In thinking about the question of why migrants would choose
Bristol rather than London as the port of departure, the following
points occur to me:
Has anyone investigated issues like the ease of travel to London
versus Bristol?
How did would-be migrants travel to their port of embarkation? Did
they walk or ride? Did they have luggage or belongings that
accompanied them?
Did perceived safety of the route enter their calculations?
What was the cost of passage to the US from the two ports
significantly different?
Maybe these practical aspects have already been addressed
previously. Forgive me if so, I'm a newcomer to the list so I may be
talking complete mince.
John Penny,
John Penny
> The slave trade is irrelevant. The emigrants we are talking about ate
> likely to have become at worst indentured servants. As some one else has
> pointed out, Bristol and London were the two largest ports for colonial
> trade (and the trade here will be direct trade not triangular, via Africa).
> I do not see why religion should have anything to do with it.
>
> K. Morgan, Bristol and the Atlantic Trade (1993), 124-7 discussed the
> servant trade briefly. He refers to newspaper adverts. there were also
> dealers, some of them unscrupulous who rounded up potential emigrants.
> The emigrant was offered a 'free' passage but found himself on arrival
> indentured to a settler often for seven years to pay for their passage.
> Morgan cites a number of books and articles, but some of his sources are
> manuscript.
>
> Peter King
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Brockett <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: 30 August 2001 13:53
> Subject: Re: Bristol as a port of emigration 17th C
>
>
> > I don't know if the emigrants were non-conformist. I was wondering whether
> the port
> > (Bristol as opposed to London or elsewhere) might give a clue whether they
> were
> > indentured servants or from the wealthier ranks of society. Thank you both
> very much
> > for the useful insights so far.
> >
> > Peter Park wrote:
> >
> > > >>Virginia was a tobacco growing area and there was a thriving tobacco
> industry
> > > in Bristol - possibly because that was the nearest port to the Americas.
> > > Bristol also was a centre of the slave trade, and Virginia needed
> slaves.
> > > Therefore (as already pointed out) ships went to Virginia from Bristol:
> for
> > > trade purposes, because it was the closest port and because merchant
> traders
> > > financed the various expeditions. Liverpool was still undeveloped at
> that time.
> > >
> > > I guess that it was cheaper for emigrants, too: the fewer miles you had
> to go by
> > > ship, the cheaper the passage.<<
> > >
> > > London was the other major port trading with the Americas at this time
> and is
> > > nearer Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire. Bristol was a strong Quaker
> area - were
> > > the emigrants in the original query Quakers or any other form of
> non-conformist?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Peter Park. Walton on Thames, Surrey, UK.
> > >
> > > ... to know something of our ancestors, has always appeared to have been
> a
> > > desirable thing to me, and if any records had been handed down to me, I
> should
> > > have considered it as a Vallueable treasure.
> > > Benjamin Shaw, 1826.
> >
>
|