From the merchants and employees of the East India Company who invested their colonial earnings from India in sprawling country homes to slave traders who bought up large properties in Britain, the UK’s National Trust charity has documented all such connections that 93 historic properties in its care have with colonialism and historic slavery. In an interim report released this month, the Trust also documents the way that significant buildings now under its purview are linked to the abolition of slavery and campaigns against colonial oppression, as also a connection between colonial wealth which gave rise to areas in Britain referred to as “English Hindoostan”. “A significant number of the places in our care have links to the colonisation of different parts of the world, and some to historic slavery,” said Dr Tarnya Cooper, Curatorial and Collections Director of the Trust.

“Colonialism and slavery were central to the national economy from the 17th to the 19th centuries. Around a third of the places now in our care have direct connections to wider colonial histories, often in a way that’s reflected in collections, materials and records that are visible at those places,” she said. “This report is the fullest account to date of the links between places now in the care of the National Trust and colonialism and historic slavery,” she notes.

The study looks at the immense impact that the economic, social and political influence of East India Company (EIC) employees, referred to as “nabobs”, and their families had on the British country house. It also reflects on their impact on politics and society more broadly from 1757, when Robert Clive effectively conquered much of India, up to the Great Rebellion of 1857 – known as the First War of India’s Independence, which marked the end of the company’s rule in India and the beginning of the British Raj. “Company men such as Robert Clive, who had effectively subjugated much of the Indian subcontinent in the name of the EIC, invested in land and property, much to the consternation of the landed gentry,” notes the report.

“EIC employees and their families and servants who had lived overseas might, it was feared, have adopted ‘foreign’ or ‘exotic’ traits and customs,” it reads. Nevertheless, in spite of the mistrust of EIC money, many individuals and families who had returned to Britain having served the company in India, acquired numerous country house estates, particularly in the counties surrounding London, such as Berkshire, Hertfordshire and Essex. “Berkshire had so many EIC residents that it became known at the time as ‘English Hindoostan’,” according to the report.

It also draws a distinction made in Britain between wealth from the sugar plantations in the West Indies and the portable wealth the “nabobs” brought back from India, which was seen as “alien” for having no land ownership origins. “These histories are sometimes very painful and difficult to consider. They make us question our assumptions about the past, and yet they can also deepen and enrich our understanding of our economic status, our remarkable built heritage and the art, objects, places and spaces we have today and look after for future generations,” said John Orna-Ornstein, Director of Culture and Engagement for the National Trust.

The heritage charity, which is also a membership organisation that maintains historic properties to facilitate public access to them through tours and exhibitions, said the project is part of its effort to provide inclusive and honest histories about places and collections. It says the report will provide the basis for a broader approach, to help contextualise the history of the places in its care.