The first London Baruh Lousadas and the replacements from Jamaica

The chart above captures all those Baruch Lousadas who were known to have lived in London, and picks up all the old burials in refs 85 and 98. In not all cases were we completely certain that the correct placement of people was made, but at least our methodology is sufficient to readily capture the available data. The connection with the Moses in the first line is discussed in note 5 below, whilst some deduction is necessary to work out who was the father of the Moses in the third line (see note 1). The absence of a burial record for Abraham #1352 makes it difficult to work out which Abraham appears in the 1695 census data - the brother or son of Moses #46 - but we have opted the former (see note 2). Both Moses #46 and Abraham #45 seem to have had second marriages, and in the case of Moses #46 we can work out that each of the two known wives was a Henriques Faro.

Jacob #36 arrived in London from Jamaica in the period between 14 April 1743 when he witnessed the will of Abraham Rodrigues Lopes #1202 his cousin Rachel's husband, and 18 Dec 1743 when he was married in Bevis Marks. Jacob was the ancestor of essentially all the people who bore the Lousada surname in the next and following generations, for all the other branches ceased to use the name mainly because of marriage but also because in the case of his cousin Aaron #1174 there were no (male) descendants. Aaron was no doubt present in Jamaica upon his wife's early death in 1737 but is not in the will of Abraham Rodrigues Lopes #1202 though he was more closely related than Jacob #36. Perhaps Aaron arrived in London a few years before Jacob #36 and was perhaps unwell for a period (the Haim name is used for him in some references) for he did not appear on the Mahamad at Bevis Marks until 1764 and also 1768 the year he died, whereas Jacob #46 appeared in 1748 and 1749 but died in 1752.

Notes:

1. Moses #67 is the Bank of England shareholder 1694-1720 who appeared to be investing on behalf of a number of small accounts. This suggests a central family role and he was probably a family member - as ref 39 suggests. He was endenized on 14 Dec 1694 (ref 42 #149) with a group of Jews including some from Barbados but appeared to settle only briefly if at all in Barbados as he is recorded (ref 39) as collecting interest from his Bank of England shares in person in 1697 and 1709. A Moses Baruh Lousada died young in Barbados in 1677 but his father could not have been David #44 since he had departed Barbados before 1673 when he married (again) in Amsterdam. Aaron's children starting with David (born 1678) are enumerated in ref 5 including one who died in infancy and Moses was not included. So it seems that Abraham #45 fathered the young Moses in Barbados which suggests that he did not father Moses #67, though in some circumstances (eg Emanuel #135 of Jamaica had 2 Aarons) parents did replace a deceased child with one of the same name. Moses #46 did not have a son Moses in 1681 or 1695 and in any event the same name being used for father and son is uncommon (we calculate a same-name incidence of only 2.0% using Amsterdam statistics derived for another purpose). Of David #44 or Jacob #1388 we prefer the former on the following basis. Isaac #1297 who married in 1696 was the eldest son of David #44 and was born no earlier than Apr 1674 (reflecting the date of his father's first Amsterdam marriage) which means that if Moses was a younger son he would have been born no earlier than 1676 - making him no more than 18 when endenized and no more than 21 when he collected Bank of England dividends in person in 1697 - certainly quite young for this duty. Moses #67 was probably not the son of Jacob #1388 as Jacob's daughters but no son appear in the will of Jacob Israel Pereira (ref 141). A son of Abraham #1352 was born in 1682 and Abraham #1352 seems not to have had an earlier son (see note 9 of the Moses #46 page which covers the Zagache evidence); so for a similar reason Moses #67 is less likely to have been a son of Abraham #1352 for he would have been even younger than if he were a son of David #44 as we suggest.

2. Because Abraham #45 was alive at the time of the 1703 will of Jacob Israel Pereira (ref 141), and because there is no evidence of Abraham #1352 after 1681, it seems logical to assign the Abraham who lived until 1714 as Abraham #45(see here note 9). That is Abraham #45 was an uncle of Abraham #1352 and may have been of a similar vintage. Perhaps Abraham #1352 died relatively young ie after 1681 but away from London - for even if his gravestone had been lost his burial would have been recorded in ref 98. In any event, Abraham Baruch Lousada #45 appears in Amsterdam in 1698 (ref 175), and Luna married there in 1719 with her brother Aaron witnessing the marriage (ref 183). Abraham died in 1714 in London, perhaps having returned on business. Later his son Aaron also died there in 1740 (ref 184).

3. Lousadas other than the Baruch Lousadas appear in the London burial and other early records but they are not included in the chart. Though we now consider the Den Haag Louzadas to have been Baruch Lousadas, we have no reason to consider these other London Lousadas to have been Baruch Lousadas. However, now that we have seen that some Baruch Lousadas remained in Portugal whilst many of the others went to Madrid and Livorno, perhaps 'Abraham de Louzada' who died in 1722 in London (ref 98 #642) was a remnant Portuguese family member and a refugee from the Portuguese Inquisition.

4. Two Mordecais appear in the burial records and we know one was a son of Moses #46. We make the choice shown above on the basis that Mordecai d1733 was buried at Beth Haim with Abraham d1714 (ref 85). No Mordecai appears in the 1695 census data in the household of Abraham and Rebecca with Luna and Aaron - but perhaps he was travelling on trade. However his name does not appear in the list of passes granted for Jews to travel 1689-96 (ref 182).

5. The death in London of a Moses Baruh Lousada in 1677 needs explaining. The Moses who had arrived in London by 1660 (ref 6) appears to have been immediately active commercially (as Antonio Louzada or Moses Barrow) and in the community (as Moses Baruh Lousada). This is not surprising as he had spent a decade 1649-59 in Amsterdam where he must have learnt about the Barbados trade. As noted elsewhere, the firm Serra & Lousada operated before and after 1677 and a similar signature was used by 'Moses Baruh Lousada' in community duties in 1666 and 1696. Jacob Gomes Sera similarly performed community duties before and after 1677. It thus seems likely that the 2 principals in Serra & Lousada were also the Mahamad members before and after 1677 and we designate the original arrival as Moses Baruh Lousada #46. It is however logically possible to construct an alternative scenario whereby the 1660 arrival died in 1677; a new Moses arrived about then and then died in 1699 after having filled the shoes of the first Moses. It is however hard to make this construction plausible. For as noted above Moses #46 had a lengthy period in Amsterdam but Moses #1419 does not appear to have had such an apprenticeship (Moses does not appear in Amsterdam tax records in ref 105 after 1665) and could not have been able to become an effective merchant for this reason. In addition ref 121 shows only one such Moses in London. But if he was Pedro, the youngest son of Amador de Lousada of Vinhais, born in 1586, then age would have been a factor as well. Thus we reject the second (unconventional) interpretation, and see Moses #1419 as an elderly uncle of Moses #46 and brother of Isaac #42 - who came to London around 1676 - perhaps from Portugal - for a quiet but very brief retirement!