From the outset of their arrival in Britain, the Romanies were regarded with fear and suspicion, no doubt because of their dark complexion and foreign appearance that was far different to the local English population in the 16th century. England began to deport Romanichal Gypsies as early as (1544), principally to Norway, [13][14] a process that was continued and encouraged by Elisabeth I and James I. [15] In (1603) an Order in Counsel was requested to transport Romanichal to Newfoundland, the West Indies, France, Germany, Spain and the Low Countries. European countries forced the further transportation of the British Romani to the Americas.
In the years following the American Wars of Independence, Australia was the preferred destination for Romanichal transportation, as it's use as a penal colony.
In the 17th century Oliver Cromwell shipped Romanichal Gypsies as slaves to the American southern plantations [26] and there is documentation of English Gypsies being owned by freed black slaves in Jamaica, Barbados and in both Cuba and Louisiana. [27][28][29] Gypsies, according to the legal definition which was anyone identifying themselves to be (Egyptians) or Gypsies.
The last form of enforced servitude (villeinage) had disappeared in Britain by the beginning of the 17th century.
Slavery resurfaced in that century as a form of punishment against Catholics. As many as 100,000 Irish men, women and children were forcibly taken to the colonies in the British West Indies and British North America as indentured servants after the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland.[7] In the 17th century, slavery was used as punishment by conquering English Parliament armies against native Catholics in Ireland. Between the years 1659 and 1663, during the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland by the New Model Army, under the command of Oliver Cromwell, thousands of Irish Catholics were forced into servitude. Cromwell had a deep dislike of the Catholic religion, and many Irish Catholics who had participated in Confederate Ireland had all their land confiscated and were transported to the British West Indies as indentured servants.
Occasionally, Scottish Highlanders and other Scotsmen were forcibly taken and transported abroad at this time. The need for labour in the Virginia plantations and West Indies encouraged planters and their agents to "press gang" unwary or naïve locals onto ships, bound for the Americas. Once at their destination, these people were indentured to plantation owners against their will. They were released eventually, unlike Africans similarly employed. Many made enough money to buy passage back to Scotland, whence they had come. These actions were justified on the basis that the persons in question were labelled as indigent, and under a 1652 law such people could be deported to overseas colonies.
It is also on record that a considerable number of Highland Jacobite supporters, who had been captured in the aftermath of Culloden and subsequently the rigorous Government sweeps of the Highlands to root out Jacobite fugitives and transgressors of the new laws against Highland culture itself, languished in fetid prison hulks on the River Thames for months, until sentenced to transportation to the Carolinas as indentured servants/slaves. [15
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain_and_Ireland
Showing posts with label colonies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label colonies. Show all posts
Gilbert Baillie, gypsy, prisoner in Edinburgh, Tolbooth, transported from Greenock to N.Y., 21 Oct. 1682, ETR
John Baillie, gypsy, d.o. from Greenock to N.Y., same date
Robert Baillie, gypsy & thief, prisoner in Dumfries Tolbooth, 5-1-1739, banished to plantations in America for life
Jean Brown, gypsy & thief, prisoner, as above
Mary & Peter Faa, gypsies, prisoners in Jedburgh Tolbooth banished from there 30 Nov. 1714, transported via Glasgow on a Grennock ship…to Virginia
Jean Hutson, gypsy & thief, prisoner in Dumfries to America for life…1 May 1739
Mary Robertson, gypsy, prisoner in Jedburgh, 9-1-1715 to Virginia
English surnames which show up in various works on the Gypsies include Bailey, Belcher, Boswell, Brown, Green, Robinson, Robson, Roberts, Smith, Stanley, and Sutherland, among others. The descendants of such early settlers would be justified in believing that their ancestors - who bore English and Scottish surnames and arrived on these shores in English ships – were indeed “English” or “Scottish.” But the reality of their true ethnic origins can be found with just a little digging…
Around 1000 A.D., Gypsies, who had originated in India, migrated westward to Turkey where they still reside in significant numbers, and then fanned out again into the Balkans, Eastern Europe, and, finally northern Europe.
Gypsies probably reached the British Isles by the year 1500, travelling to trade, work in metals or entertain for a living......In the British Isles we have four groups - in their own languages: Romanichals (English Gypsies), Kale (Welsh Gypsies), Nawkens (Scottish Travellers/Gypsies) and Minceir (Irish Travellers). Together they number around 100,000 in the UK, about half nomadic."
http://www.melungeons.com/articles/jun2004.htm
John Baillie, gypsy, d.o. from Greenock to N.Y., same date
Robert Baillie, gypsy & thief, prisoner in Dumfries Tolbooth, 5-1-1739, banished to plantations in America for life
Jean Brown, gypsy & thief, prisoner, as above
Mary & Peter Faa, gypsies, prisoners in Jedburgh Tolbooth banished from there 30 Nov. 1714, transported via Glasgow on a Grennock ship…to Virginia
Jean Hutson, gypsy & thief, prisoner in Dumfries to America for life…1 May 1739
Mary Robertson, gypsy, prisoner in Jedburgh, 9-1-1715 to Virginia
English surnames which show up in various works on the Gypsies include Bailey, Belcher, Boswell, Brown, Green, Robinson, Robson, Roberts, Smith, Stanley, and Sutherland, among others. The descendants of such early settlers would be justified in believing that their ancestors - who bore English and Scottish surnames and arrived on these shores in English ships – were indeed “English” or “Scottish.” But the reality of their true ethnic origins can be found with just a little digging…
Around 1000 A.D., Gypsies, who had originated in India, migrated westward to Turkey where they still reside in significant numbers, and then fanned out again into the Balkans, Eastern Europe, and, finally northern Europe.
Gypsies probably reached the British Isles by the year 1500, travelling to trade, work in metals or entertain for a living......In the British Isles we have four groups - in their own languages: Romanichals (English Gypsies), Kale (Welsh Gypsies), Nawkens (Scottish Travellers/Gypsies) and Minceir (Irish Travellers). Together they number around 100,000 in the UK, about half nomadic."
http://www.melungeons.com/articles/jun2004.htm
Barbados served as an entrepôt for the distribution of slaves to other British territories
Barbados served as an entrepôt for the distribution of slaves to other British territories in the western hemisphere for many years. Whether ultimately bound for Virginia, Jamaica or elsewhere, large numbers of slaves passed first of all through that island (Hancock, 1980b). However, while the designations Gypsy, Gypcian, Egyptian, &c., turn up in the records of transportation located in Britain, nothing similar appears anywhere in the documents examined in Barbados.
Nevertheless, an examination of the lists of transportees found in these works and in the Barbados Records indicated that a great number of individuals bearing Romanichal (British Gypsy) surnames did in fact arrive in Barbados: the names occurring include Boswell, Cook/Cooke, Hern/Herne/Heron, Lee/Leek, Locke, Palmer, Penfold/Pinfold, Price, Scot/Scott, Smith and Ward, ranging from one Pinfold to nine Boswells to over a hundred Smiths. Only a small percentage of these were likely to have been Gypsies, of course. Sometimes, a further clue was provided by the county of origin of the individual, where given (Cookes from Middlesex and Kent), or by occupation (Boswell, a blacksmith), but these must also be considered non-conclusive.
So far, only one reference to Gypsies as a discrete group in the West Indies, and referred to as such, has been located, and that from Jamaica:
I have known many gipsies [to be] subject from the age of eleven to thirty to the prostitution and lust of overseers, book-keepers, negroes, &c., to be taken into keeping by gentlemen, who paid exorbitant hire for their use (Moreton, 1793:130).
http://www.geocities.com/~patrin/pariah-ch12.htm
Nevertheless, an examination of the lists of transportees found in these works and in the Barbados Records indicated that a great number of individuals bearing Romanichal (British Gypsy) surnames did in fact arrive in Barbados: the names occurring include Boswell, Cook/Cooke, Hern/Herne/Heron, Lee/Leek, Locke, Palmer, Penfold/Pinfold, Price, Scot/Scott, Smith and Ward, ranging from one Pinfold to nine Boswells to over a hundred Smiths. Only a small percentage of these were likely to have been Gypsies, of course. Sometimes, a further clue was provided by the county of origin of the individual, where given (Cookes from Middlesex and Kent), or by occupation (Boswell, a blacksmith), but these must also be considered non-conclusive.
So far, only one reference to Gypsies as a discrete group in the West Indies, and referred to as such, has been located, and that from Jamaica:
I have known many gipsies [to be] subject from the age of eleven to thirty to the prostitution and lust of overseers, book-keepers, negroes, &c., to be taken into keeping by gentlemen, who paid exorbitant hire for their use (Moreton, 1793:130).
http://www.geocities.com/~patrin/pariah-ch12.htm
Gypsy Slaves
many Gipsies were banished to America in colonial times, from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, sometimes for merely being 'by habit and repute' Gipsies, is beyond dispute ... Gipsies may be said to have been in America almost from the time of its settlement (1865:418).
the earliest actual document known to us, dates from the time of the administration of Oliver Cromwell's successor, his son Richard, when the first trans-Atlantic expulsion of Gypsies was instituted:
In 1661 'Commissions and Instructions' were issued anew to justices and constables, by Act of Parliament, with the view of arresting Gypsies ... a great many Gypsies must have been deported to the British 'plantations' in Virginia, Jamaica and Barbadoes during the second half of the seventeenth century. That they had there to undergo a temporary, if not 'perpetual' servitude, seems very likely (MacRitchie, 1894:102).
A reference dated November, 1665, comments upon the motives for indenturing Gypsies and others in this way:
The light regard paid to the personal right of individuals was shown by a wholesale deportation of poor people at this time to the West Indies ... out of a desire as weel to promote the Scottish and English plantations in Gemaica and Barbadoes for the honour of their country, as to free the kingdom of the burden of many strong and idle beggars, Egyptians, common and notorious thieves, and other dissolute and looss persons banished and stigmatised for gross crimes (Chambers, 1858:304).
In 1714, British merchants and planters applied to the Privy Council for permission to ship Gypsies to the Caribbean, avowedly to be used as slaves (MacRitchie, op. cit.), and in the following year, according to a document dated January 1st, 1715,
Prisoners ... were sentenced ... to be transported to the plantations for being [by] habit and repute gipsies ... On the said gipsies coming here the town was brought under a burden [and] they had used endeavours with several merchants who have ships now going abroad [i.e., to transport them as slaves], for which they are to receive thirteen pounds sterling (Memorabilia, 1835:424-426). Among the family names of those individuals were Faa, Fenwick, Lindsey, Stirling, Robertson, Ross and Yorstoun.
Gypsies, according to the legal definition which was in effect throughout this period in England, included "all such persons not being Fellons wandering and pretending [i.e. identifying themselves to be Egypcians, or wandering in the Habite, Forme or Attyre] counterfayte Egypcians" (Statutes, Eliz., 39.c.4, quoted in Smith, 1971:109. See also Axon, 1897, passim, and Beier, 1985:58-62).
the earliest actual document known to us, dates from the time of the administration of Oliver Cromwell's successor, his son Richard, when the first trans-Atlantic expulsion of Gypsies was instituted:
In 1661 'Commissions and Instructions' were issued anew to justices and constables, by Act of Parliament, with the view of arresting Gypsies ... a great many Gypsies must have been deported to the British 'plantations' in Virginia, Jamaica and Barbadoes during the second half of the seventeenth century. That they had there to undergo a temporary, if not 'perpetual' servitude, seems very likely (MacRitchie, 1894:102).
A reference dated November, 1665, comments upon the motives for indenturing Gypsies and others in this way:
The light regard paid to the personal right of individuals was shown by a wholesale deportation of poor people at this time to the West Indies ... out of a desire as weel to promote the Scottish and English plantations in Gemaica and Barbadoes for the honour of their country, as to free the kingdom of the burden of many strong and idle beggars, Egyptians, common and notorious thieves, and other dissolute and looss persons banished and stigmatised for gross crimes (Chambers, 1858:304).
In 1714, British merchants and planters applied to the Privy Council for permission to ship Gypsies to the Caribbean, avowedly to be used as slaves (MacRitchie, op. cit.), and in the following year, according to a document dated January 1st, 1715,
Prisoners ... were sentenced ... to be transported to the plantations for being [by] habit and repute gipsies ... On the said gipsies coming here the town was brought under a burden [and] they had used endeavours with several merchants who have ships now going abroad [i.e., to transport them as slaves], for which they are to receive thirteen pounds sterling (Memorabilia, 1835:424-426). Among the family names of those individuals were Faa, Fenwick, Lindsey, Stirling, Robertson, Ross and Yorstoun.
Gypsies, according to the legal definition which was in effect throughout this period in England, included "all such persons not being Fellons wandering and pretending [i.e. identifying themselves to be Egypcians, or wandering in the Habite, Forme or Attyre] counterfayte Egypcians" (Statutes, Eliz., 39.c.4, quoted in Smith, 1971:109. See also Axon, 1897, passim, and Beier, 1985:58-62).
The Stamp Act
George Grenville knows that the Sugar Act won't generate enough revenue in the colonies, and so he instructs his secretary in the Treasury, Thomas Whately, to draft legislation for a new tax. This duty will require that a wide range of legal and trade documents, as well as newspapers and even dice, carry official stamps.
At the same time, and into February 1765, colonial agents meet with Grenville. The colonists, they insist, are loyal subjects; they are willing to raise a revenue in proper constitutional form, through their own legislatures. But Grenville turns a deaf ear, Parliament refuses to entertain colonial petitions, and the Stamp Act easily passes in March.
Toward the end of May, news of the act reaches the colonies. The Virginia House of Burgesses, ready to adjourn, rushes through a set of resolutions protesting the tax.
After 1 November 1765, the date the Stamp Act is due to go into effect, and throughout the early months of 1766, public life is in disarray. The stamps required to conduct business legally are locked away, and officials debate whether ports and courts should close or remain open. Colonists groan under the burden of the Stamp Act's restrictions and the fear of disobeying it. In England, sympathetic merchants, eager to reestablish a free flow of trade and to regain their former profits, lobby Parliament to rescind the tax on the colonies. After lengthy consideration, Parliament votes to revoke the tax, and when the glorious news reaches the colonies, church bells ring.
Masshist.org
At the same time, and into February 1765, colonial agents meet with Grenville. The colonists, they insist, are loyal subjects; they are willing to raise a revenue in proper constitutional form, through their own legislatures. But Grenville turns a deaf ear, Parliament refuses to entertain colonial petitions, and the Stamp Act easily passes in March.
Toward the end of May, news of the act reaches the colonies. The Virginia House of Burgesses, ready to adjourn, rushes through a set of resolutions protesting the tax.
After 1 November 1765, the date the Stamp Act is due to go into effect, and throughout the early months of 1766, public life is in disarray. The stamps required to conduct business legally are locked away, and officials debate whether ports and courts should close or remain open. Colonists groan under the burden of the Stamp Act's restrictions and the fear of disobeying it. In England, sympathetic merchants, eager to reestablish a free flow of trade and to regain their former profits, lobby Parliament to rescind the tax on the colonies. After lengthy consideration, Parliament votes to revoke the tax, and when the glorious news reaches the colonies, church bells ring.
Masshist.org
The Sugar Act
The war with France that had stretched on for years and encircled the globe finally ends in 1763. Colonists are proud of their role in defeating the French, but England is faced with a vast territory to safeguard and a soaring debt to service. The French have been banished from the mainland continent of North America, but another threat persists. In 1763, in order to avoid confrontations with Indian nations, the English ministry issues a proclamation forbidding settlement to the west of the Appalachian Mountains.
In 1764, George Grenville, First Lord of the Treasury, proposes to strengthen the mother country's hold on its American investment. Addressing the King in his declaration of intent, Grenville argues that "it is just and necessary, that a revenue be raised, in your Majesty's said dominions in America, for defraying the expences of defending, protecting, and securing the same." Working within the framework of earlier legislation regulating trade but for the first time directly imposing a tax on the colonists.
British enforcement of trade regulations has been notoriously lax, and colonial merchants have grown rich and comfortable. The new Sugar Act, they are dismayed to find, cracks down on their smuggling, intrudes upon their lucrative West Indies trade, constrains commerce in a broad range of goods, ties up their vessels at port, creates a more elaborate and more invasive customs apparatus, and sends violators to jury-less vice admiralty courts for trial. The Sugar Act, the merchants fear, will take a bite out of their profits.
The colonies have already been mired in a post-war depression. The Sugar Act worsens their trade balance.
In Boston, town meeting (the local government) carefully considers the Sugar Act and the impending Stamp Act. "We . . . declare our just expectations," Bostonians announce, as they assert their rights and advise their representatives to the Massachusetts legislature to stand firm for traditional prerogatives. Meanwhile, in New York, American patriots urge their countrymen to cast off British luxuries and set about producing their own raw materials and home manufactures. Such self-sufficiency, they insist, will empower colonists to dispel their dread and become the "richest People upon Earth."
As members of the British empire, colonists have enjoyed the fruits of its robust, far-flung trade. As a quick glance through any newspaper will show, an array of goods are on offer in colonial markets: Cadiz salt; raisins; Madeira wine; rum from Barbados and Jamaica; coffee, cocoa, and Bohea tea; French indigo; watercolors and India ink; spermaceti candles; music and instruments; shoes and bonnets; travel books, poetry, and novels.
James Otis, a Boston lawyer and Massachusetts legislator, composes a pamphlet entitled Rights of the Colonies Asserted and Proved. If the colonists are not directly represented in Parliament, he argues, then Parliament has no authority to tax them. The Massachusetts Assembly votes its approval of the pamphlet, and in October it draws up a petition to the king that makes the same case.
In 1764, George Grenville, First Lord of the Treasury, proposes to strengthen the mother country's hold on its American investment. Addressing the King in his declaration of intent, Grenville argues that "it is just and necessary, that a revenue be raised, in your Majesty's said dominions in America, for defraying the expences of defending, protecting, and securing the same." Working within the framework of earlier legislation regulating trade but for the first time directly imposing a tax on the colonists.
British enforcement of trade regulations has been notoriously lax, and colonial merchants have grown rich and comfortable. The new Sugar Act, they are dismayed to find, cracks down on their smuggling, intrudes upon their lucrative West Indies trade, constrains commerce in a broad range of goods, ties up their vessels at port, creates a more elaborate and more invasive customs apparatus, and sends violators to jury-less vice admiralty courts for trial. The Sugar Act, the merchants fear, will take a bite out of their profits.
The colonies have already been mired in a post-war depression. The Sugar Act worsens their trade balance.
In Boston, town meeting (the local government) carefully considers the Sugar Act and the impending Stamp Act. "We . . . declare our just expectations," Bostonians announce, as they assert their rights and advise their representatives to the Massachusetts legislature to stand firm for traditional prerogatives. Meanwhile, in New York, American patriots urge their countrymen to cast off British luxuries and set about producing their own raw materials and home manufactures. Such self-sufficiency, they insist, will empower colonists to dispel their dread and become the "richest People upon Earth."
As members of the British empire, colonists have enjoyed the fruits of its robust, far-flung trade. As a quick glance through any newspaper will show, an array of goods are on offer in colonial markets: Cadiz salt; raisins; Madeira wine; rum from Barbados and Jamaica; coffee, cocoa, and Bohea tea; French indigo; watercolors and India ink; spermaceti candles; music and instruments; shoes and bonnets; travel books, poetry, and novels.
James Otis, a Boston lawyer and Massachusetts legislator, composes a pamphlet entitled Rights of the Colonies Asserted and Proved. If the colonists are not directly represented in Parliament, he argues, then Parliament has no authority to tax them. The Massachusetts Assembly votes its approval of the pamphlet, and in October it draws up a petition to the king that makes the same case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
