Third installment of researches into the members of the Hawes family in England and the Caribbean in the 1600’s and 1700’s by Steve Jones.
Brief recap – I’m English and share DNA with the descendants of Samuel I. My earliest known male ancestor was a John Hawes who in the 1760s was a sugar refiner in Goodman’s Fields, London. I suspect a connection between John and a Joseph Hawes, a sugar planter, who returned to London in 1740 but cannot find a direct link. There are also many connections between the north east part of Antigua where Joseph had his plantation and Virginia. I suspect that Antigua is one of the links between my ancestors and the ancestors of Samuel 1.
This article looks at one specific family who I think are part of our story. This Hawes family were very early traders to Virginia and Barbados and they provide a good picture of the life and times of those early English merchants, how their trade evolved and the risks they faced.
In 1566 Humfrey Hawes was born in London. His father, Lawrence Hawes was born in Ipswich, Suffolk and was a fishmonger who died in London in 1588. His mother, Ursula Eyrick, came from Leicestershire. Humfrey was a clothworker and his wife had her own business with a shop on Little Conduit. He made this absolutely clear in his will when he stated that the shop was her own and made by her own industry. In 1626, just before his death in 1630, Humfrey signed a petition to King Charles I, made by the ‘Adventurers unto the East Indies’ against the cruelty of a Dutch embargo which as well as being violent also restricted the import of cloth from Turkey and other ‘Eastlands’. Humfrey was also a churchwarden at the Church of St Vedast als Foster in Foster Lane in London.
Humfrey married Katherine Brooke, the daughter of a haberdasher in January 1596 at St Augustine in Watling Street. Katherine had 4 sisters, 3 of whom married into successful merchant families, and 1 brother. Her brother died in 1620 and left to his eldest daughter some stock in the East India Company which was only established in 1600 so they were early investors in the growing East Indies trade.
Humfrey Hawes and Katherine had at least 7 children who were baptised at St Vedast. Of these children, 4 interest us most. These are: Nathaniel (b 1601), Elizabeth (b 1602 married Randolf Mainwaring 1618), Joseph (1605-1642), and Rachel (1613-1672 married Captain George Payne). Another son John (b1603) was a merchant who died in 1632 leaving a will. The other 2 children are presumed to have died at a young age.
We know a lot about these people through a unique record set (‘Boyds’) of the inhabitants of London at this time. In addition, as the Brooke and Hawes family were prosperous, they left wills which describe the various family relationships.
We also very fortunate because Joseph, Nathaniel and their 2 sisters’ husbands, Randolf Mainwaring and Captain George Payne formed a business importing tobacco and other goods from Virginia and Barbados. This was a typical early merchant structure; in the absence of banks the only way to finance a venture that would take at least a year to recoup the initial investment in a ship and stock, was by bringing a very close group of people together. These people also had to be wealthy with money to invest so this ruled out the great majority of the population. Everyone involved would have been closely connected; trust was paramount and strangers would not have been involved.
The transatlantic business was precarious. In 1637 Joseph Hawes brough a case against Captain John Payne (probably not related to George Payne) who in 1635 had commanded the ship ‘Dorothy and John’ carrying a cargo of tobacco (owned by Joseph) from Virginia to London. Contrary to instructions and objections from Joseph’s agent and other passengers on board, Payne ordered the ship to Ireland where its cargo of tobacco was unloaded in Galway and sold in Dublin.
Worse was to come, as described in a 1646 case that is freely available online from the University of Virginia. This is: ‘The Case of Mainwaring, Hawes, Payne and Others, Concerning a Depredation Made by the Spanish-West-India Fleete, Upon the Ship Elizabeth: Restitution Sought in Spayne, Justice Denied, and Thereupon, According to Lawe, Justice Petitioned of the Honorable Houses of Parliament. In Which Is Prayed, That (out of 50000. L. Deposited in the Parliaments Hands, in Lieu of Plate and Merchandize by Them Formerly Arrested) Satisfaction May Bee Made’
This was a protracted dispute, brought to the English Parliament in the 1640s that continued until 1660. In summary, the ship ‘Elizabeth’, owned by Joseph Hawes and Company, was captured by the Spanish while on a trading voyage to Virginia in 1637. ‘The Elizabeth was 250 leagues (750 nautical miles) short of Virginia and was taken by eleven Sayle of the Spanish West India Fleet all under the command of one Generall whereof 4 were Galeons of the Kings the rest merchant ships who shared the goods among them, barbarously abused the Mariners and Passengers and carried the said ship into Spaine and there detaine her unto this day.’
The petition goes on.. ‘that the (English) Embassadoures in Spain indeavoured satisfaction but could procure no reall retribution… since which time Joseph Hawes (formerly of good estate) by the sayd losse utterly undone, died in prison and Randall Mainwaring, Nathaniel Hawes and George Payne now petitioners to your Honours (left ingaged in several great summes of money for him) as next of kindred have taken out letters of Administration and in December 1642 arrested certain plate, moneys and merchandise arriving at Southampton in the Ship St Clare which were laden into her out of the Spanish West India Fleet in which were divers ships and men that were in the fleet that robbed the Elizabeth…’
In short, the Spanish took the Hawes’ ship (‘Elizabeth’) and the Hawes Company in turn took a Spanish ship (‘St Clare’) that arrived in England in 1642 that had connections to the fleet that had captured the Elizabeth (some sailors who had been in the Spanish fleet were also on the St Clare). The Spanish Government paid £50,000 to the English Government to have the St Clare released and the Hawes Company petition was to recover this £50,000 as restitution for the loss of the Elizabeth. The pamphlet printed in 1646 explains the legal basis for their claim under international law.
The seizure of the St Clare was the second attempt at obtaining restitution through seizure of a Spanish ship. Joseph had already taken one Spanish ship, captured out of Bermuda in 1641 but this seizure was not deemed ‘legal’ and for some reason the English Admirality released this ship, arrested Joseph and put him in prison where he died, unmarried, in October 1642. He was buried in the Collegiate Church of St Katherine by the Tower of London. This was a medieval church founded in 1147 and was demolished in 1825 to build St. Katherine Docks. It was on a 23 acre site with its own prison, officers and court. This was a sad end for someone who just 2 years earlier had been the largest importer of tobacco into London from Barbados. Despite Joseph’s death his brother Nathaniel, together with Mainwaring and Payne, pursued the claim. They probably had no choice given the losses they were facing, their belief in the justness of their claim and the pressures they would have been under from fellow investors, mostly friends and neighbours.
Ships went to the West Indies one year and came back the next. If the ship was lost the financial consequences were terrible. In those days, prison awaited anyone who couldn’t pay their debts. The crew and their families were also financially dependent on a successful outcome for a voyage. The petition continues, pleadingly: ‘The prejudice that Joseph Hawes had in the losse of a known faire estate; his imprisonment and death with grief followed. The consequences of this Depradation in the losse his friends sustained who were in natural affection bound to his support; the ruine of his natural brother Nath. Hawes ingaged for him in direct great summes of money and had Execution upon his estate to his dammage above £6,000 besides losse of his trade.’
‘These damages we humbly conceive Justice will make good besides the sufferances of the Saylors and Passengers. We might further move your pitty by putting you in mind of the necessities of the said Ships company, some Widows and Children relicts of those deceased wanting bread’.
This case was important as the impact of ship seizures went beyond financial considerations and affected international relations. It was a long time before effective maritime laws were introduced and even then, enforcement was difficult, or even impossible when the main maritime trading nations were at war with each other.
As regards the Hawes Company loss, it was too late. Their petition cannot have been helped by its timing. Parliament, who were hearing the petition, was at war with the King. The English Civil War started in 1642 and didn’t end until 1651. Parliament probably thought the £50,000 better spent on fighting the King than compensating a merchant company.* The legal process failed; the connections between the St Clare and the fleet that took the Elizabeth were deemed too weak. The last petition was in 1660, made by Nathaniel Hawes and George Payne (Mainwaring having died). The defeat must have been devastating. But what happened to Nathaniel?
Well, he was clearly a man of great determination. That he was held in great respect can be seen by the wills that he witnessed or where he is made executor. One can only imagine his sense of outrage that Parliament had denied his claim for damages against the Spanish.
We know from Boyds that he married a woman called Joanne Tanner and had one son (Nathaniel who died as an infant in 1634) and 5 daughters. However, we have no record of the deaths of 4 of the daughters or of Nathaniel and Joanne.
The last mention I can find of Nathaniel is in the will of his cousin Richard Brooke who died in March 1662. Richard seemed pre-occupied by the disappearance of Nathaniel as the first half of his will is dedicated to Nathaniel: ‘Whereas I now stand seized in fee of all that messuage with the appurtanances late in the occupacion of Nathaniel Hawes.. situate in the Goldsmyths Row on the south side of Cheapside London within the parish of Saint Vedast in Fosters Lane London and being the Corner House turning from and out of Cheapside downe unto the Old Change***.. the which said messuage with the appurtanances I do give devise and bequeath unto Nicholas Herne** Citizen and Merchant Taylor of London and Nathaniel Herne** of London merchant .. on this trust and confidence .. that they the said Nicholas and Nathaniel …. will in all convenient speed after the end of six months next after my decease make sale of the said messuage for the most money the same can be sold for provided and my will and meaning is that if Nathaniel Hawes from whom I and others purchased the said messuage will pay to my said trustees the sum of nyne hundred pounds within six months next after my decease being one hundred pounds lesser than he the said Nathaniel Hawes always told me he would give meto have a conveyance of the said messuage to him and his heirs that then my said trustees upon payment to them of the said nyne hundred pounds by the said Nathaniel Hawes shall and will convey and assign the said messuage to him the said Nathaniel Hawes and his heirs…’
I interpret this as Nathaniel having sold Richard his property with a guarantee that he would buy it back if required for £1,000; that Richard now had no idea where he was, or even if he or his heirs were alive or dead. Was the property worth £1000 or less? Had Nathaniel sold the property quickly to make a quick escape with his family after his final petition had failed in 1660? We don’t know for sure but there is no further record of Nathaniel Hawes and his family (or of George Payne) after 1660. Where did they go?
Nathaniel had connections in the Caribbean and in Virginia and would have known where to go if he wanted to be out of the reach of the English Parliament, which had so sorely treated him.
I don’t know if Nathaniel and Joseph are connected to us but it must at least be a possibility. It seems more than co-incidental that a Hawes family of merchants with strong links to Virginia and Barbados (where sugar replaced tobacco as its main crop in the 1640s) ‘disappears’ from London around 1660 and a Hawes sugar planter ‘appears’ in Antigua in the 1680s and a Samuel Hawes ‘appears’ in Virginia around the same time.
There is an important unresolved question: ‘How did Joseph Hawes come to be trading tobacco in Virginia and Barbados in 1635 (or possibly earlier)?’ Barbados only became an English colony in 1625 so how did Joseph make connections there so soon after it was colonised and make such a success of his trading there and in Virginia in the 1630s? I think the answer to this question provides further evidence to support the idea that the Hawes came from Suffolk and also helps to bring the various bits of the picture together. More to follow.
* Decisions such as this, where Parliament decided against merchants would have had a significant impact on the sentiments of merchants who might previously have supported parliament against the King and helped to ensure the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 when King Charles II returned from exile (Charles I having been executed in 1649).
**Nicholas and Sir Nathaniel Herne were grandsons of Margaret Brooke who was the sister of Katherine Brook (who married Humfrey Hawes) and the nephews of Richard Brooke. Sir Nathaniel business was focused on the Spanish trade which was hit hard by Cromwell’s foreign policy and he was believed to have been a Cavalier in support of the return of Charles II. He was a member of parliament when he died in 1679.
Another brother was Sir Joseph Herne who was one of London’s richest merchant-financiers whose forune was based on the Mediterranean trade. He was also associated with the East India Company and in 1691 got involved with copper mining in north west America. He was also a member of Parliament.
*** The property described can be placed very accurately even today with Cheapside, Fosters Lane and Old Change (renamed New Change) visible on Google Maps: “situate on the south side of Cheapside London within the parish of Saint Vedast in Fosters Lane London and being the Corner House turning from and out of Cheapside downe unto the Old Change”. It was a short walk to St Vedast in Foster Lane which is still there today. The house was directly opposite St Paul’s Churchyard and would have looked upon the old St Paul’s Cathedral.
The Great Fire of London in 1666 gutted the old St Paul’s together with 89 other churches including St Vedast which swept through the area on the third day of the fire. Both the current St Paul’s and St Vedast were rebuilt by Sir Christopher Wren and St Paul’s was consecrated in 1697, 31 years after the fire. It is highly probable that Richard Brooke’s house was destroyed in the fire so Nathaniel’s sale to him in 1660 was fortuitous. Nathaniel also escaped the great plague which killed around a quarter of London’s population in 1665/66 so perhaps losing his court case and leaving town, if he did, was a blessing in disguise?
Steve Jones