry records that Jamina (a boy) and Peggy were born on 5 and 7 December 1792,
but that both children died after only eight days of life. On some plantations, it is
known that overseers were instructed only to record the births and deaths of children
surviving for longer than a week. 45 The reference to these two babies suggests that
Prospect’s managers may have followed a similar practice. Whilst specific entries
8

may be deficient, however, the overall conclusion of Table 3 that Prospect was not
able to maintain itself by natural increase is sound. 46
Prospect’s journals state the causes of death in the case of sixty-seven
individuals dying between 1784 and 1792 (Table 6) This information provides an
additional perspective on survival, though it suffers from serious limitations. The data
excludes the very young, whilst forensic examinations and pathology were imprecise
sciences during the later eighteenth century. It must also be borne in mind that the
reports were compiled for an absentee owner anxious to understand how his
valuable capital (for this is how the enslaved were viewed) had been lost. The
Prospect entries, however, do not exhibit the signs of overt prejudice apparent on
other Jamaican properties. There are no instances, for example, of a slave dying
through ‘self-neglect’.
Diagnosis of mortality on Prospect can be compared with Worthy Park: a
larger and longer-established, inland sugar estate located in Lluidas Vale in the
central Jamaican parish of St. John. 47 The Worthy Park dataset is one of the largest
that has been assembled; it contains 401 entries, spanning the years from 1783 until
1838. Attributed causes of death on Prospect and Worthy Park share some
similarities. On both properties, ‘old age’ accounted for a large share of mortality:
22.2 percent on Worthy Park and 17.9 percent on Prospect. Yaws and ulcers (9.5
percent at Worthy Park and 11.9 percent of deaths on Prospect) were also major
killers; the acute sores and skin inflammations associated with this disease afflicted
many of the enslaved throughout their lives. A further similarity is the failure of each
data source to record female deaths during childbirth (perhaps the most notable
single omission). One striking difference is that Worthy Park’s deaths include
proportionately more cases of dysentery, fevers (including measles), gastro-intestinal
problems, influenza, and pneumonia. The likely reason for the disparity is that these
diseases accounted for a large number of infant deaths which are not as consistently
specified in Prospect’s accounts. 48
Sugar cultivation and rum production was carried out at Prospect using the
gang system: a method of allocating tasks used extensively on sugar estates in
Jamaica. 49 A detailed contemporary description of the tripartite gang system in use
on the island was published by Bryan Edwards in 1793. Edwards describes how the
first gang, consisting of women and men in relatively good physical condition, was
employed in clearing land, ‘holing’ the ground in preparation for sugar, and planting
the cane. During crop-time, workers from this group were also re-allocated to tend
the crushing mill and boiling houses at the works. Edwards suggested that on most
plantations a third of the labour force belonged to this set. He went on to explain that
the second gang was composed of children of both sexes, pregnant women, older
members of the enslaved population, and individuals convalescing after illness. This
group was employed in weeding cane fields and other ‘lighter’ work. The third gang
usually consisted of younger children. Edwards indicated that the children’s gang not
only performed useful tasks (such as weeding provision grounds and gathering
fodder to feed animals), but also that gang membership helped inculcate habits of
industry. 50 Each of the three groups was headed by a ‘driver’ and given a daily
9

collective task to perform; in the case of the children’s gang the driver also exercised
the responsibilities of a matron. 51
References in Prospect’s 1788 listing to the ‘head driver’ and ‘second driver’
make it clear that two adult gangs were formed out of the field slaves on Prospect, in
line with general practice on Jamaica. Prospect’s occupational listings also reveal
that a children’s gang existed and that boys and girls joined this group from the age
of six. During this period child labour was not a peculiarity of slavery. Outside of a
minority of upper and middling families, children were commonly put to work at
similar ages in Britain. By the same token, the transition of enslaved children to the
second gang ages at the ages of twelve or thirteen corresponded with the
commencement of child apprenticeships in many trades. 52
The plantation journals record one complete year (1788) and one nearly
complete year (1791) of work allocation. A comparison of the two listings, however,
reveals a curious anomaly. In 1788, some 63.6 percent of the enslaved population
are recorded as having taken part in productive labour. Yet for the year 1791, the
participation rate is equivalent to 89.6 percent (Table 7) of the total population! It is
difficult to accept the 1791 figure at face value since at least 22.7 percent of the
workforce in this year are described in the records as suffering from an illness or
incapacity of some kind.
Closer scrutiny of Prospect’s plantation book reveals that payments were
made for the hire of slaves from other plantations to assist with crop production. 53
Approximately 593 days’ labour were hired in 1788, compared with 2,017 days in
1789, 602 in 1790, and 646 in 1791. These data do not themselves explain the
anomaly in the participation rate, but they signify that entries in the journals need not
necessarily describe the work allocation of Prospect’s own slaves. The possibility of
bringing in workers from neighbouring properties owned by the Attlays (or their
kinsmen the Oakleys), or sending labour out to other estates, must also be reckoned
with.
The gender division of labour practised on the plantation may be one factor
accounting for the use of hired labour. Women formed a majority of field labourers on
Prospect: the occupational listing for 1792 records that females supplied two-thirds of
field slaves, with seventy-one percent of women were employed in this capacity. 54
Plantation regimes during the period of enslavement generally made extensive use of
female labour in the cultivation of export crops. 55 Work of this kind was physically
demanding and hired hands may have been used to supplement female field workers
during crop time, or possibly to replace women withdrawn temporarily from the
workforce to give birth to children.
The preceding pages have highlighted some of the conundrums contained
within Prospect’s plantation journals. Like all good historical sources, these records
often generate as many new problems as they offer solutions to old ones. The nonsurvival
of the correspondence between the owners and overseers of Prospect
makes the task of reconstructing the sugar estate’s history all the harder.
Nevertheless, closer scrutiny of this edition of Prospect’s records (coupled with a
10

igorous search for related manuscripts in archives across the world) will undoubtedly
result in the questioning of some aspects historians’ understanding of slavery, while
strengthening other hypotheses. For the imaginative and industrious, a world of
discovery awaits.
11
S.D. Smith
University of York
May, 2004. Revised October, 2005

Table 1
An Inventory of the Manuscripts of Prospect Estate at the Barclays Group Archives
(with catalogue references)
1. 0627-0015: Current account statement of Prospect Plantation with Thomas Oakeley. 31
December 1792 – 31 December 1793.
2. 0627-0017: Manuscript plantation journal for Prospect Estate (c.20.5 x c.32.5 cm) recording
daily tasks of the enslaved workers, increase or decrease of the slaves, and disposal of the
crop. 1 January 1785 – 31 December 1785.
3. 0627-0019: Six plantation journals for Prospect Estate (@ c.27.5 x c.43.0cm). Printed proforma
recording the daily tasks carried out by the enslaved workers (‘daily occurances’);
details of cane cutting and planting; listings of the enslaved with details of their ages,
employment, and an assessment of their physical condition; invoices of crop disposal; an
account of supplies required for the estate. 1 January 1787 – 31 December 1793.
4. 0627-0023: Day book and ledger (c.24.5 x c.39.0 cm) entitled ‘Prospect Plantation Book’
recording the island account of Prospect Estate; includes details of the increase or decrease
of the enslaved workforce, an inventory of livestock, and the disbursement of clothing and
other goods to the slaves. 1 January 1784 – March 1792.
5. 0627-0029: Receipt for building work carried out on Prospect Plantation by William Smith. 24
March 1788.
6. 0627-0044: Current account statement of Stephen Attlay Esq. With William and Thomas
Bond. 14 June 1785 – 30 April 1786.
7. 0627-0045: Will of Stephen Oakeley Attlay. 21 June 1817.
12

Table 2
Slavery and Sugar Cultivation in Portland Parish, 1734-1833
Year Enslaved
Population
% Annual
Growth Rate of
Slave
Population
13
% of all
Enslaved
Jamaicans in
Portland
Number of
Sugar Estates
1734 640 - 0.7 -
1740 775 +3.24 0.8 -
1745 1,235 +9.77 1.1 -
1761 2,354 +4.11 1.6 -
1768 2,813 +2.58 1.7 29
1789 4,537 +2.30 2.2 23
1804 na - - 33
1823 8,018 +1.69 2.5 -
1833 7,267 -0.98 2.4 25
Source: Michael Craton, Searching for the Invisible Man: Slaves and Plantation Life in Jamaica
(Cambridge Massachusetts and London, 1978), 34-9.

Table 3
The Enslaved Population of Prospect Estate, 1784-1834
Year a Population Births Deaths Net-Purchases f
1784 114 5 5 41
1785 157 9 7 3
1786 161 b 7 6 9
1787 162 c 2 10 -8
1788 154 0
1789 150 7 11 0
1790 148 d 5 7 0
1791 142 e 4 10 0
1792 139 2 5 9
1793 148 7 7
48 68 54
1817 159 0
1820 146 12 25 0
1823 150 11 7 0
1826 146 10 14 -2
1829 144 12 12 -3
1832 141 0
1834 141 2 2
47 60 -5
Notes: a Population total at 1 January 1784-1793, 28 June 1817-1832, and 11 September 1834. b
Population totals 163 at 20 December 1786 (inventory) c Population totals 156 on 28 June and
28 September (vestry return). d Population totals 140 and 142 on 28 September and 28
December (vestry return).
e Population totals 142 and 143 on 28 March and 28 June (vestry return). f A negative figure
indicates either slave sales, manumission, runaways, or transfer to other plantations or urban
workplaces (additional details are lacking). For example: population 1785 + (deaths 1785 –
births 1785) – population 1784 = 41.
Sources: Barclays Group Archive, 0627-0017, 0627-0019, 0627-0023; Jamaica Archives, Spanish
Town, IB/11/3, vol. 70, pp.215; PRO T71/151, 152, 153, 154, 996.
14

Table 4
Age Structure of Prospect’s Enslaved Population, 1788 and 1817
Age
Range
1788 1817
Males Females Males Females
0-10 26 15 13 13
11-20 13 23 7 11
21-30 14 27 18 16
31-40 16 9 30 19
41-50 8 6 8 5
51-60 2 0 5 8
+61 1 0 2 4
Totals 80 80 83 76
Sources: Barclays Group Archive, 0627-0019; PRO T71/151.
15

1 Jan
1784
Table 5
Demographic Profile of Prospect Estate, 1784-1790
Purchased
April
1784
1 Jan
1785
1 Jan
1786
16
1 Jan
1787
1 Jan
1788
1 Jan
1789
1 Jan
1790
Men 38 18 54 53 50 44 37 34
Women 45 11 55 54 53 51 49 46
Boys 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Small Boys 6 2 8 8 7 7 7 7
Girls 7 6 6 5 5 5 5
Small Girls 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Male
Children
Female
Children
13 15 21 25 26 30 32
5 7 7 10 9 10 13
Totals 114 43 157 161 162 154 150 149
Source: Barclays Group Archive, 0627-0017, 0627-0019, 0627-0023.

Table 6
Causes of Death on Prospect Estate, 1784-1792
Diagnosis All Deaths Male Deaths Female Deaths Gender Not
Stated
Coco Bays a 1 0 1 0
Swelling 5 2 3 0
Dirt Eating b 3 2 1 0
Consumption 2 2 0 0
Flux c 2 1 1 0
Dropsy d 3 3 0 0
Accidents e 2 2 0 0
Fever 3 0 3 0
Fits 1 0 1 0
Rupture f 2 2 0 0
Smallpox 1 0 0 1
Ulcer 2 1 1 0
Venereal Disease 1 1 0 0
Yaws g 6 4 1 1
Died in Infancy h 14 8 2 4
Old Age 12 6 6 0
Others i 2 1 1 0
Not Stated 5 3 2 0
TOTALS 67 38 23 6
Notes:
a Arabian leprosy.
b Possibly nutritional deprivation or beriberi
c Dysentery or diarrhoea.
d Fluid retention.
e ‘Drowned in the dam by going to wash’ (1 male); ‘Poisoned by eating fish’ (1 male).
f Hernia.
g Non-venereal syphilis.
h Died aged five and under, or described as ‘child’.
i ‘Died after a sickness of 10 months’ (1 female); ‘died in the plantain walk’ (1 male)
Source: As for Table 5.
17

Tables 7a and 7b
Work Allocation in 1787 and 1791
8a) 1787
Month (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Totals
18
Totals
minus (g+h)
Jan 40 7 5 7 39 6 17 0 121 104
Feb 40 7 5 7 36 11 14 0 120 106
Mar 56 7 5 7 17 6 22 0 119 97
Apr 58 7 5 7 19 6 17 0 119 102
May 57 7 5 7 19 6 17 0 119 102
June 58 7 5 7 17 6 16 1 117 100
July 58 7 5 7 17 6 14 1 116 101
Aug 58 7 5 7 17 6 15 1 116 100
Sep 57 7 5 7 17 6 15 1 115 99
Oct 57 7 5 7 17 6 16 0 115 99
Nov 57 7 5 7 19 6 16 0 115 99
Dec 55 7 5 7 19 6 18 0 115 97

7b) 1791
Month (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Totals
19
Totals
minus (g+h)
Jan 64 4 4 7 13 2 6 0 142 136
Feb 60 4 4 7 12 4 3 0 142 139
Mar 60 4 4 7 12 2 5 0 141 136
Apr na na na na na na na na na na
May 60 4 4 7 13 2 3 0 142 139
June 60 4 4 7 12 0 3 0 142 139
July 58 4 4 7 13 0 5 0 141 136
Aug 58 4 4 7 13 2 0 0 141 141
Sep 58 4 4 7 13 2 0 0 141 141
Oct 58 4 4 7 13 2 3 0 139 136
Nov 59 4 4 7 13 2 3 1 139 135
Dec 58 4 4 7 13 0 5 1 139 133
Note: The enslaved population numbered 162 on 1 January and 154 on 31 December 1787; 142 on 1
January and 139 on 31 December 1791.
Key:
(a) In the field and about the works.
(b) Tradesmen.
(c) Stock-keepers.
(d) Watchmen and rat catchers.
(e) Small gang, mostly children.
(f) Different jobs (miscellaneous).
(g) In the hot house/suffering from yaws.
(h) Runaways
Source: Barclays Group Archive, 0627-0019, Prospect Plantation Journals.

Crop
Season
Table 8
Crop Invoices for Prospect Estate, 1784-1790
Sugar
Shipments
(hogsheads)
Retail
Sugar Sales
(lb)
20
Rum
Production
(puncheons) a
1784 84 0 33
1785 75 640 28
1786 103 900 44
1787 130 350 63
1788 107 1,326 38
1789 130 967 55
1790 130 550 58
Note: a The puncheon is reckoned to contain an average of 111 gallons (derived from the plantation
accounts). Overseers only recorded in the journals output that generated an income stream
for Prospect’s owners. The data in the table, therefore, takes no account of the provisions
raised by the enslaved for their own consumption and the trading of surplus production in Port
Antonio and other local markets. For a discussion of the significance of non-staple produce
grown and marketed outside of the direct control of a plantation’s owners or managers, see
Sidney W. Mintz and Douglas Hall, The Origins of the Jamaican Internal Marketing System,
Yale University Publications in Anthropology, no. 57 )New Haven, 1960).
Source: Barclays Group Archive, 0627-0023, Prospect Plantation Book.

NOTES
1 The author is indebted to David Smith for first drawing his attention to the records of
Prospect Estate. He is also grateful to Jessie Campbell (former chief archivist) and the staff
of the Barclays Group Archive for research assistance, to Paul Knights and Roderic Vassie
of Microform for overseeing the microfilming of the documents and the preparation of the
introduction, and to Michelle Craig McDonald, Douglas Hamilton, Barry Higman, Henry
Oakeley, Barbara M. Philpott, and James Robertson for their generous advice on specific
points arising during the course of research. Study of Prospect Estate was originally
undertaken in order to provide post-graduates studying at the University of York with access
to documentary records illustrative of enslavement. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the
enthusiasm of graduate students taking the module ‘Slaves and Slavery’ for this project.
2 A gap in the historical record between 1793 and 1817 prevents a comprehensive
enumeration of the population. The figure of 162 is the peak number recorded during the
years 1784-93 and 1817-38.
3 For more detailed analysis of Prospect’s demographic history, see S.D. Smith, ‘Life and
Labour on a Jamaican Sugar Plantation: Prospect Estate, 1784-1832’, Wadabagei: A Journal
of the Caribbean and its Diaspora (forthcoming, 2006).
4 See Table 1, items 0627-0017, 0627-0019, 0627-0023.
5 Regrettably, a lack of resources has prevented the author from conducting fieldwork
personally in Jamaica’s archives where additional information undoubtedly exists (references
to records in Jamaican archives in this introduction were kindly supplied by Michelle Craig
McDonald).
6 P.W. Matthews and Anthony W. Tuke, History of Barclays Bank Limited (London, 1926), 68.
The reference to the date ‘1784’ makes it clear that Matthews and Tuke refer to the owner of
Prospect Estate. In passing, it can be noted that the Barclays Archive appears to contain
only two other manuscripts containing information about West Indian slavery: items 0009-
0197, ‘Deeds Relating to Plantations in Grenada, 1825-6’ and 0627-0019, ‘Small Notebook
Containing the History of the Wadman Family’.
7 Barclays’ Connection, Issue 11 (October, 2001), 15. It was this reference that David Smith
brought to the author’s attention and which initiated the present project.
8
Peter Manning, The Origin and Early History of Barclays Bank in Pall Mall (London, 1985),
5-9.
9 Barclays Group Archives, Manchester, 003-0234, Records found at the Pall Mall Branch,
Ledger, Current Account No. P, A-F, 1 January 1802 - 31 December 1803 (the account
records a balance carried over from 1801).
10
S.D. Smith, ‘Merchants and Planters Revisited’, Economic History Review, vol. lv (2002),
448.
11
An example of the letters written by London commission merchants to their planter
correspondence is The Lascelles and Maxwell Letter Books (1739-1769) ed. S.D. Smith
21

(Wakefield, 2002), also available from Microform Academic Publishers. The great tragedy of
the Lascelles and Maxwell archive is that up until a German bombing raid of 1940, this
collection of material was substantially complete.
12 Barclays Group Archives, 0003-0234 and 0003-0235, Ledgers, Current Accounts of
Ransom and Hammersley, 1 January 1802 - 31 December 1802 and 1 December 1803 to 31
December 1803 (the first entry records a balance carried forward from 1801); 0627-0045,
Account Current of Stephen Attlay with Thomas and William Bond, 22 October 1785 - 30
April 1786.
13 National Archives [NA]: Public Record Office [PRO], Prob11/1,140, Will of Stephen Attlay,
proved 27 April 1786; 0627-0045, Account Current of Stephen Attlay with William and
Thomas Bond, 1785-6. According to his will, Attlay resided at Chesham House,
Hertfordshire.
14 Jamaica Archives, Spanishtown, Jamaica, Accounts Produce, 1B/11.
15 Christian Buchet, Marine Économie et Société: Un exemple d’interaction: l’avitaillement de
la Royal Navy Durant la guerre de sept ans (Paris, 1999), 149, 161.
16 National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, ADM/30, Admiralty Board In-letters from
Victualling Commissioners’, 18 February 1757; 0627-0045, Account Current of Stephen
Attlay with Thomas and William Bond. The Bonds’ account records payment of £10 on 21
April 1786 to a Mr. Smith at the victualling office ‘on Account of his extraordinary Trouble in
several late Applications to the Board for Expedition in the Business of the extra Allowance to
get it through the Office before Mr Attlays decease was Known’. On the victualling trade, see
Douglas Hamilton, ‘Private Enterprise and Public Service: Naval Contracting in the
Caribbean, 1720-50’Journal for Maritime Research, www.jmr.nmm.ac.uk (April, 2004).
17 Jamaica Archives, IB/11/3, vol. 70, pp.215.
18 The inventory lists 159 slaves. The total of 162 cited in the text is reached by deducting
one runaway and adding four un-named babies listed with their mothers. Two plantations
named Brown’s lay within Portland’s boundary; a third was situated on the boundary of
Portland and Surrey, J. Robertson, Map of Jamaica and the County of Surrey (London,
1804).
19 Jamaica Archives, IB/11/3, vol. 70, pp.215. Little is known about Stephen Attlay’s English
property. The will and the inventory refer to Chesham or Chesnut House in Hertfordshire, but
whether this was owned or rented is not clear. It is also possible that the family owned
property in Dorset (see below).
20 Barclays Group Archive, 0003-0234 and 0003-0235, Ledgers, Current Accounts of
Ransom and Hammersley; 0627-0044, ‘Will of Stephen Oakeley Attlay Esq.’ dated 21 June
1817; Plymouth and West Devon Record Office, Bayly-Bartlett Papers, business records,
Teignmouth and Shaldon Bridge Company, 242/4/17 (1825) and 242/4/18 (1827). It is
interesting that in his last will and testament of 5 July 1837 (by which time his wife had died
and his children had married), Oakeley Attlay left a smaller legacy of £2,850 to his daughter
and the residue of the estate to his son Stephen Oakeley Attlay (junior), NA: PRO Prob
11/1911, proved 10 June 1839. Possibly his finances had deteriorated (see below), but it is
22

also possible that resources had been transferred to his son and daughter at an earlier point
(for example, at the time of their marriages).
21 The parish vestry was the unit of local government in Jamaica. Slave and livestock returns
could be used as the basis of tax levies. After 1792, overseers were also required by law to
provide details of births and deaths among the enslaved population each year.
22 Information supplied by Mrs. Barbara M. Philpott (based on ‘Will of Richard Oakeley’,
dated 19 May 1796 and proved 14 February 1820, Hereford Record Office, and Edward
Francis Oakeley, The Oakeley Pedigree [London, 1934] ); Triennial Slave Registration
Returns for Portland Parish, Jamaica, PRO T71/151 (1817), T71/152 (1820), T71/153
(1823), T71/154 (1826). Richard Oakeley’s will recorded that the testator had ‘in my lifetime
transmitted to my brother Thomas in Jamaica the sum of two hundred and eighty pounds for
the use of my son Thomas Oakeley’. Thomas Oakeley Jr. married firstly a Miss King in
Jamaica, and, secondly (in 1816, at Lydart House, Monmouthshire), Elizabeth Pearce
daughter of local landowner Joseph Pearce Esq. of Staveton House, Gloucestershire.
23 The best known representatives of the main branch of Oakeleys are Sir Charles Oakeley
(1751-1826) and his son the Revd. Frederick Oakeley (1802-1880). As Governor of Madras
(1792-4), Sir Charles Oakeley established the Madras observatory and meteorological
institute. Revd. Frederick Oakeley translated adeste fidelis into the hymnal ‘O Come, All Ye
Faithful’. The scientific and intellectual activities of the Oakeleys would repay further study.
24 1851 Census of England and Wales, parish returns for Mitchel Troy; NA:PRO Prob
11/1569, Will of Parnell Oakeley, dated [illegible] November 1814; proved 19 June 1815. The
will includes the bequest of an annuity of £200 to her daughter by Charlotte Landon, to be
paid out of the annual proceeds of Prospect Estate
25 Register of Compensation Claims, Portland Parish, Jamaica, NA:PRO T71/868, claim No.
36.
26 In a letter to Robert Govett, written c.1841, Attlay railed against ‘this irreligious and anti-
Clerical City’, Norwich Record Office, Records of Norwich Surrey Chapel, Undenominational,
Papers of Robert Govett, Attlay to Govett, FC 76/89.
27 Jamaica Almanac, 1838.
28 Plymouth and West Devon Record Office, Parish Registers of Hatherleigh (Exmouth). The
entries record the baptism of ‘Grace, a blackamore’ 13 Mary 1604 and ‘Rebecca, a base
daughter of Grace, a Negro’, 10 August 1606.
29 Mean annual rainfall in Portland parish is more than 100 inches, exceeding the range of 60
to 70 inches considered ideal for sugar cultivation, Michael Craton, Searching for the
Invisible Man: Slaves and Plantation Life in Jamaica (Cambridge Massachusetts and
London, 1978), 9.
30 Craton, Invisible Man, 16. The Maroons were a community of runaway slaves, who
intermarried with survivors of the original native American inhabitants of Jamaica. The wars
were concluded by the negotiation of a treaty between the Maroons and the white colonists.
31 Craton, Invisible Man, 34.
23

32 Craton, Invisible Man, 39.
33 Barry W. Higman, Slave Population and Economy in Jamaica, 1807-1834 (Cambridge,
1976), 19-20. Higman’s analysis of the 1832 Accounts Produce returns reveal that of
seventeen sugar estates in Portland, only one property generated receipts in excess of £30
per slave and the map of estate production indicates a marked decline in earnings along the
north-east coastlines of Portland and St. Thomas-in-the-East. The debts carried by Prospect
at the time of emancipation may well reflect difficult conditions after 1803.
34 Robertson, Map of Jamaica.
35 [Stephen Fuller], Proceedings of the Honourable House of Assembly of Jamaica on the
Sugar and Slave Trade (London, 1793), 40.
36 Barclays Group Archive, 0627-0023, ‘Day book and ledger, 1 January 1784 - March 1792’,
f.9b. McPherson’s survey does not survive among the maps and plans preserved in the
National Library of Jamaica. Only one example of this surveyor’s work is known: a plan of
Long Bay and Hartford Estates in Portland, dated 1783. It includes a bearing across Long
Bay from the ‘Fair Prospect’ pastures. See Higman (1988: 57-8). The author is grateful to
Professor Higman for confirming the accuracy of these details. The crops for 1784 and 1785
were about one-third of the average crop between 1786 and 1790 (Table 8).
37 For estimates of land-labour and land-yield ratios, see Bryan Edwards, The History, Civil
and Commercial, of the British Colonies in the West Indies (2 vols; Dublin, 1793), vol. ii, 279-
81. The plantation journals record that, during the years from 1787 until 1793, between 35
acres and 48 acres were planted in cane, Barclays Group Archive, 0627 0019, volumes 1-6.
If these entries refer to all the land planted in sugar cane, Prospect would have been a very
small plantation. A sample of 101 estate plans between 1750 and 1839 suggests that the
linear equation -6.73 acres + (4.134 x acres in cane) describes the approximate relationship
between area planted in cane and total area, B. W. Higman, ‘The Spatial Economy of
Jamaican Sugar Plantations: Cartographic Evidence from the Eighteenth and Nineteenth
Centuries’, Journal of Historical Geography, vol. 13 (1987), 26. This equation implies that
Prospect contained just 165 acres! The journals may, however, record only new plantings of
cane or they may simply under-record planting.
38 Estates situated away from the coast faced higher transport costs and Craton has
suggested that they needed to be larger in scale to compensate, Craton, Invisible Man, 1.
39 Higman, Slave Population, 13 and ‘Spatial Economy’, 26; Craton, Invisible Man, 15, 17.
40 Eric Williams, Capitalism and Slavery (London, 1964), 85-97.
41 Higman, Slave Population, 70. These data include coffee plantations, livestock pens, and
other crop combinations which, it is generally believed, employed a smaller labour force than
sugar. A similar size distribution is recorded in 1828 when 38.5% of properties in Portland
had labour forces of between 100 and 199 slaves, compared with 27.5% across all regions of
Jamaica, Craton, Invisible Man, 39.
42 By way of illustration, two of the most studied Jamaican sugar estates are Worthy Park and
Montpelier. The enslaved population of Worthy Park reached 500 by 1800, while Old
24

Montpelier had 426 slaves in 1817 and New Montpelier 303 slaves, Craton, Invisible Man,
48; Barry Higman, Montpelier Jamaica: A Plantation Community in Slavery and Freedom,
1739-1912 (Kingston, Jamaica, 1998), 37. See also Michael Craton and James Walvin, A
Jamaican Plantation: A History of Worthy Park, 1670-1970 (London, 1970).
43
For a discussion of the general problems of interpreting plantation records, see Craton,
Invisible Man, 387-93.
44 For interplay between Prospect and Dirty Pen, see Barclays Archive 0627-0023, October
1782, f.2. In addition, a few slaves were sent to Port Antonio to handle the export crop or to
learn a trade. The slave listing of 1788 records that Scotland and Wiltshire were ‘at trade’
(Scotland is later described as a carpenter), while the 1793 list states that two slaves,
Sawney and Elick, were ‘at the Folly Point’ (Folly Point was located at the head of the
peninsula guarding the harbour of Port Antonio), Barclays Archive, 0627-019.
45 Higman, Slave Population, 48-9; Craton, Invisible Man, 87.
46
In the case of babies living only a short time, the unknown deaths cancel out the unknown
births.
47 Craton, Michael, ‘Death, Disease, and Medicine on the Jamaican Slave Plantations: the
Example of Worthy Park, 1767-1838’, Histoire-Sociale – Social History (1976), 18, 237-55.
48 In both datasets, the proportion of deaths of infants and children aged five or under
accounted for roughly one fifth of total recorded mortality.
49 Philip D. Morgan, ‘Task and Gang Systems: The Organisation of Labor on New World
Plantations’, in Stephen Innes ed., Work and Labor in Early America (North Carolina, 1988),
192-3, 204; Higman, Slave Population, 23-4.
50 Edwards, History, vol. ii, 128-129.
51 Flora is named the ‘driver after the children’ in the 1793 occupational listing. In 1788, Flora
was described as a field slave, in 1791 as a ‘field cook’, and in 1792 as a driver. Her age is
given as forty years in 1788, and, as an older woman in Prospect’s population, it is not
surprising that there is no record of her giving birth between 1784 and 1793.
52 Joan Lane, Apprenticeship in England, 1600-1914 (London,1996), 18.
53 Barclays Group Archive, 0627-0023.
54
In other lists the proportion of female field labourers is less, but always well in excess of
50%.
55
Marietta Morissey, Slave Women in the New World: Gender Stratification in the Caribbean
(Kansas, 1989), 7, 9, 37, 65-75.
25