Church Commissioners’ Research Into Historic Links To Transatlantic Chattel Slavery

So far, so good.
The Church Commissioners’ Research Into Historic Links To Transatlantic Chattel Slavery is a considerable step forward. It is a remarkable piece of research, accountants have gone through the records of a fund known as “Queen Anne’s Bounty” with a fine tooth comb. This fund used incomes from two sources of tithes [compulsory taxes used to fund the Established Church] to augment the incomes of poorer clergy in the Church of England, in some cases by buying land upon which the clergyman concerned could make a living, in other cases by using profits made from investments made by the Church in the South Sea Company.
As Dr Helen Paul, one of the historical advisers to the research team writes:
The South Sea Company was formed as an integral part of the early modern British state. It was designed from the outset as a slaving company. It shipped enslaved human beings across the Atlantic in terrible conditions. It operated as a slaver for several decades during the first half of the 18th century. Its investors were well aware of this. Some of them reinvested their wealth in charitable activities. This includes donations to the Church of England and the Queen Anne’s Bounty fund.
Enslaved workers in mines and plantation agriculture had a particularly high mortality rate and the Spanish Crown needed to import replacements. Spain did not have the required expertise in the West African slave trade and was reliant on foreign middlemen. The South Sea and Royal African Companies could fulfil this role by shipping people across the Atlantic or purchasing them in the Caribbean and transporting them from there. The ships were often convoyed by Royal Naval escort vessels. Indeed, Queen Anne granted the South Sea Company the use of four naval vessels to transport personnel and effects to set up its bases.
Church Commissioners
The Archbishop of Canterbury, as Chair of the Church Commissioners, announced that, in an effort to “address past wrongs”, the Church Commissioners’ board is to set up a £100m fund to deliver a programme of investment, research and engagement over the next nine years. The Church of England is to form an “oversight group … with significant membership from communities impacted by historic slavery” to ensure the Church’s response is carried out “sensitively and with accountability”. The church is not using the term “reparations” but will support projects “focused on improving opportunities for communities adversely impacted by historic slavery”.
So what is wrong with this?
It is a small step in the right direction, but there is a long way to go.
Firstly, the £100 million is chicken-feed compared to the modern value of the money the report has identified as coming from the profits of investments in the South Sea Company. In the period 1708–1793, that income amounted to £633,946. By the method the report uses to convert contemporary sums into modern-day terms, the Labour Earnings index on the Measuring Worth website, the modern day value of this would be £1,361,000,000.
Moreover, the Queen Anne’s Bounty fund includes charitable donations [benefactions], of which 33% was derived from individuals who were considered to have a high likelihood of being linked to transatlantic slavery. Edward Colston, the notorious Bristol slaver, alone contributed £7,200. The value of these benefactions is £359,242, potentially equivalent to £482 million in today’s money. The total therefore derived from enslavement, which has been defined by the United Nations as a crime against humanity, is £1,843,000,000. If the Church of England was truly repentant, this would be the sum they would put into the fund. After all, the Church Endowment fund, the successor to Queen Anne’s Bounty, is currently worth £9 billion.
CARICOM Reparations Committee
Secondly, the Church will decide on the composition of the oversight group charged with dispersing the fund. This is philanthropy at its worst. Such charity allows the perpetrator to determine the amount and the manner in which the profits of their crimes are distributed. The Church decides on worthy recipients, not the descendants of the enslaved. There is a CARICOM Reparations Committee headed by Sir Hilary Beckles, Vice Chancellor of the University of the West Indies. It would show much more sincere repentance if they were to begin negotiations with this Committee.
Queen Anne
Thirdly, there is no mention in the Report of the role of Queen Anne, who set up the fund and whose good name was enhanced by its seemingly charitable works. The Report does attack Sir Edward Colston, but he is an easy target, he is widely discredited and his statue has ended up in the river. Queen Anne’s speech to Parliament of June 6, 1712 stated that “I have insisted and obtained that the asiento or contract for furnishing the Spanish West Indies with negroes shall be made with us for thirty years“. Indeed, Queen Anne instructed the Royal Navy to supply the company with 4 frigates for protection against pirates and she was a substantial shareholder in the South Sea Company, attempting to reserve 22½% of the shares for herself, although this was later considerably reduced. When she died in 1714, her shares were inherited by the new King George I, who appointed his son, the Prince of Wales, as Governor of the Company, although the King took the post back himself once he realised the large sums of money that could be made.
The Report itself is an excellent piece of research showing the possibilities of collaboration between accountants and historians in uncovering the past. It is a pity that the response of the Church of England falls short of such excellence.

Steve Cushion