Following on from an earlier discussion regarding the 'allocation' of surnames in the slave registers for Trinidad I thought that I'd check the wording of the order in council which set up the slave register in St Lucia (24 Sept 1814, Public Record Office reference PC 2/196). The wording in the order in council is basically the same as for Trinidad (see below) - this might explain why most slaves in the Trinidad and St Lucia registers have surnames whereas few in the other registers have them. I thought naively that it was because they were Catholic countries and baptised their slaves - no I know different. It was because the British government told them to do so. Guy Grannum ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guy Grannum" <guy@gcgrannum.freeserve.co.uk> To: <CARIBBEAN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 8:41 PM Subject: Re: "Surnames" - When did this start??? 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 >