CARIBBEAN-L Archives

Archiver > CARIBBEAN > 2003-03 > 1048020102


From: "Guy Grannum" <>
Subject: Re: "Surnames" - When did this start???
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:41:42 -0000
References: <20030305190357.09304.00000034@mb-mj.aol.com> <005901c2e3bd$7c1bb570$038720d9@StudyRoom> <000001c2ebba$27902e00$da7a4e51@tinykncwubxl> <002101c2ebd3$0d59a200$e8040150@johnweiss1>


John - you supplied the correct reference for the copy of the Order in
Council dated 26 March 1812 which established the registration of slaves
(Public Record Office reference CO 295/28, fo 252; the full order in council
is on folios 250-264).

There were only two orders in council setting up the slave registries - the
one for Trinidad and a later one for St Lucia and Mauritius (24 September
1814). The St Lucian registers are similar to the Trinidad ones - I haven't
read it in detail but it may have had the same instructions.

All the other ones were set up by local legislation and therefore vary quite
considerably.

The language used in the order in council is quite technical and typically
long winded, but for what it is worth I quote the bit relating to surnames -
there is similar waffle for the other columns (eg occupation, colour, place
of birth, age, remarks etc)

"In the second of the said columns shall be inserted the surname of the
Slave, if he or she has ever been called or known by any surname or second
name, and if not, in cases of Family Slaves included in the said lists of
families, the name of the superior relation; and in the case of Slaves who
are included in the said general lists of males and females, such name as
the owner or party making the return shall think fit to insert therein as
the surname by which the Slave and his lawful issue, or her natural issue,
and their descendants respectively, shall thereafter always be called;
provided, nevertheless, that in cases of Family Slaves, the owner or party
making the return may also give, if he thinks fit, some other family name
instead of that of the superior relation, so as no two families on the same
plantation, or belonging to the same owner, shall have the same surname in
the said schedule or return; but for all the purposes of this order, the
surname by which each slave shall first be returned and registered, shall
continue for ever after to be the surname of such Slave, and his lawful
issue, if a male, or her natural issue, if a female, and of their respective
descendants, and shall not afterwards be changed."

I did warn you ...!

The references to Family Slaves and general lists point to the instructions
that the registers were meant to list slaves which made up family groups as
such and if any were not part of a family group they were to be listed in
general lists by sex and then by age.

I wonder if the slaves kept to these rules once freed. Also, could slaves
who may have been registered under their mother's 'surname' take on their
father's name?

Guy Grannum


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Weiss" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: "Surnames" - When did this start???


> There is a partial answer to this question in relation to slaves in
> Trinidad.
>
> When slave registration was contemplated as a means of curbing the illicit
> importation of slaves into British colonies, it was introduced first into
> Trinidad. The Order instituting the register was drafted by James
Stephen,
> abolitionist and advisor to the Colonial Office, and promulgated on 26
March
> 1812, and included a regulation that slaves not registered would be freed.
>
> I believe it is CO 295/28 that gives details, on p251, of what was to go
> into the register. Slaves were to be treated in three groups: those who
> lived with their families, males who did not live with their families, and
> females who did not live with their families.
>
> All slaves were to registered with a surname, and the regulations included
> the following provisions: if a slave had no surname, then the surname of
the
> head of the household was to be used; if there was more than one household
> with the same name on the same plantation, then all households except one
> were to be given new surnames. [The term 'household' here clearly refers
to
> a slave household.] I'm not sure if this is complete, as I am quoting
from
> an article "The smuggled slaves of Trinidad 1813" by A Meredith John in
The
> Historical Journal, 31,2 (1988) 365-375. I have not checked it in the
> original CO 295 document, and perhaps Guy would have an opportunity to do
> this before I am next able to visit the PRO.
>
> The implication is that in Trinidad all slaves would have had surnames
once
> the register was complet. I understand that the regulations for the
Trinidad
> Register were intended to be the model for the registers of other
colonies,
> instituted later, but it's likely that one would have to go to the
Colonial
> Office files for each colony in turn to see what instructions were given -
> or rather, the Orders introducting these later registers. From what I have
> heard of Jamaican slaves deciding on surnames after emancipation, it would
> appear that the surname part of the Trinidad regulations was not repeated
> for other islands; or else, simply, that it was there but not acted upon;
or
> even, that on emancipation, ex-slaves rejected imposed surnames for ones
of
> their own choosing.
>
> John Weiss
> Independent Scholar, London
> See the history links at
> http://homepage.virgin.net/john.weiss/mcnish-weiss.html
>


This thread: