The Difficult Question of Slavery

Whilst writing the book, I thought that the most relevant themes in Thomas’ life would be the involvement of his ship Worcester in the Union of England and Scotland and his part in the early days of globalisation. Certainly, these topics have remained current. When COVID-19 hit, the feedback I received tended to focus on the 1665 plague and the affect this probably had on the remained of Thomas’ life.

Even more recent events have struck a note with me: Thomas’ involvement in slavery but I have been reluctant to be seen as trying to hijack the topic. However, I found that this was the most difficult aspect of Thomas’ life for me to address and I do not feel that I can ignore it. He transported slaves on behalf of Muslim traders whilst still in the East Indies and food for slaves is included in one of his account books. This trade ended badly for Thomas and resulted in him losing money and being imprisoned for a short while.

This Indian Ocean slave trade has long been overlooked. When the Europeans arrived in the East, they participated in a local trade in slaves that had existed for centuries. Worldwide, slavery had existed since the earliest of time. In ancient Rome, slavery was considered the natural way of the world. Slaves were utilised by the East India Company because they found most Englishmen were unable to carry out essential manual tasks such as blacksmithing in the climate. It is estimated that that there are at least 20,000 people of African-ethnic origin living in India today, most of them the descendants of slaves, and known as Siddis.

After Thomas’ return to England, at least one of his trading voyages had the objective of purchasing slaves from a Madagascan chief to trade in India. This voyage failed because the ship was taken by pirates before the slaves could be delivered to the ship. In addition, he was proposed in various schemes involving East African slaves for the East Indian Company and the king of Prussia, none of which came to anything.

In my book, I quested whether Thomas should be judged by the attitudes of today for his willingness to be involved in slavery, however unsuccessful, or if he could be exonerated because of the prevailing beliefs of his day?

From the age of ten, Thomas was raised in close contact with the employees of the East India Company and many of his values were formed at this time when each Company ship was required to carry to India ten African slaves. Back in London, the question was much more multifaceted and Thomas was exposed to a wide range of beliefs. One of his acquaintances, Daniel Defoe, frequently condemned Africans who sold slaves to Europeans, not for the act but for bad business. They sold them too cheaply.

I was, and am, not convinced that Thomas can be excused. If he was very aware that conditions for the crew of slavers were bad, which he was, he also knew that it was much worse for their human cargo. There were conflicting Christian attitudes to slavery. Many used the Bible to justify the practice but, by the late seventeenth century, Christian abolitionism had begun with Quakers who believed everyone was equal in the sight of God. By 1696, the Quakers of Pennsylvania officially declared their opposition to the slave trade. Thomas had returned to Wapping, an area with a strong Quaker community. He had at least one Quaker acquaintance in Peter Briggins. Charlwood Lawton, who reviewed Thomas’ proposals in 1708, had previously acted as the agent in England for Quaker and founder of Pennsylvania, William Penn.

It is probable Thomas was aware of the abolitionist viewpoint. Some decades later, Thomas Clarkson was to discover that much of the population of Bristol expressed great loathing for the concept of slavery yet did not consider its abolition. The only conclusion is that Thomas, who kept abreast of news and prevailing attitudes, made an informed and conscious decision to deal in human lives. That he was not unusual in this cannot excuse his actions.

Book of the Day: A Geographical Account of Countries Round the Bay of Bengal

It was by stumbling over this book that I discovered Captain Thomas Bowrey and eventually came to write his biography. It was also my introduction to Sir Richard Carnac Temple, the book’s editor.

First published in 1905 by the Hakluyt Society of London, Temple had first been become aware of Bowrey’s incomplete manuscript some years earlier. It had been inherited by Eliot Howard but was not previously unknown having been quoted in a number or publications including the Oxford English Dictionary. It had not in itself been published. In editing the work, Temple carried out a huge amount of detective work in order to identify the author. The manuscript had simply been signed “TB”. It has since been deposited with the British Library.

This all happened many years before the discovery of Bowrey’s papers but Temple deduced “TB” was Thomas Bowrey, the “Captain Bowry” mentioned in the diary of one of Howard’s ancestors, Peter Briggins. After discovering Bowrey’s will, Temple identified many references to him in the archives of the East India Company and associated them with a number of maps drawn by him in the British Museum Library as well as Bowrey’s Malay-English Dictionary. Temple went on to uncover an number of individuals that, with the benefit of the advantages of online indexes, I have since established were Bowrey’s relatives.

In editing the manuscript, Temple added copious, useful notes making A Geographical Account of Countries Round the Bay of Bengal a work that continues to be studied today. At times I have been frustrated with Temple’s biased conclusions but that does not distract from my gratitude for the work he carried out. The task of writing Thomas’ biography would be much more difficult without his contribution. The book remains almost the only record of Thomas Bowrey between 1669 and 1679.

 

 

 

On This Day: 22 October 1706

On this day in 1706, Thomas Bowrey paid his half-year’s rent for the Kings Head Inn, Southwark to Peter Briggins.

Briggins was a prominent Quaker who kept a diary in which he recorded details of the Friends’ Meetings he attended and brief notes of his other business. Richard Carnac Temple concluded that Briggins recorded meetings with Bowrey were proof that the pair were friends or, at least, close associates. Strangely for someone who carefully matched manuscripts in Bowrey’s Papers with records of the East India Company, Temple did not marry Briggins’ diary entries with receipts for rent in the Papers. Doing this shows that the pair met every six months in order for Briggins to collect the rent the inn. Not only that but, at times, Briggins spent some days trying to find Bowrey when the rent was due. Unfortunately, there is no evidence as to whether Bowrey was evading Briggins or just busy with other business.

Unfortunately, a second volume of Briggins’ diary is now missing, This misinterpretation by Temple. makes it difficult to trust his interpretation about the diary entries relating to the final days of Bowrey’s life. This a source of huge frustration for me and if anyone knows the present location of the second volume of Briggins diary including the year 1713 or a copy or transcript of this volume, I should love to know.

On This Day: 15 July 1712

On this day in 1712, Thomas Gillotts declare that although his rent for the Kings Head Inn, Southwark was due on 24 June, he could not pay Thomas Bowrey. His rent was one shilling a day (or £18/5/0 a year – about £2,500 p.a. in today’s values) and he agreed to pay the arrears at one shilling a day until it was repaid. The statement, written in Bowrey’s hand, was witnessed by Bowrey’s servant, Joseph Noden.

Bowrey himself rented the Kings Head from Peter Briggins paying him £15/2/6 each half year (or £30/5/0 p.a.).

It is difficult to understand the economics of the Kings Head for Bowrey. He was making a loss of £12 per year (over £1,600 in today’s values) and yet was still willing to be lenient about late payment of rent.

On This Day: 27 April 1708

On this day in 1708, Elias Grist signed a declaration that John Eliott, the surgeon on the Mary Galley under Captain Tolson on her voyage to the East Indies was not in debt to the owners of commander of the ship.

Today, I am focusing on the surgeon rather than the ship or her ill-fated voyage.

Bowrey’s manuscript of that became A Geographical Account of Countries Round the Bay of Bengal passed down through the Eliot/Howard family. Richard Carnac Temple in editing the manuscript, believed that it had passed into the family via Peter Briggins who reorded his meetings with Bowrey in his diary.

Temple had seen two of Briggins’ diary and concluded that Briggins was a friend of Bowrey who helped in the last few days of his life. Temple reasoned that Bowrey’s grateful widow gave Briggins the manuscript. Unfortunately, the second diary is now missing but my interpretation of the first is that Bowrey simply rented the King’s Head Inn from Briggins who recorded the collection of the rent. Even if the second diary recorded a growing friendship, why would the manuscript have been a suitable gift for Briggins who had little, if any, interest in the East Indies.

Is it possible that the manuscript passed into the family through the surgeon of the Mary Galley? Was John Eliott, surgeon, even from the same family? This remains an unanswered question but I live in hope of solving it.

 

On This Day: 25 April 1707

On this day in 1707, Bowrey met with Peter Briggins. We know this because Briggins recorded the meeting in his diary which still survives.

Briggins was a Quaker who kept a diary for a number of years. Unfortunately, a second diary, once held at the London Metropolitan Archives, can no longer be found. Although Briggins’ tiny writing is easy to read his spelling was terrible even by the standards of the early 18th century and some of his abbreviations baffling. He does, however, manage to cover a great deal in a very small space.

We know that, on this day, he stay home during the morning. In the afternoon he met with Bowrey (to collect the rent for the King’s Head Inn, Southwark although he does not say that), sold some East India Company shares to a Mr Shaw, purchased a bond(?) for his father, went to the Royal Exchange and Eteridge’s (coffee house) and finished the day at a Quaker meeting before returning home.

On This Day: 16 April 1708

It is always nice when I can cross reference a manuscript in Bowrey’s papers with an independent source.

Yesterday, I discussed a the arrears of rent for the King’s Head Inn at Southwark. Today, I have two documents also relating to the rent of the inn.  The first is a receipt for the £19 rent Bowrey paid Peter Briggins. The other document is an entry in Peter Briggins’ diary recording his meeting with Bowrey to collect the rent.

It would appear that Bowrey was as late paying the rent to Briggins in 1708 as Gillots was paying Bowrey four years later.

On This Day: 15 April 1712

On this day in 1712, Thomas Gillotts landlord of the Kings Head Inn in Southwark signed a statement prepared by Bowrey admitting that he was unable to pay the quarter’s rent due the previous Lady’s Day. He agreed to pay the arrears due at the rate of one shilling (5p) a day.

The statement was witnessed by Joseph Noden, Bowrey’s servant.

Bowrey did not own the King’s Head Inn. He leased it from Peter Briggins. There are a number of entries in the diary of Briggins between 1706 and 1708 describing him searching for Bowrey in order to collect the rent he himself owed. Unfortunately, Briggins’ diary covering 1712 can no longer be located so it is impossible to know whether he was, in turn, made to wait for his payment.

On This Day: 5 April 1927

Today in 1927, Henry Howard wrote to his dear Cousin, possibly Lady Ruth Fry, from Stone House near Kidderminster. Lady Fry was a Quaker who collected Quaker related manuscripts. Her papers are now held at the Quaker House Library in London.

The letter concerns the Bowrey Papers which were of interest to Lady Fry because of the documents relating to Peter Briggins included in them. Peter Briggins was a Quaker who rented property to Bowrey.  Howard, who had purchased Bowrey’s Papers in 1921, wrote that There is only one letter from Briggins to Bowrey. It is about the insurance of the Kings Head Inn. He signs himself your real friend Peter Briggins – Apparently he did not claim Bowrey as a kinsman.

Lady Fry had, presumably, hoped that Bowrey may have been related to her, as her cousin Henry Howard was a descendant of Briggins.

The letter from Howard also mentions the two letters from Daniel Defoe to Bowrey that were in the Papers (he later sold these) and documents signed by Elihu Yale (which were donated to Yale University). Howard gave Lady Fry two receipts from the Papers which are now held in the Quaker House Library. All this demonstrates how widely spread Bowrey’s Papers now are.