CARIBBEAN-L Archives

Archiver > CARIBBEAN > 2003-03 > 1047830481


From: "John Weiss" <>
Subject: Re: "Surnames" - When did this start???
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 16:01:21 -0000
References: <20030305190357.09304.00000034@mb-mj.aol.com> <005901c2e3bd$7c1bb570$038720d9@StudyRoom> <000001c2ebba$27902e00$da7a4e51@tinykncwubxl>


There is an interesting sideline to the question of slaves' surnames,
relating to Liberated Africans (or the Recaptives).

The regulations issued on 16 March 1808 putting into effect the Act Against
the Slave Trade of a year earlier gave the following instructions to the
local Collector of Customs, who was given responsibility for "Slaves and
Natives of Africa" taken off slaving ships:

[the register is to include] the name of every such Negro together with the
sex and apparent age, and when the African name shall not be known, or not
easy to be pronounced or not sufficiently clear and distinctive some other
proper name shall be given [ . . . ] to each Negro to the intent that he or
she may be afterwards called and known by the proper name entered in the
[register] [ . . . ] until he or she is sufficiently instructed for Baptism
when the same shall become his or her family or sirname [ . . . ] the name
of Baptism being afterwards prefixed thereto.
. . .
[The Collector] must do his utmost to ascertain family relations (taking the
uncontradicted assertion of the parties as sufficient proof) [ . . . and
then there is to be] no separation except where the employment of either
[shall make it necessary]

I have copied this from my partial notes of the regulations filed in PC2/176
in the PRO. You might think that the exception to the prohibition on
separating families gives possibilities as harsh as if they were slaves -
but then their apprenticeship was involuntary, or forced, labour.

John Weiss
Independent Scholar, London
See the history links at
http://homepage.virgin.net/john.weiss/mcnish-weiss.html



This thread: