Dissertation

i
Britain and the Transatlantic Slave Trade: Tokens
commemorating British slave ship voyages.
120288748
ARA/3001
Word Count: 13,198
The Slave Ship, J M W Turner, 1840

i
Acknowledgments:
The outcome of this dissertation would not have been
possible without the guidance and advice of various people.
Most importantly, I would like to thank my supervisor Dr
Jane Webster, for providing constant, invaluable feedback
and advice. I would also like to thank all of the other people
that provided their input and help with this piece of work,
most notably my friends and family.

i
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction...........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction:..................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Artefacts Commemorating British Slave Ship Voyages – Current Research ...............................4
1.3 Methodology: Available Sources for Identifying Commemorative Tokens Depicting Slave
Ships....................................................................................................................................................5
1.4 The Transatlantic Slave Trade: An Introduction:.........................................................................6
1.5 Timeline of Key Dates:...............................................................................................................10
Chapter 2: Commemorative Material Culture: Tokens.........................................................................11
2.1: Introduction................................................................................................................................11
2.2: Commemorative Tokens: A General History ............................................................................12
2.3 Identified Commemorative Tokens ............................................................................................13
2.4 Identified Tokens Not Specific To Vessels.................................................................................13
2.5 Tokens Commemorating Specific Vessels .................................................................................18
Chapter Three: Slave Ships and Voyages.............................................................................................24
3.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................24
3.2 Technical Aspects of Slave Ships...............................................................................................24
3.3 The Ships and Voyages depicted in the Tokens..........................................................................27
Chapter Four: Commemorative Tokens in Relation to Abolitionism...................................................36
4.1 Introduction:................................................................................................................................36
4.2 British Abolitionism 1780-1807 .................................................................................................36
4.3 Abolitionist Strategies and the Response of the Slave Traders...................................................42
Chapter Five: Conclusion .....................................................................................................................51
5.1: Summary:...................................................................................................................................51
5.2 Areas for Further Study: .............................................................................................................51
5.3 Conclusion: .................................................................................................................................52
Appendix A – Catalogue of Identified Commemorative Metal Tokens:..............................................54
Appendix B – Tables: ...........................................................................................................................57
Bibliography: ........................................................................................................................................62
Primary Sources:...............................................................................................................................62
Historic Newspapers:........................................................................................................................62
Parliamentary Papers and Acts: ........................................................................................................63
Secondary Sources:...........................................................................................................................63

ii
Table Of Figures
Figure 1.1 Portrait of Sir John Hawkins, 1532-95 Hawkins was the first English slave trader.
Portrait dated 1581, author unknown (National Maritime Museum 2015) . .............................7
Figure 1.2 Map depicting the Triangular trade routes across the Atlantic, including the trade in
slaves (Howell World History) ..................................................................................................9
Figure 2.1 Coin believed by James Atkins to Celebrate the Royal African Company coin, 1750.
Details of which can be found in the Catalogue, Appendix A, A.1 (Image courtesy of: Atkins:
1889: 238)................................................................................................................................14
Figure 2.2 German Medal Commemorating the Voyage to Guinea, 1681, details of which can
be found in the Catalogue, Appendix A, A.1 (National Maritime Museum 2015) .................17
Figure 2.3 Engraved Bronze Coin Commemorating the Liverpool Slave Ship the Amacree,
1788, Details of which can be found in the Catalogue, Appendix A, A.3 (National Maritime
Museum 2015) .........................................................................................................................18
Figure 2.4 Silver Commemorative Half Crown, Depicting the Slave Ship Rose, 1790, Details
of which can be found in the Catalogue, Appendix A, A.4 (National Maritime Museum 2015)
..................................................................................................................................................21
Figure 2.5 Silver Commemorative Shilling Depicting the Slave Ship Rose, 1791, Details of
Which can be found in the Catalogue, Appendix A, A.5 (National Maritime Museum 2015)
..................................................................................................................................................21
Figure 2.6: Bronze Halfpenny Token Believed to Depict the Slave Ship Concord, 1767, Details
of which can be found in the Catalogue, Appendix A, A.6 (National Maritime Museum 2015)
..................................................................................................................................................22
Figure 3.1: William Jackson’s ‘A Liverpool Slave Ship’, 1780 Image courtesy of: Liverpool
(International Slavery Museum 2015) .....................................................................................26
Figure 3.2: Map depicting the maiden voyage of the slave ship Amacree, 1788 Data gathered
from the Transatlantic Slave Trade Database, Voyage ID: 80207 (Eltis: 2011) .....................29
Figure 3.3: Map depicting the 1790 voyage of the slave ship Rose Data gathered from the
Transatlantic Slave Trade Database, Voyage ID: 83401 (Eltis: 2011)....................................31

iii
Figure 3.4: Map depicting the 1791 voyage of the slave ship Rose Data gathered from the
Figure 3.5: Map depicting the 1767 voyage of the slave ship Concord Data gathered from the
Figure 3.6: The Beilby Glass Goblet known to commemorate the launch of the Whitehaven
slave vessel King George. (The Fitzwilliam Museum 2015) ..................................................34
Figure 4.1: Pages 13 and 14 from Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, ‘List of the
Society, Instituted in 1787, for the purpose of effecting the abolition of the slave trade.’
London, Printed in the Year 1788 (Eighteent Century Sources Online: 2015) .......................38
Figure 4.2: Mezzotint of Thomas Clarkson, Circa 1825 (National Maritime Museum 2015) 39
Figure 4.3: Cover Page for An Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, Parliamentary Papers,
1807 (Eighteent Century Sources Online: 2015).....................................................................41
Figure 4.4: 1807 etching of William Wilberforce, leading Abolitionist (National Maritime
Museum 2015) .........................................................................................................................42
Figure 4.5: Wedgwood SEAST Jasper-Ware Medallion, Circa 1787 (National Maritime
Museum 2015) .........................................................................................................................44
Figure 4.6: White Metal Anti-Slavery Token, 1787 – Token’s such as these were produced on
a large scale (National Maritime Museum 2015) ....................................................................45
Figure 4.7: Bronze Anti-Slavery Token, 1787, SEAST was most likely the issuer of this token
(National Maritime Museum 2015) .........................................................................................46
Figure 4.8: Bronze Anti-Slavery Halfpenny, 1790 (National Maritime Museum 2015) ........47
Figure 4.9: Except from John Ranby’s Doubts on the Abolition of the Slave Trade; by an Old
Member of Parliament, 1790, Pages 6 and 7 (Eighteent Century Sources Online: 2015) ......48
Figure 4.10: 1789 ‘Plan and Sections of a Slave Ship’ Brooks, James Phillips (National
Maritime Museum 2015) .........................................................................................................50

iv
Abstract
The overall aim of this dissertation is to investigate the history of the transatlantic slave trade
and slave ships through the identification of British slave ship commemoratives. This is
achieved by identifying and collating metal tokens that depict slave ships and the voyages they
undertook. This dissertation begins with a summary of the current archaeological work
regarding the material culture of slave ships; it then gives a brief history of the transatlantic
slave trade. Following this, it introduces the identified commemorative tokens and sets out the
evidence that suggests they indeed celebrated slave ships. A biographical history of the ships
and owners is then provided, alongside a discussion of the images depicted on the tokens. This
dissertation then moves on to discuss the commemorative tokens in the context of the British
abolition movement, and thus suggests that abolitionist strategies may have ignited the demand
among pro-slavery groups for items that illustrated the transatlantic slave trade more
positively. Finally, this dissertation finishes by suggesting the possibilities for further study of
British slave ship commemoratives.

1
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Introduction:
This thesis makes a new contribution to an emerging area of study concerning material culture
commemorative of Britain’s involvement within the transatlantic slave trade. Its aim is to
explore one aspect of the material expression of the transatlantic slave trade by identifying
surviving commemorative metal tokens that depict slave ships prior to the abolition of the
British slave trade in 1807. This dissertation thus collates and catalogues a number of metal
tokens commemorative of slave ships. In the course of my research I have identified six metal
tokens (as discussed in chapter two), and in the following chapters attention is paid to the ships
they represent, and the voyages they are believed to commemorate. The manufacturers of the
tokens, the individuals who owned the ships and those who commissioned the tokens are
researched wherever possible. The biographies of the metal tokens themselves are entwined
throughout with a discussion of particular facets of the slave trade, in order to provide historical
context.
The material culture of the transatlantic slave trade provides considerable insights into the
social, economic and political ambitions of those directly involved with the trade, and also of
those engaging with it through less direct means. The identification and analysis of these
commemorative metal tokens thus provides an understanding not only of the dynamics of the
transatlantic slave trade within Britain, but also of the perceptions of the many Britons
contemporary with it.
This dissertation will also aim to determine whether some, if any, of these commemorative
artefacts were commissioned and manufactured explicitly in response to the strategies of the
emerging abolition movement from c.1780 onwards, as a number of the dates on the tokens

2
appear to be contemporary with the so called ‘winds of change’(Webster: Forthcoming). This
inference is due to the recent work, particularly by Jane Webster (Forthcoming), which has
suggested that slave ship commemoratives seem to appear at the same time as debates began
in earnest about the slave trade. Where Webster’s argument is presented through punch bowls,
this dissertation will determine whether or not the same applies to metal tokens. This will be
achieved through the examination of parliamentary proceedings, abolitionist propaganda and
material culture, as well as exploring the possible motivations of the slave traders affiliated
with the commemorative tokens. To put it plainly, the focus of this dissertation is to discover
why the tokens were manufactured and for whom. Of the four coins identified to be
commemorative of particular slave ships, 17 voyages were made between them - See Table C,
Appendix B-, transporting an estimated 5737 slaves from their native homeland to the
plantations and colonies of the Americas and the West Indies, 492 of whom did not survive the
middle passage (Transatlantic Slave Trade Database1
). The remaining two tokens I have
identified however are not commemorative of one particular slave ship but instead certain
countries involved within the trade. One such token is believed to celebrate the Royal African
Company, one of the most prolific slaving institutions of the transatlantic slave trade
(Pettigrew: 2013: 8). The token appears to celebrate the company’s constitution by act of
Parliament in 1750 (this inference has however been disregarded in section 2.3). Nevertheless,
the aforementioned token provides much insight into Britain’s prominent part in the slave trade
(Atkins: 1889: 238).
The first chapter of this dissertation provides a review of published scholarly literature
concerned with artefacts commemorative of the British slave trade, and discusses the available
sources that have enabled identification of the metal tokens discussed here as slave ship
1
All of the Data collected within this dissertation regarding ships voyages comes from the Transatlantic Slave
Trade Database, which can be accessed here:http://www.slavevoyages.org/tast/database/search.faces
The information presented are imputed statistics

3
commemoratives. This chapter will also include a general discussion of the transatlantic slave
trade. This will support the analysis of the commemorative tokens, and provide a historical
framework regarding the topic. It draws on various scholarly works including Hamilton and
Blyth (2007);Katz-Hyman (2008); Paton and Webster (2009); Richardson (2007; 1994);
Reynolds (1994); Small (1994a; 1994b); Stammers (1994); Tibbles (1994); Walvin (2007;
1994) and Webster (2015; 2007)
Chapter two aims to look both singularly at the identified commemorative tokens representing
slave ships, and also, prior to this, a broader investigation of commemorative metal tokens used
generally throughout history. In order to fully grasp the significance of the identified tokens, it
is important to understand why it is metal tokens were utilised as commemorative items and
the impact they were intended to have. For this facet of study, I have drawn on numerous
published works concerning commemorative coins and tokens. Roos’ (1955) work has been
instrumental to this particular area of my research as it provides key information regarding the
use of commemorative coins throughout history which, arguably, can be translated to
understanding the motivations for commissioning tokens commemorative of slave ships. I have
also utilised Williamson’s (1889) work regarding trade tokens in order to further my
understanding of metal tokens in general. Chapter two then goes on to discuss coins and tokens
depicting known slave ships and sets out the evidence which demonstrates that these examples
are indeed commemorative of slave ships and their voyages. Chapter three explores the
technical aspects of slave ships, particularly with reference to their appearance throughout a
slaving voyage. It will also provide an in depth discussion of the ships and voyages depicted
on the tokens, as well as the people affiliated with the ships. For this, I will draw upon relevant
literature alongside available primary documentary sources, including the Liverpool Registry
of Merchant Ships (Craig & Jarvis: 1967).

4
The penultimate chapter of this dissertation considers whether the identified commemorative
tokens were potentially commissioned as a reaction to the rising Abolition movement (as
Webster – Forthcoming - has argued with reference to punch bowls and other ceramics
depicting slave ships). A discussion of the commissioning and manufacture of the tokens is
presented, combined with a study of the rise of abolitionism, particularly with regard to its
impact upon material culture. I will suggest that abolitionist propaganda, including anti-slavery
tokens, appears to have ignited a demand among pro-slavery groups for material items that
represented the transatlantic slave trade more favourably.
The final chapter of this dissertation draws together the numerous facets of this research in
order to reflect upon the initial aims and objectives of its study and to reach some conclusion
concerning the use of pro-slavery tokens in late 18th
century Britain. It also highlights the
potential for further research into this topic and suggests how that might be carried out; an
outlet which is entirely possible given the lack of previous study in this field.
1.2 Artefacts Commemorating British Slave Ship Voyages – Current Research
The abduction and transportation of millions of Africans from their native homeland to the
Americas became commonplace from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries, and the
ramifications of this process still reverberate within the contemporary world (Hamilton &
Blyth: 2007: 12). Throughout the eighteenth century and up to the abolition of the British trade
in 1807 Britain monopolised the slave trade, emerging as the greatest force of human slave
trafficking in the western world. It is estimated that from the years c.1650 to c.1810 the English
traders alone transported on average around 174,000 imprisoned Africans a decade upon their
merchant vessels to suffer the gruelling voyage to the colonies and plantations (See Table A,
Appendix B) TSTD; Richardson: 1994: 73). In spite of this however, the hideous dynamics of

5
the transatlantic slave trade and the perceptions of those involved with it are to this day not a
universally recognised aspect of our history (Hamilton & Blyth: 2007: 12).
Thus far, the study of commemorative artefacts depicting slave ships has been fairly limited.
This, perhaps, is due to the sheer number of written documentary sources concerning Britain’s
involvement in the transatlantic slave trade, meaning that often, the surviving material artefacts
can often go unnoticed (Webster: 2007: 115). Jane Webster’s work on the material culture of
slave shipping (2007; Forthcoming), however, is arguably, pioneering in its attempts to identify
the material culture depicting slave ships, particularly commemorative ceramics. The research
noted here is instrumental to this dissertation, as it provides a unique platform for further study
and also highlights the significance of material culture studies with regard to the transatlantic
slave trade.
Katz-Hymans paper (2008) on the manufacture of abolitionist material culture has also been a
key text regarding the research of this dissertation. This paper explores the motivations of the
manufacturers who produced consumer products in support of the campaign to abolish the slave
trade (Katz-Hyman: 2008: 221). This work is useful with regard to my dissertation as it
provides insight into the emergence of abolitionist strategies; something I believe may have
been the driving force behind the production of some of the potential commemorative tokens.
Furthermore, the paper also attempts to determine why precisely these products were produced
and what the motivations were. It looks particularly at the motivations of the manufactures; be
they political or economic (Katz-Hyman: 2008: 220).
1.3 Methodology: Available Sources for Identifying Commemorative Tokens Depicting
Slave Ships
My research has drawn heavily upon comprehensive catalogues of coins and tokens from the
British Empire. The most useful source here has been the James Atkins’ 1889. I have also relied

6
extensively on museum collections, particularly those from Britain’s maritime museums
including the National Maritime Museum, Whitehaven Museum and the Liverpool Museum.
Some of these catalogues are available online, such as the National Maritime Museum. In terms
of identifying the ships depicted on the coins as slave ships, there are numerous sources
available; the most useful perhaps is the Transatlantic Slave Trade Database (Henceforth
TSTD). The TSTD is an online web source compiling archival resources regarding all of the
voyages undertaken during the transatlantic slave trade. The TSTD provides information on
the slave ships and the voyages they undertook, including the ship’s name, owners’ names,
captains, voyage dates and outcomes, and the estimated (or known) number of slaves embarked
and disembarked. It also provides information regarding primary and secondary sources. The
TSTD is an incredibly valuable tool when one seeks to identify metal tokens commemorative
of slave ships.
Lloyds List and Lloyds Register of Shipping (Craig & Jarvis: 1967) has also been utilised
within this dissertation. Lloyds Register in particular provides detailed information on specific
vessels and has been a valuable source for the third chapter of this dissertation, as it has allowed
me to compare the images on the tokens with the details provided in the Registry, concerning
the ship’s appearance and key features. Numerous other sources have been utilised within this
dissertation where possible, including muster rolls, log books and contemporary shipping news,
such as Lloyds List.
1.4 The Transatlantic Slave Trade: An Introduction:
Before introducing and discussing the commemorative tokens in depth, it is important that
some historical context is understood with regard to the transatlantic slave trade, particularly
concerning Britain’s involvement with it.

7
The kidnapping, trade and transportation of millions of enslaved Africans athwart the Atlantic
to the far reaching colonies of the Americas was arguably one of the most international
movements within world history (Paton & Webster: 2009: 161). The trade implicated a vast
amount of people from four different continents, and as a result, the transatlantic slave trade
provides a long and complex narrative, the effects of which are still palpable across the world
today (Draper: 2008: 432; Klein: 2010: 75; Small b: 1994: 126). Spanning for over 300 years,
the transatlantic slave trade began modestly in 1441, with a troupe of Portuguese sailors
enslaving some ten Africans on the coast of Mauritania, North Africa (Postma: 2003: 5). The
management of an extensive trade in slaves took several hundred years to become fully
established however, with Africa producing a paltry source of slaves until the beginning of the
sixteenth century. Incidentally this is also the century that marks Britain’s involvement within
the slave trade, with John Hawkins first English slaving voyage across the Atlantic Ocean
embarking in 1562 (Klein: 2010: 76).
Figure 1.1 Portrait of Sir John Hawkins, 1532-95
Hawkins was the first English slave trader.
Portrait dated 1581, author unknown.
Image courtesy of National Maritime Museum:
http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/14229.html

8
From the mid fifteenth to the late nineteenth century around 12,521,336 (See Table B,
Appendix B) Africans were traded, shipped and sold into slavery in the colonies of the New
World, a large number of which did not survive the arduous conditions of the Middle Passage
(Chernos: 1997: 1; Eltis & Richardson: 2008: 1). As staggering as this figure is, it does not take
into account the vast numbers of Africans that perished prior to being captured and enslaved
during the slave raiding and wars in Africa (ibid). The most leading countries involved within
the slave trade include Britain, France, Holland, Spain, Portugal and the United States, though
Germany too had a small involvement (Walvin: 2007: 18). The aforementioned countries
participation within the slave trade was bound to both the desire for colonial expansion and
mercantilism2
, a theory that dominated contemporary thought during the centuries discussed
(Chernos: 1997: 2). A large number of the slaving voyages followed a triangular route (see
figure 1.2), with vessels embarking from numerous European and American ports to the
African west coast, where goods were traded and Africans procured and shipped, along with
other cargo, across the Atlantic to numerous colonies in the Caribbean and the Americas. Upon
reaching the colonies the Africans were sold as slaves and forced into strenuous and often
extreme labour on plantations to produce commodities for the European market – namely
tobacco, coffee and sugar (Chernos: 1997: 2; Tibbles: 1994: 13).
Due to the extremely taxing nature of plantation work, there was a large demand for the
constant supply of new slaves to join the labour forces. Ultimately this meant that the
transatlantic slave trade thrived, and became an extremely lucrative business venture by the
mid-18th
century, not least of all for Britain, who seemingly dominated the trade by this point
(Chernos: 1997: 3; Morgan: 2000: 7). For a long time, it appears the merchants engaged in the
slave trade, and other slave grown products, revelled in the profits of mercantile trade in ports
2
Mercantilism is the economic theory that trade generates wealth. For the full definition see:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/mercantilism

9
such as Liverpool and Bristol. By the late 1780s however, with the introduction of the Dolben
Act in 17883
and the rise of abolitionism, it appears the merchantmen involved within the slave
trade had sunk considerably in popular esteem (Chernos: 1997: 3). Through this notion, the
question arises as to how, if at all, this burgeoning shift in public attitudes affected the business
enterprises and conduct of the traders (Chernos: 1997: 4). In other words, what were the traders’
reactions to these shifting perceptions, and could they possibly be related to the material
expression of the transatlantic slave trade.
3
The Dolben Act was passed by British Parliament in 1788, its aim was to regulate the amount of slaves placed
on board a ship by reducing the number of slaves-per-ton ratio. For More information on the Dolben Act see
Klein, H. S. 2010, The Atlantic Slave Trade, Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 151
Figure 1.2 Map depicting the Triangular trade routes across the Atlantic, including the trade in slaves.
Image Courtesy of: https://howellworldhistory.wordpress.com/quarter-one/unit-3-european-global-interactions/the-atlantic-
slave-trade-15-4/

10
1.5 Timeline of Key Dates:
For the purpose of historical context, a timeline of key dates, particularly concerning Britain’s
involvement within the Transatlantic Slave Trade has been included.
1441 Africans enslaved by Portuguese sailors on the coast of Mauritania
1444 Portuguese trading expeditions with Africa start; slaves are bought, kidnapped and taken
to Lisbon
1492 Columbus’s first visit to the Americas
1510 First large transport of 250 African slaves from Lisbon to the New World
1528 First asiento (contract), starting the slave traffic directly from Africa to the Americas
1562-3 John Hawkins’s first English slaving voyage across the Atlantic
1625 The English acquire Barbados and start cultivating sugar on the island
1655 English settlers in Jamaica, who develop it into a major sugar growing island
1730s First Maroon wars in Jamaica
1763-64 Rebelling slaves almost gain control of the Dutch colony of Berbice (Guyana)
1770 Abbé Raynal publishes book, Histoire philosophique, condemning slavery
1772 British Chief Justice Lord Mansfield rules in Somerset case that slavery has its limits in
Britain, but is not illegal, as is often assumed
1776 British and American Quakers require their members to free their slaves
1778 British Parliament creates committee to investigate the Atlantic slave trade
1787 The Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade is established in London
1788 The Dolben Act, regulating the number of slaves aboard slave ships is passed by British
Parliament
1789 Twelve Resolutions against the slave trade are introduced to parliament by William
Wilberforce
1792 British House of Commons passes law to abolish slave trade, but the House of Lords veto
it
1792 Boycott of slave grown sugar gains support in Britain
1806 British parliament passes law prohibiting British slave trade to foreign markets
1807 Parliament passes law that prohibits British subjects to engage in the slave trade, or to
import slave to British possessions after May 1st
1807
All Information in this timeline has been taken from Postma: 2003

11
Chapter 2: Commemorative Material Culture: Tokens
2.1: Introduction
Commemorative tokens and coins are, arguably, far from unique with regard to historic
material culture. Indeed, commemorative artefacts in general are common and used often
throughout Britain and further parts of the globe. In the realms of maritime history in particular,
commemorative ceramics, glass-wares and tokens were produced on a large scale during the
18th century. Ceramics, for example, were often decorated with illustrations of naval heroes,
sea battles, harbour scenes, sailors’ farewells, and ships on the open sea (Webster:
Forthcoming). So the metal tokens discussed below are, in some respects, far from out of the
ordinary. Much like the metal tokens and medals that commemorate the naval vessels of
Admiral Nelson and Sir John Jervis, or the convicts love tokens that depict the far-flung voyage
to Australia, the metal tokens discussed in this chapter were no doubt produced to perpetuate a
great achievement, and bestow luck and best wishes upon the bearer. But simply because they
depict slave ships and their voyages, these metal tokens are very rare objects (Webster: ibid).
Indeed, any commemorative artefacts that depict slave ships are a rarity, something which is
exemplified within Jane Webster’s paper on ceramics.
Before turning to tokens which certainly, or almost certainly depict slave ships, the chapter
begins with a broader consideration of commemorative tokens and their significance
throughout history. Though the focus of this discussion is not specific to commemorative
artefacts affiliated with the transatlantic slave trade, it provides some useful insights on the
commission and manufacture of tokens throughout history and is imperative to fully
understanding the use of commemorative tokens depicting slave ships.

12
2.2: Commemorative Tokens: A General History
Commemorative coins and tokens have been employed, for centuries in order to celebrate or
remember a certain event, person, object or place. As a result they provide ample insights into
the historical past. The subject matter of commemorative tokens, coins and medals is very
broad, with commemorative relief images existing as far back in the ancient world as primeval
coinage itself (Roos: 1955: 3). The commissioners and designers of commemorative tokens no
doubt saw them as an outlet for perpetuating the recognition and celebration of some
momentous achievement or event which, through the distribution of tokens or medals, would
be universally known by all manner of people (ibid).
According to Roos (1955: 3), the appearance of commemorative coinage (particularly with
regard to architecture) seems to occur relatively often after Pisanello, a distinguished
renaissance artist, revived the artistry of medal making in Italy during the fifteenth century AD.
More often than not early modern examples appear to represent ‘great’ achievements, a way
for the patrons to bolster and preserve significant accomplishments. Interestingly, Roos (1955:
3) comments that one may trace the major movements of history from the images inscribed
upon medals and tokens. If this is to be believed, then much like one would use a historical
text, so too should the same careful scrutiny be applied to commemorative medals.
This opinion has not however, always been quite so readily voiced. At one time, it appears the
study of tokens was merely an idle pursuit of the more affluent members of society, or the study
of the very learned (Williamson: 1889: 171). Metal tokens in particular, are argued to have
been ‘ridiculed on all sides’, their importance mocked and historic value lightly predicted, not
to be compared for one instant to the imperial coins of Rome and Greece (ibid). In the late
nineteenth century however, it appears that numismatics became a study of great interest, and
their subject matter recognised as a source of historical insight hitherto few suspected (ibid).

13
Speaking of trade tokens in particular, Williamson (1889: 172) notes that these metal tokens
were issued by the people and it is of those people that they speak. Arguably, the same may
ring true of commemorative tokens that depict slave ships. They were, as discussed below,
issued by the ship owners or masters, and there can be no doubt that it is of these people, and
their involvement within the slave trade, that the tokens speak.
2.3 Identified Commemorative Tokens
In the course of this study, out of the vast number of tokens that have been researched, only six
metal tokens have been identified as commemorative of the transatlantic slave trade. Of those
six, two of the examples do not represent specific slave ships. Rather, these examples were
produced with the intention of commemorating or celebrating success within the transatlantic
slave trade, particularly with regard to specific countries or empires. The examples which can
confidently be shown to depict specific slave ships and perhaps particular voyages (for example
the Amacree token: see Figure 2.3), have been researched in depth, using the TSTD database
as a starting point for analysis. All of the voyages collated within the TSTD have been given a
unique five figure voyage number, which is employed throughout this dissertation.
2.4 Identified Tokens Not Specific To Vessels
Two of the six identified coins appear to commemorate or celebrate success within the slave
trade, rather than specific voyages. The Royal African Company coin4
is one of these (See
Figure 2.1). The coin features in James Atkins 1889 Coins and Tokens catalogue of the British
Empire, whereupon Atkins states that the coin celebrates the Royal African Company. After
further research however, one would suggest this is not the case. In the earlier years of the slave
trade, Britain’s involvement was dominated by large merchant companies. The Royal African
4
Note that the name given to this coin is taken from James Atkins 1889 catalogue The Coins and Tokens of the
Possessions and Colonies of the British Empire (p. 238). It will be utilised throughout so not to cause confusion

14
Company (RAC), monopolised English trade with the African west coast and the trade in slaves
to the New World until c.1720 (Davies: 1999: 44; Pettigrew: 2013: 2). According to Pettigrew
(2013: 8), the Royal African Company, which garnered the support of the English monarchy,
shipped more enslaved African men, women and children to the American colonies than any
other individual institution during the entire period that spanned the transatlantic slave trade.
From 1672, when the RAC received its royal charter granting legal monopoly of African trade,
up until the early 1720s, it is estimated that the RAC enslaved and transported near to 150,000
Africans and shipped them mostly to the colonies of the British Caribbean (Carlos & Kruse:
1996: 291; Pettigrew: 2013: 8).
The coin I wish to discuss however was produced much later in the trade. The RAC coin
features the obverse of a monogram GR – supposedly King George II, where the reverse depicts
a shield of arms (featuring a ship in full sail, and an elephant with a castle atop it among other
images – See Figure 2.1) and the words ‘Free Trade to Africa by Act of Parliament 1750’
(Atkins: 1889: 238). Despite the vast trade successes of the RAC, the company eventually
failed, and by the 1730s it had virtually disappeared from the trade market (Carlos & Kruse:
Figure 2.1: Coin believed by James Atkins to Celebrate the Royal African Company
coin, 1750. Details of which can be found in the Catalogue, Appendix A, A.1
Image courtesy of: Atkins: 1889: 238

15
1996: 291). In The Coins and Tokens of the Possessions and Colonies of the British Empire,
Atkins’ notes that in 1750, the Royal African Company was constituted by Act of Parliament
(1889: 238). That is to say, the RAC were established by an act of law, giving the impression
that the coins struck were commemorative of the Royal African Company’s involvement
within the trade. As it has already been noted however, the RAC’s involvement within the
transatlantic trade began to decline some twenty years earlier. It is likely, then, that this coin
was in fact commissioned for other intentions. It appears that in 1750, the Royal African
Company actually surrendered their charter to the crown (Crooks: 2013: 10). In that same year,
an Act of Parliament (23 Geo. II., Cap. 31 – Trade to Africa Act) for extending and improving
the ‘Trade to Africa’ was passed and the ‘African Company of Merchants’ (ACM) was formed
(ibid). The prologue of the Parliamentary Act reads:
“Whereas the trade to and from Africa is very advantageous to Great Britain, and necessary
for supplying the Plantations and Colonies thereunto belonging with a sufficient number of
negroes, at reasonable Rates; and for that purpose the said Trade should be free and open to
all His Majesty’s Subjects.” (Taken from Crooks: 2013: 10)
Clause II goes on to state that:
‘All His Majesty’s Subjects trading to or from any of the ports or places of Africa…shall forever
hereafter be a body corporate and politick, in name and in deed, by the name of the Company
of Merchants trading to Africa.’(ibid)
It is this act, and the formation of the ACM that I believe the aforementioned coin is, in fact,
intended to commemorate. Despite Atkins’ (1889: 238) claims within his catalogue, it is clear
that the coin does not commemorate the Royal African Company’s monopoly over the slave
trade, but rather the replacement of the RAC with the African Company of Merchants. This
inference is further backed up by details of the production of a seal for the ACM on the eleventh

16
of December 1750. During a committee meeting for the ACM, held in London, it appears that
the committee had commissioned a Mr George Copeland to engrave a seal, as directed by Act
of Parliament (Crooks: 2013: 11). The seal is said to include ‘A Ship in full Sail…the Crest, an
armed Elephant with a Tower and Castle proper’ and for the following legend to be engraved
round ‘Free Trade to Africa by Act of Parliament, 1750’ (ibid). The same images and legend
can be found upon the coin thought to represent the RAC in Figure 2.1.Though the coin does
not feature any specifics suggesting its affiliation with the transatlantic slave trade, such as a
vessel name, or the name of a master (captain), it does appear to support free trade to Africa,
and is therefore included here.
There can be little doubt that coins such as these were produced relatively steadily throughout
the trade, and evidence for this can be seen not only within British numismatics. It appears that
other countries also involved with the slave trade produced similar items of material culture.
One such item that resembles this is the medal commemorating a German voyage to Guinea in
1681 (see Figure 2.2). The silver medal features a kneeling African woman holding a basket of
ivory on the obverse, alongside a fort partly hiding a ship holding the Brandenburg flag, and
another two ships sailing away. The legend on the obverse is in Latin and reads ‘Navigation to
the Coasts of Guinea, Happily Begun 1681’. The reverse of the medal depicts a three-masted,
beflagged ship under sail, the legend, again in Latin, reads ‘under the guidance of God and the
auspices of the most Serene Elector of Brandenburg’. Unfortunately, due to the political
fragmentation of the German states in the early modern era, tracing Germany’s involvement in
the slave trade has proved rather difficult (Weindl: 2008: 251). The duchy of Brandenburg
(which later became Prussia) however, has left clearly traceable evidence of German presence
in the transatlantic slave trade (ibid).

17
It is argued that a significant motivation for Brandenburg’s involvement within the trade is due
to the Elector (ruler), Friedrich Willhelm, the same man who is mentioned on the reverse of
the medal. According to Weindl (2008: 252), Willhelm had an innate desire for international
recognition and was heavily influenced by his uncle the Duke of Courland, who having grown
up in England, based his own plans for trade on English ventures. The first expedition to Africa
under the Brandenburg flag is said to have embarked in 1680, in which the venturer's were to
trade for gold, ivory and slaves on the coast of Guinea (ibid). For the Brandenburg court,
Willhelm requested ‘half a dozen young and handsome slaves of 14, 15 and 16 years of age’
(Weindl: 2008: 252). According to the TSTD, the first slaving voyage under the Brandenburg
flag delivered its slave cargo in 1683, transported on a ship named the Kurptintz Von
Brandenburg, which could well be Friedrich Willhelm’s vessel (TSTD 21960). As slave
journeys were often long affairs, it is entirely possible that the 1681 coin was struck in order to
commemorate the aforementioned voyage.
Figure 2.2: German Medal Commemorating the Voyage to Guinea, 1681, details of which can be
found in the Catalogue, Appendix A, A.2
Image Courtesy of: The National Maritime Museum Collections

18
2.5 Tokens Commemorating Specific Vessels
The remaining four identified metal tokens will be discussed henceforth. All depict individual
slaving vessels, the home port of all but one of which was Liverpool.
By around 1750, Liverpool had become the most prominent slaving port within Britain, and by
1780 was the most prolific slave port within the Atlantic world (Richardson: 1994: 73). Indeed,
the trading of enslaved Africans was a vital pillar within the economy of 18th
century Liverpool,
no doubt the foundation of the city’s considerable surge in trade and shipping, and enabling
improved networks with the industrialising towns of Lancashire (Richardson: 1994: 76). Given
such profitable benefits, it is hardly surprising that Liverpool merchants would commission
commemorative items, no doubt to celebrate their success within the slave trade, and also to
promote it to other members of Liverpool society. One such item is the Amacree token (See
Figure 2.3), which certainly depicts the Liverpool slave ship the Amacree. The engraved coin
is made of bronze, and depicts on the obverse a port broadside view of a three masted ship in
full sail. The legend reads ‘Success to the Amacree’. The reverse is inscribed with ‘John Cread,
Liverpool 1788’ and around the rim ‘On Demand in London, Liverpool or Anglesey’.
Figure 2.3: Engraved Bronze Coin Commemorating the Liverpool Slave Ship the Amacree, 1788,
Details of which can be found in the Catalogue, Appendix A, A.3
Image Courtesy of The National Maritime Museum
Collections:http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collections/objects/255124.html

19
The Amacree was a registered Liverpool slave ship constructed in 1788. It completed ten
slaving voyages thereafter, the first one being in 1788 (TSTD80207; Lloyds Register
5/1/17895
). On the 27th
of August that year, the Amacree embarked on its maiden voyage,
commencing its journey from Liverpool to New Calabar. There, Captain’s Edward Deane and
John Sparling (jr) successfully traded for 448 slaves, to be transported to the islands of
Dominica and sold for a tidy profit on behalf of the vessel’s owning syndicate, which was
headed by William Harper and Robert Brade (TSTD 80207). The journey was not an easy one
however, during the course of the voyage 4 members of the crew were lost, two of whom, were
potentially the ships Masters, as the following voyage in 1789 was captained by a new master,
Roger Lee (TSTD 80208). 38 of the captured Africans died on the voyage. Financing a vessel
fit for involvement within the slave trade required substantial investment on the ship and its
upkeep; the hiring of a crew of around 30 men; subsistence provisions for all of those on board,
including slaves, and for the purchase of trade goods to be exchanged for slaves upon reaching
Africa (Webster: forthcoming). The annual sums invested in the slave trade from Liverpool
merchants alone are believed to be around £200,000 in 1750, and investments were thought to
have increased substantially by 1800 (Morgan: 2000: 37; Richardson: 1994: 75).
Due to the necessity for considerable expenditure to outfit a voyage, it was more common that
most ships and their voyages were subsidized by joint ownerships or large syndicates
(Hancock: 1995: 21). This meant that numerous investors held shares in the vessel and the costs
and profits of the voyages. In particular, it appears that Liverpool merchants managed slaving
voyages in comparatively larger syndicates than those from other prominent slaving ports, such
as Bristol (Mcdade: 2011: 1093). The Rose (Fig 2.4) is a vessel typical of this type of
investment. Constructed in Lancaster in 1783, the Rose underwent seven voyages as a slaver
5
Also Noted in Lloyds List 7/12/1790; 29/04/1791; 11/10/1791; 23/03/1792

20
from its maiden voyage in 1783, up until its last voyage in 1794 when it was captured by the
French (TSTD 83397; 83403). The Rose, registered in Liverpool, was owned by a syndicate of
eight investors, headed by Joseph Ward (Lloyds Register 5/1/17896
). Ward was quite a prolific
merchantman and slave trader, part owning 24 vessels and was also a proprietor of the canal
navigation from Leeds to Liverpool (Craig & Jarvis: 1967: 195; CPCN: 1789).
It must be noted that the two tokens discussed hereafter were discovered within the National
Maritime Museum online catalogues. The museum has identified the images depicted on these
tokens to represent HMS Rose, a 1794 warship that was part of Sir J. Jervis’ squadron. It is my
belief however, that the two tokens in Figures 2.4 and 2.5 depict the slave ship Rose,
commemorating two of its voyages in 1790 and 1791. Both voyages embarked from Liverpool
to eventually reach the colonies in Jamaica (TSTD 83401; 83402). The first is a silver half-
crown inscribed with a monogram ‘J C’ on the obverse. The reverse depicts a broadside view
of a three masted ship under sail. Inscribed below is ‘Rose 1790’ (See Figure 2.4). The second
identified token is a silver shilling and was likely produced by the same artist as the 1790 token,
who unfortunately has not been identified. The obverse of the coin is adorned with a port
broadside view of ship under sail, with the legend ‘Rose 1791’, the reverse is monogrammed
with the initials ‘J W’ (See Figure 2.5). One would be inclined to argue that the initials on the
1791 token stand for Joseph Ward, and those of the 1790, Joseph Caton. Caton was also part
owner of the Rose, along with fifteen other known vessels, six of which Joseph Ward also held
a share in (TSTD). Joint syndicates with long running acquaintances such as these were
common, as slaving voyages were fraught with uncertainties for both the crew and the owners.
Over the course of seven voyages the Rose transported 1,985 slaves from West Africa, 1815 of
whom survived the Middle Passage and were sold into forced labour on the plantations
6
The Rose is also mentioned in Lloyds List 19/03/1790; 13/04/1790; 05/03/1793

21
(Statistics Generated from the TSTD). The Rose however, was just one slave ship among many
that hailed from Liverpool’s port.
Figure 2.4: Silver Commemorative Half Crown, Depicting the Slave Ship Rose, 1790, Details of
which can be found in the Catalogue, Appendix A, A.4
Image Courtesy of the National Maritime Museum Collections:
Figure 2.5: Silver Commemorative Shilling Depicting the Slave Ship Rose, 1791, Details of Which
can be found in the Catalogue, Appendix A, A.5

22
It has long been acknowledged that Liverpool’s successes within the transatlantic slave trade
were somewhat higher than other slaving ports, particularly within Britain, and most notably
compared to Bristol (Richardson: 2005: 35; 1998: 446). Numerous arguments have been put
forward as to why Liverpool surpassed Bristol, such as geographical location, flexibility and
specialisation within commerce (Ascott et al: 2006: 19; McDade: 2011: 1092).
Interestingly, McDade (2011: 1093) however argues that it was perhaps, in part, due to
Liverpool slaving merchants managing slave voyages in comparatively larger investment
groups to Bristol merchants. These larger syndicates gave Liverpool merchants wider access
to knowledge, skills and resources, otherwise known as capital, which offered greater
competitive leverage to their trade (ibid). This theory is perhaps exemplified through a
comparison of certain ships. As we have seen, Liverpool ships such as the Amacree and the
Rose underwent numerous voyages with more than one investor gaining substantial profit. The
Concord is a Bristol vessel that embarked on only one voyage as a slaver in 1767, and, unlike
the Amacree and the Rose, was owned singly by David Duncomb and captained by William
Bishop (TSTD: 17643)
Figure 2.6: Bronze Halfpenny Token Believed to Depict the Slave Ship Concord, 1767,
Details of which can be found in the Catalogue, Appendix A, A.6

23
It is the final token identified within this thesis that is believed to commemorate the Concord
(See Figure 2.6). The bronze halfpenny token depicts a starboard view of a brig under sail on
the obverse; inscribed above is ‘1767’. The reverse is also inscribed with a brig under sail, with
the initials ‘W B’, which could well stand for the master of the ship (See Figure 2.6). The
Concord embarked its first and only slave voyage from its home port of Bristol on the 11th
of
August 1766 captained by William Bishop. The ship then carried its crew of 30, and 330
enslaved Africans from Calabar to the islands of Dominica in 1767 (TSTD 17643; Richardson:
1991: 200). It is possible that Duncomb commissioned this token as a gift to William Bishop,
perhaps as a memento of the voyage, or to show gratitude. It is interesting to question however
why the Concord only underwent one voyage. It appears of the total 330 slaves that embarked
from Calabar, only 250 reached Jamaica, resulting in a total loss of 80 Africans during the
Middle Passage (TSTD 17643). Whilst this figure does not seem too drastic a loss, it would
have fallen heavily on Duncomb due to his single ownership. Perhaps this loss of profit was
too much of a risk to undergo another voyage for Duncomb due to the lack of a larger syndicate,
thus the risk, expertise and resources could not be shared (McDade: 2011: 1105).

24
Chapter Three: Slave Ships and Voyages
3.1 Introduction
It is the aim of this chapter to provide an in-depth discussion of the ships depicted on the tokens
described in Chapter 2, and to research the people connected with these ships. The following
discussion has also aimed to compare the images inscribed upon the tokens with the details
provided in Lloyds Registry of Shipping, concerning the appearance and key features of the
ships. As a result, I will determine whether or not the images on the tokens aspire to be true
representations of the ships they are believed to represent. It is first necessary to consider the
technical aspects of slave ships, with reference to their appearance and usage throughout a
voyage.
3.2 Technical Aspects of Slave Ships
Having been purchased on the African coast, captives destined for the Americas were then
incarcerated in ships bound for the journey across the Atlantic known as the ‘Middle Passage’
(Klein: 2010: 132). The manner in which these slaves were transported, and the odious
conditions they endured have been one of the most prominent studied issues within transatlantic
slavery (ibid). The vessels and their fittings employed within the slave trade provide important
insights into many facets of the transportation of human cargoes (Webster: 2007: 104). Thus,
it is important that the ships, and their technical aspects, are discussed to some degree of depth.
‘Guineamen’7
or slave ships were the quintessential sailing cargo ships of their time up until
the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade (Stammers: 1994: 35). These vessels came in a
wide range of sizes. Not only was it necessary that they sailed with great agility in order to
shorten the Middle Passage, but at the same time they needed enough cargo capacity for trade
goods and plantation products (ibid). On top of this, vessels also needed adequate stability to
7
A ‘Guineaman’ is a merchant or a ship trading with Guinea, the definition can be found here:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guineaman

25
bear armaments for the passengers to defend themselves. Until the mid-fifteenth century,
European mariners undergoing voyages were limited by the size, structure and fittings of their
vessels. By 1450 however, pre-existing ship designs (such as the ‘Cog’ and ‘Hulc’) were
overtaken by a new type of vessel, the fully rigged Ship (ibid). Arguably, the ‘Ship’ was the
foundation of any later developments in ship models until the introduction of steam-powered
vessels in the nineteenth century, and without it the slave trade may not have been possible.
It appears, in terms of both seaworthiness and range of operation, this new type of ship was
highly superior to its predecessors, built with a skeleton consisting of a backbone with stern,
sternposts and frames, and then sheathed with wooden planks (Stammers: 1994: 35). This new
structure ensured larger, more robust ships that could carry guns, ample supplies and enough
men for longer voyages. Within a century of its debut, the European skeleton-built ship had
been sailed all over the world. As a result, it became an indispensable vehicle for the
colonisation of the Americas which, of course, included the transportation of enslaved Africans
(ibid). By the sixteenth century however, the ship was redesigned by the introduction of the
galleon, which was narrower and longer in the hull, reducing weight and bulk from the ship.
Most slave ships appear to have been outfitted with partial decks and platforms in the space
below the main deck (Klein: 2010: 134). Generally, it is thought that slave ships were larger
than average cargo vessels and there appears to be a distinction between a ‘West Indiaman’
which was trading directly with the Americas (and tended to be London built), and a
‘Guineaman’ involved in the slave trade and largely Liverpool or Bristol built and owned
(Stammers: 1994: 39). In terms of visual representation, maritime scenes were common among
eighteenth century paintings, and it is possible that many of the vessels illustrated in them were
in fact slave ships (Webster: Forthcoming). Only a Few of the ships depicted in the harbour
and ocean scenes however drew explicit attention to that fact (ibid). One of the handful that did
is maritime artist William Jackson’s Liverpool Slave Ship, which can be seen in Figure 3.1.

26
The Jackson portrait, which undoubtedly features an anonymous slave ship, paints the ship in
generous detail, ensuring the image was probably painted by eye (ibid).
In terms of tonnage, British slave ships ranged from about 50 to 200 tons (Richardson: 2007:
44). On average, most British slave ships carried an estimated three or more slaves per ton once
they departed Africa (ibid). The Liverpool slave ships bound for Africa in the 1790s in
particular weighed between 177 and 241 tons, carrying 1.6 slaves per register ship’s ton, with
an estimated 5 to 7 square feet of deck area given to each slave on board (Klein: 2010: 134).
The average number of enslaved Africans on board a ship at the beginning of the Middle
Passage varied between 150 and 600, with most ships carrying around 200 to 400 victims,
representing extremely high levels of ‘packing’ of human cargo below the main deck
(Richardson: 2007: 44).
Figure 3.1: William Jackson’s ‘A Liverpool Slave Ship’, 1780
Image courtesy of: Liverpool International Slavery Museum
http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/ism/collections/middle_passage/slave_ship.asp
x

27
The conditions on board slave ships were fetid, and the ships were aptly described by a former
shipmaster as ‘floating prisons’ where enslaved Africans were dehumanised and debased
(Reynolds: 1994: 32; Richardson: 2007: 44). The height of an average slave ship deck was
between four and five feet, where slaves were crowded together in one or two rows and
shackled by leg irons (Reynolds: 1994: 32). Lack of sufficient food, contagious diseases and
dissent synthesised the severe discomfort on board slave ships, particularly during the arduous
Middle Passage. It is estimated that around 18 percent of slaves died during the Middle Passage
and a further 3-5 percent prior to embarking on the voyage from the African coast (Reynolds:
1994:34).
3.3 The Ships and Voyages depicted in the Tokens
It is fair to argue that the voyage across the Atlantic was not an easy one for any of those
involved, though the suffering of the crew could not be compared to that of the slaves. Given
such awful conditions, it is interesting to think that many slave ship owners wanted to celebrate
these voyages through the use of material objects. Indeed, a number of the identified metal
tokens discussed in this thesis appear to provide considerable detail of the ships they are
intended to depict. In terms of commemorative ceramics that depict slave ships, it appears that
a great deal of detail went into the design of the images on many of the punch bowls and jugs
in order to present a true likeness (Webster: Forthcoming). Whilst the majority of slave vessels
depicted on ceramics appear to be accurate portraits, the question arises then if the same may
also be true of the images on metal tokens.
The image depicted upon the Amacree token, as can be seen in Figure 2.3, is relatively detailed,
with the artist even going so far as to inscribe the coin with an, albeit dubious, illustration of
the ocean. The inscription on the obverse of the token illustrates a three masted ship in full sail
flying the red ensign. According to Lloyds Registry of Shipping, in which details of the ship

28
Amacree were admitted on the 3rd
of May 1788, the ship certainly had three masts, two decks,
and weighed 205 tonnes (Craig & Jarvis: 1967: 127). The registry also states that the Amacree,
a fully rigged Ship, also featured quarter badges (most likely at the stern) and a figurehead in
the form of a male (ibid). A Quarter Badge is a window or outcrop at the quarters of a ship,
which was often ornately decorated with marine figures or other emblems (Andela: 2001).
Upon careful examination of the Amacree token, it is clear that quarter badges are visible at
the stern of the ship. The token does not however reveal any detail of decoration, nor is the
figurehead visible, unfortunately. That being said, it seems clear that the Amacree token does
depict the ship it is intended to represent relatively accurately. This in turn suggests that
whoever manufactured the token was well informed of the ship’s structure and features. Sadly,
the certainty of the manufacturer is unclear, although one is inclined to argue that John Cread,
whose name features on the reverse of the token, may have been the artist and craftsman. This
assumption has been made based upon investigating the TSTD and Lloyds Registry, as nowhere
is John Cread mentioned in affiliation with the ship, in terms of ownership or captaincy
etcetera. Thus, this deduction has been made.
In terms of the commission of the token, it is possible that either William Harper or Robert
Brade, the owners of the ship, appointed an inscriber to manufacture the commemorative piece,
in order to celebrate its maiden voyage in 1788 (TSTD 80207). The voyage departed from
Liverpool on the 27th
of May 1788, and eventually reached a port in Dominica with 410 slaves
(ibid). The journey of the vessel can be seen on the map in figure 3.2. It is likely that the
Amacree token was manufactured in Liverpool, the home port of the ship Amacree, as the city
it is inscribed on the reverse of the token. Thus, it is entirely possible that the manufacturer of
the token, potentially Cread, may have drawn a draft illustration of the vessel by eye, in order
to ensure the utmost accuracy.

29
It is important to note here that, though the illustrations upon coins and tokens can provide
ample detail, they are relatively small, and it is difficult to inscribe so intricately onto metal.
This inference may explain the lack of finite detail depicted on the Amacree token, as though
it presents an accurate image of the ship, the quality is somewhat lacking. The Rose tokens
however display a much higher level of craftsmanship. The sister coins that have been
identified to depict the slave ship Rose are both relatively high quality and display ample detail
of the ships, as can be seen in Figures 2.4 and 2.5. Both tokens depict the Rose as a three masted
ship in full sail. Interestingly, the two coins depict the ship Rose from opposite broadsides,
perhaps intentionally, so as to create a fully mirrored image of the ship via the two coins. Much
like the aforementioned Amacree token, the illustration of the vessel Rose depicted on the
tokens is fairly accurate. The Rose was a 164-ton rigged Ship with two decks and three masts,
as is depicted in the tokens (Craig & Jarvis: 1967: 133). Other features of the vessel included
a high quarter deck in the stern, quarter badges and some form of figurehead (ibid). Both the
Rose tokens appear to depict a true likeness of the ship therefore, as not only does the vessel
appear to have three masts on the tokens, but a quarter deck and a figurehead in the form of a
Figure 3.2: Map depicting the maiden voyage of the slave ship Amacree, 1788
Data gathered from the Transatlantic Slave Trade Database, Voyage ID: 80207

30
person are visible under close inspection. Thus, the commissioners of the tokens no doubt
wanted the best likeness of the Rose possible to be depicted upon the tokens.
It is interesting to note here that the 1791 token appears to be slightly more intricate in its motif
than that of the 1790 token, particularly with regard to the monogram on the reverse of each
token (See Figures 2.4 and 2.5). The reason for this may simply be that, as the 1791 token was
probably manufactured latterly, the intricacy of the ship’s illustration could have improved – a
second draft as it were. Another reason for this however, is that because Joseph Ward (arguably
the intended owner of the 1791 token) was the head of the syndicate, the coin with his initials
on it should, perhaps, therefore be of a better standard than the token intended for Joseph Caton.
The Rose underwent four voyages before the commission and manufacture of the two
aforementioned tokens (TSTD 83397; 83398; 83399; 83400). Which begs the question why
was it not until 1790 that the owners wished to commemorate the slave ship in material form,
something which will be discussed in the following chapter of this thesis.
The 1790 token is believed to commemorate the 1790 voyage of the Rose, which commenced
on the 12th
of September 1788, and was completed some 505 days later on the 24th
of May
1790 (the route can be seen on the map in Figure 3.3; TSTD 83401). The voyage was long and
difficult, 9 of the 34 crew members perished during the journey, as did 20 of the 242 enslaved
Africans (TSTD 83401). Similarly, the 1791 voyage, which embarked on the 14th
of October,
saw 12 out of 34 members of the crew die during the 426 day long journey (TSTD 83402).
The details of the slave voyage can be seen on the map depicted in figure 3.4.

31
Shipboard mortality was a huge focus of the debates regarding the slave trade which
commenced in Parliament in 1788, and in which concerns for both the mortality of the slaves
and the crew were voiced (Klein: 2010: 133). Slave voyages were often long and uncertain
Figure 3.3: Map depicting the 1790 voyage of the slave ship Rose
Figure 3.4: Map depicting the 1791 voyage of the slave ship Rose

32
journeys, including great risk of fatality particularly during the middle passage. The rates of
mortality of the crew aboard slave ships were markedly higher than for crews following other
routes, including the commodity trades to Africa (Klein: 2010: 133; Behrendt: 2007: 70). This
risk was, as we well know, not only a concern regarding the crew members. The mortality of
the slaves too were a matter of concern for the investors, since any loss of slaves en route would
directly affect the eventual profitability of the voyage (Klein: 2010: 134). Despite this, these
concerns did not extend to creating any amenities for the slaves during the middle passage,
such as sanitary provision and humane living conditions aboard vessels.
A particular ship that suffered the loss of profit due to slave mortality is the Concord, another
slave vessel represented in one of the identified tokens. The Concord, unlike the
aforementioned ships only underwent one voyage as a slaver in 1767. That is, under British
ownership, as the ship appears to have been constructed by the French, though the date is
unknown (Richardson: 1991: 200). Unfortunately, the Concord is not included in the Liverpool
Registry, as its home port was Bristol (TSTD 17643). Some details of the vessel are included
in Richardson’s third volume of Bristol, Africa and the 18th
Century Slave Trade to Africa
(2010: 200), though information is limited. The 105 ton ship, owned by David Duncomb,
commenced its first and only known voyage as a slaver on the 8th
of November 1766
(Richardson: 2010: 200; TSTD 17643). The vessel departed from Africa with 350 enslaved
Africans on the 17th
of August 1767 and reached a port in Dominica (ibid) – The voyage can
be seen on the map depicted in figure 3.5. Details of the return voyage however are not
documented. The crew at the outset numbered 30, with William Bishop as Master, the same
man thought to be included on the token believed to commemorate the Concord.

33
In terms of the ship’s features, as depicted on the token, these are difficult to discern. In
comparison to the Amacree and Rose tokens, the Concord commemorative is somewhat lacking
in both detail and quality (See Figure 2.6). The coin does appear to illustrate a Brig, which is a
square rigged, two masted ship (Oxford Dictionary: 2015). The tonnage of the ship was
relatively small by comparison to some merchant vessels, so it is entirely likely the Concord
was a brig and not a larger three masted ship. The token also appears to depict some form of
flag and a figurehead, as well as five guns mounted on either side of the vessel. According to
Richardson (1991: 200) and the TSTD (17643), the Concord had a total of ten guns mounted
on her. Thus, it is certainly possible that the image of the ship upon the token is, to an extent,
a true likeness of the slave ship Concord.
The details of the commission and manufacture of the token are unknown, though one would
be inclined to argue that Duncomb commissioned the token to be given as a gift to Captain
Bishop. According to the TSTD, David Duncomb part, or singly owned five vessels involved
in the slave trade, including the Concord and a ship named the King George, which Duncomb
Figure 3.5: Map depicting the 1767 voyage of the slave ship Concord

34
held shares in the 1775 voyage (TSTD 17643; 17859). Another slave ship may be noted here,
also named the King George, and constructed in Whitehaven 1763 (TSTD 24587). The
aforementioned King George is commemorated on a glass goblet, decorated in Newcastle by
William Beilby (Berry: 2009: 149; Fancy: 2012: 1). The Beilby goblet, which can be seen in
figure 3.6, bears the royal coat of arms of George III, and on the opposite side a ship, with the
words ‘Success to the African Trade of Whitehaven’ (Berry: 2009: 149). It is believed that the
Goblet was commissioned in order to celebrate the launch of the slave ship King George in
1763, whilst simultaneously commemorating the birth of King George IV in 1762 (Fancy:
2012: 1). Whilst the Beilby goblet is not directly linked to any of the aforementioned ship
owners, the King George glass piece is a significant indication that metal tokens and ceramics
were not the sole medium selected for slave ship commemoratives (Webster: Forthcoming).
Figure 3.6: The Beilby Glass Goblet known to commemorate the launch of the
Whitehaven slave vessel King George.
Image Courtesy of The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge
http://webapps.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/explorer/index.php?oid=25890

35
After evaluating the images of the ships depicted upon the identified metal tokens, it is fair to
argue that the four tokens discussed, do, as far as can reasonably be determined, represent a
true likeness of the slaving vessels they are intended to commemorate. These tokens sought to
celebrate and perpetuate the great successes within the slave trade, whilst also advertising the
stable and vigorous business acumen of the merchants. It can be deduced therefore, that the
customers who sought to commission the tokens strived for realistic and authentic
representations of specific and individual ships. It would not do to settle for a non-exclusive
generic image of a ship. Why were the customers so uncompromising in their wishes for a truly
recognisable, albeit beautified representation of slave ships? The unstable future of the trade is
something that arguably factored into this, and something that will be considered in the
following chapter.

36
Chapter Four: Commemorative Tokens in Relation to Abolitionism
“Trading people! Heavens! And Nature does not quake! If they are animals, are we not also like
them? How are the Whites different from this race? It is in the color . . . . Why do blonds not claim
superiority over brunettes who bear a resemblance to Mulattos? Why does not the day argue with the
night, the sun with the moon, and the stars with the sky? Everything is different, and herein lies the
beauty of Nature. Why then destroy its Work?”
Olympe de Gouges, Réflexions sur les hommes nègres (Reflections on Black People), 1788
4.1 Introduction:
The aim of this chapter is to consider what the motivations informing the commission and
manufacture of tokens that commemorated transatlantic slave ships. Three of the six identified
commemorative tokens were produced at a time when the anti-slavery movement was starting
to gain momentum within Britain. As a result, this chapter will consider whether some, if any,
of the identified commemorative tokens were likely commissioned explicitly as a response to
the emerging abolition movement. Within this chapter I will propose that the manufacture and
circulation of abolitionist propaganda, with particular reference to Wedgwood’s cameo
medallion and anti-slavery tokens, appears to have inflamed and necessitated the demand
among pro-slavery groups for the production of material objects in favour of the slave trade.
In order to understand these commemorative and anti-slavery tokens in their full context
however, it is important to set the scene regarding British abolitionism in the late eighteenth
and early nineteenth centuries.
4.2 British Abolitionism 1780-1807
The slave trade, according to an abolitionist petition in 1792, was a ‘national disgrace’ as it
disrupted Britain’s standing as a ‘free and enlightened nation’ (Peterson: 2010: 12; Oldfield:
1998:117). The British were the most prolific slave traders of the eighteenth century, and yet
by the late 1780’s, some Britons became zealous abolitionists (Walvin: 2007: 23). Early

37
abolitionists took every possible opportunity to profess the need for national virtue. They did
so with hardly a whiff of the irony that Britain was formerly culpable for transporting more
enslaved Africans to the West Indies than any other nation involved in the transatlantic slave
trade (ibid). The origins of the British abolition movement stemmed from the influence of
emerging Enlightenment writings, most notably Montesquieu, and from the advancement of
British non-conformity (Walvin: 1994: 87).
The advancement of anti-slavery attitudes at the end of the eighteenth century was somewhat
sudden, dramatic and pervasive (Walvin: 1986: 97). Indeed, a national organisation was set up
rather rapidly. The Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade (hereafter SEAST),
formed in May 1787, and sought to ignite current abolitionist feeling, to encourage its
expansion and to expend abolitionist pressure on Parliament (Walvin: 1986: 97; Pallua: 2011:
115; Oldfield: 2007: 66). In the early years of its formation, SEAST was predominantly made
up of Quakers. Since Quaker groups had established throughout Britain from the beginning of
the eighteenth century, immediate national networks were made available to the abolitionist
groups of the 1780s (Walvin: 1986: 97). Notable members of SEAST included Granville Sharp,
Thomas Clarkson and Josiah Wedgwood among others, as can be seen in Figure 4.1 (SEAST:
1788: 13-14). In Thomas Clarkson, the society possessed a great advantage, as the movement’s
only full time reformer his numerous letters, pamphlets and tours popularised the abolition
movement and motivated public opinion (Oldfield: 2007: 66).
Initially, early abolitionists aimed to take advantage of the mood for reform by gaining an
exceptional amount of signatures for abolitionist petitions which were submitted to parliament
(Walvin: 1994: 87). Tracts, pamphlets and simple publications which put forward abolitionist
arguments were issued cheaply and in plenty. Those of which were studied and exhausted in
coffee houses, taverns, private homes and public meeting places by the million (ibid).

38
SEAST’s overarching objective was to inspire enough interest to prompt petitioning on a large
scale (Oldfield: 2007: 68). According to Oldfield (2007: 68), the early history of the abolitionist
movement can be traced from two major petition campaigns, the first of which took place in
1788, when over 100 petitions regarding the transatlantic slave trade were pushed in the House
of Commons. Due to the volume of petitions presented to the Commons, on the 11th
of February
that same year a committee of the Privy Council was appointed to deliberate the state of the
slave trade, in which data of numerous slave ships and testimonies from many involved within
the trade were collected (ibid). A mere three months later in May, William Wilberforce, in
Figure 4.1: Pages 13 and 14 from Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, ‘List of the Society, Instituted in
1787, for the purpose of effecting the abolition of the slave trade.’ London, Printed in the Year 1788
Document Accessed from Eighteenth Century Collections
Onlinehttp://find.galegroup.com.libproxy.ncl.ac.uk/ecco/retrieve.do?docLevel=TEXT_GRAPHICS&inPS=true&prodId=ECCO&userGroupName=new_i
tw&doDirectDocNumSearch=false&tabID=T001&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&currentPosition=1&contentSet=ECCOArticles&showLOI=&bookId=1517
801800&collectionId=&relevancePageBatch=CB127667234

39
collaboration with the London committee of SEAST, presented a motion in the Commons. The
motion called for an early abolition of the trade. Unwilling to discuss the motion in depth
however, the House of Commons proposed to hear its own evidence regarding the trade (ibid).
One small consolation however, which occurred late in the same session, was the passing of
Sir William Dolben’s Slave Limitation Bill (The Dolben Act) by both Houses, putting a limit
on the number of slaves carried on British slave vessels (Klein: 2010: 151).
The parliamentary inquiry into the transatlantic slave trade was a drawn-out affair, beginning
in 1788 under the Privy Council’s committee, as mentioned earlier, with hearings continuing
up until 1791 (Webster: Forthcoming). That same year, Wilberforce’s motion was defeated
Figure 4.2: Mezzotint of Thomas Clarkson, Circa 1825
Image Courtesy of the National Maritime Museum

40
again 163 votes to 88, which was perhaps in part due to the 1791 slave rebellion in Saint
Dominique. The rebellion proved to be somewhat of an obstacle to the abolitionists, which,
though counteracted, remained to be a powerful symbol of brutality, disorder and civil
turbulence associated with the abolitionist movement, whilst also reaffirming its links to
‘liberty, equality and fraternity’ and the rising violence occurring in France (Oldfield: 2007:
68). As the backlash against the French Revolution grew in force, those involved in the
abolitionist movement did all they could to disaffiliate their cause from the taint of radicalism
(Dresser: 2001: 161).This, and the defeat in parliament prompted Wilberforce to propose the
launch of another petition campaign in 1792, which was a great success, with the motion
gaining 230 votes to 85 in support of the act. As a result it was resolved by the Commons that
at the beginning of January 1796 the trade would be abolished by act of parliament (ibid). On
the 5th
of June 1792 however the Lords rejected the resolution, voting to postpone the entire
affair to the subsequent session (Oldfield: 2007: 69)
Following the Lord’s delay, in 1793 the Commons refused to rekindle the subject of the
transatlantic slave trade (ibid). As a result, the achievements of the previous year were reversed.
It appeared that the abolitionist moment was in decline, and the movement slowly began to
wither. No doubt the calamitous events of the American Revolution and the mounting conflict
in Revolutionary France had a part to play, placing Britain in a period of anxiety and civil
unrest. It was not until some eleven years later in 1804 that the abolitionist movement was
reinvigorated at the incitement of Wilberforce. This time round, the campaign was much more
successful, and in 1807 the Abolition Act was passed, outlawing the British Atlantic slave trade
outright (See Figure 4.3) (ibid).

41
Figure 4.3: Cover Page for An Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, Parliamentary Papers, 1807
Image courtesy of University of Glasgow Library Collections
http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/library/collections/virtualdisplays/blackhistorymonth/mapslegislation/

42
4.3 Abolitionist Strategies and the Response of the Slave Traders
‘The Slave Trade was Unjustifiable;
But inattention and interest prevented,
for a time, the evil from being perceived.’
John Newton, Thoughts upon the African Slave Trade, 1788
In 1788, the Annual Register remarked that the transatlantic slave trade ‘does not appear, til of
late years, to have been considered with that great attention, which a practice so abhorrent in
its nature to the mild principles of modern policy and manners might have been expected to
Figure 4.4: 1807 etching of William Wilberforce, leading Abolitionist
Image courtesy of the National Maritime Museum

43
excite.’ (Annual Register: 1788: 133). Pamphlets, reprints and abridgements were published in
their thousands by leading abolitionists, an operation which inescapably, inspired other
individuals to compose supporting prose in newspapers and broadsheets. Indeed, at certain
times and places, it became very difficult to avoid or ignore the abolitionist message (Walvin:
1986: 108-109). This newfound attention into the dynamics of the slave trade was
unprecedented prior to the late 1780s. It was also attention that to some, was unwelcome,
particularly the merchants and syndicates profiting grossly from the trade (Webster:
Forthcoming). Indeed, for the greater part of the eighteenth century, little attention had been
paid to the transatlantic slave trade within Britain, both by the public and by parliament.
Unsurprisingly, the West Indies lobby in support of slavery doubled its efforts in terms of
promoting the slave trade more positively, thus accelerating the war of words amongst anti-
slavery and pro slavery groups that had substantially progressed in the 1780s (ibid). As a result,
slavery and the slave trade gradually became something of a literary genre in its own right,
attracting numerous eighteenth century poets and novelists. Abolitionist propaganda too, was
produced in its plenty. For the next century, slavery and all its complications and consequences
would generate an unpredicted volume of printed materials; of books, tracts, verses, cartoons,
periodicals, newspapers and material culture (Walvin: 1986: 109). The material culture in
particular, had a prominent role to play, something which was capitalised early on by the
members of SEAST, and arguably, something which also prompted a response in the form of
commemorative items produced by pro slavery groups.
The British campaign to abolish the slave trade witnessed the adoption of consumer products
for people who wanted to support abolitionism in a palpable way (Katz-Hyman: 2008: 219).
The agreement to draw up a suitable emblem for SEAST would without doubt aid the
movement, making the society and its aims instantly recognisable to many (Katz-Hyman: 2008:
200). As a result, in 1787, the same year SEAST was formed, a now iconic anti-slavery cameo

44
medallion was produced by the ceramics manufacturer Josiah Wedgwood (See Figure 4.5).
The medallion, which depicted a kneeling black man in chains, below the words ‘Am I Not a
Man and a Brother?’, was produced in Etruria, the Staffordshire factory of Josiah Wedgwood
(Guyatt: 2001: 93; Webster: 2009: 315). There is little documentary evidence regarding the
manufacture of the medallion, though it is widely believed that the emblem, drafted by Henry
Webber, is attributed to the work of jasper specialist William Hackwood (Katz-Hyman: 2008:
219; Guyatt: 2001: 96). The production and widespread usage of the medallion showed that
material artefacts could be utilised in a powerful and fruitful way in order to promote popular
debate on freedom (Green: 2008: 191).
Originally intended to be worn by members of the abolitionist movement by way of
identification with the cause, the ceramic medallions were worn and owned by thousands of
British people, both men and women (Guyatt: 2001: 93; Williams: 2010: 107). In fact, in the
eighteenth century the cameo was reproduced and worn in various different ways. It was worn
Figure 4.5: Wedgwood SEAST Jasper-Ware Medallion, Circa
1787

45
by men on shirt pins, and on coat buttons, whilst women recreated the cameo into pieces of
jewellery and hair pins, embroidered on to needlework and pin cushions; the image also
appeared on ceramics and on the top of snuff boxes, canes, cufflinks and metal tokens were
also produced (See Figures 4.6, 7 and 8 for examples) (Webster: 2009: 316; Coleman: 1994:
342). Indeed, it was for the most part women, viewed often as they were as the leaders of
fashion that many of the abolitionist material culture was produced and marketed for,
something which was exploited by Wedgwood and women were often given the cameos as
gifts (Midgley: 1992: 37). As a result, the abolitionist material culture served both as a fashion
item and a propaganda emblem, all the while aiming to display the brutality of the transatlantic
slave trade and exclaim support of the abolitionist movement (Webster: 2009: 316).
Anti-Slavery sentiment was not however, universally felt throughout Britain. In Bristol, the
bells of St Mary Redcliffe, the city’s most splendid church, rang out emphatically to celebrate
the defeat of Wilberforce’s abolition bill in 1791, and the following year Tom Paine was
publicly burned in effigy (Dresser: 2001: 162). The 1791 West Indian sugar boycott no doubt
caused much resentment amongst Bristol merchants due to their long standing dynasties of
Figure 4.6: White Metal Anti-Slavery Token, 1787 – Token’s such as these were produced on a
large scale

46
success within the sugar trade (Oldfield: 2007: 68; McDade: 2011: 1093). It has been noted
than in Liverpool too, minimal abolitionist activity took place prior to the events of 1807, no
doubt due to many members of Liverpool society’s livelihood resting in some way on the slave
trade (Howman: 2007: 277). In fact, according to the anonymous author of Liverpool and
Slavery: An Historical Account of the Liverpool-African Slave Trade (1884) it appears that in
the first campaigns of the 1780’s, only two abolitionists were active in Liverpool in terms of
organised anti-slavery (Howman: 2007: 278).
Interestingly, three of the identified commemorative tokens previously discussed in this thesis
represent Liverpool slave ships, being the Amacree and the Rose. Another point about the
tokens may be made here: the dates on the three tokens, being 1788, ’90 and ’91 (See Figures
2.3, 2.4 and 2.5). Indeed, just as the abolition movement was beginning to gain momentum,
just after the Wedgwood cameo came into production and just as the initial petition campaigns
were underway, these tokens aimed to celebrate the aforementioned slave ships were
commissioned and manufactured.
Figure 4.7: Bronze Anti-Slavery Token, 1787, SEAST was most likely the issuer of this token

47
It is intriguing to learn that both anti-slavery and pro slavery groups were both producing metal
tokens throughout the eighteenth century. Indeed, a number of both commemorative and anti-
slavery tokens appear to have been manufactured either in the same years, or very close in date.
Take the examples in figures 3.6 and 3.7 for example. All of these anti-slavery tokens were
produced in the years 1787, the same year Wedgwood’s cameo was designed. The following
year, in 1788, the Amacree token was produced to celebrate the successes of the slave vessel.
The same again can be said of the anti-slavery token in figure 3.8, which was produced in 1790,
the same year that one of the Rose tokens were commissioned and manufactured to
commemorate the ships 1790 slave voyage (See figure 2.4). It is clear to see here that the metal
token was being used as a medium for abolitionist propaganda, which in turn, may have
prompted pro slavery groups to do the same.
Of course, evidence of pro slavery sentiments were voiced elsewhere other than material
culture. Not to be outdone, in 1792 the mighty Society of West India Planters and Merchants
set up its own publications committee, whose activities mirrored exactly those of SEAST and
many other members of British society also made sure their pro slavery opinions were heard
Figure 4.8: Bronze Anti-Slavery Halfpenny, 1790

48
(Oldfield: 2007: 68). Writing in 1790, John Ranby produced a large document listing numerous
doubts on the abolitionist movement (See Figures 4.9). In that same paper, Ranby professed
that he could not ‘answer it to [his] country to vote for the abolition of the Slave Trade unless
they shall advance far more satisfactory reasons than any I have yet met with’ (Ranby: 1790:
1). There can be little doubt that Ranby’s sentiments were felt amongst many other members
of British society, particularly the merchants directly involved within the trade.
Both the ships Amacree and Rose were heavily engaged in the slave trade. So much so, that
those that held shares in their voyages went so far as to celebrate them in material form. It is
Figure 4.9: Except from John Ranby’s Doubts on the Abolition of the Slave Trade; by an Old Member
of Parliament, 1790, Pages 6 and 7
Document Accessed from Eighteenth Century Collections Online
http://find.galegroup.com.libproxy.ncl.ac.uk/ecco/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&scale=0.33&sort=Author&docLevel=FASCIMILE&prodId=ECCO&tabID=T001&resultListType=RESU
LT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2C%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%280X%2CNone%2C42%29doubts+on+the+abolition+of+the+slave+trade%3AAnd%3ALQE%3D%28BA%2CNone%2C124
%292NEF+Or+0LRH+Or+2NEK+Or+0LRL+Or+2NEI+Or+0LRI+Or+2NEJ+Or+0LRK+Or+2NEG+Or+0LRF+Or+2NEH+Or+0LRJ+Or+2NEM+Or+0LRN+Or+2NEL+Or+0LRM%24&retri
eveFormat=MULTIPAGE_DOCUMENT&inPS=true&userGroupName=new_itw&docId=CW3304244052&currentPosition=3&workId=0227800700&relevancePageBatch=CW104244049&co
ntentSet=ECCOArticles&callistoContentSet=ECCOArticles&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&reformatPage=N&retrieveFormat=MULTIPAGE_DOCUMENT&scale=0.33&pageIndex=5&ori
entation=&showLOI=&quickSearchTerm=&stwFuzzy=&doDirectDocNumSearch=false

49
interesting to note that all three of the tokens that commemorate the two ships were
commissioned and manufactured at a time when the abolition movement was gaining
momentum, anti-slavery sentiments were beginning to spread and parliament were engaging
in inquiries of the trade. The embroilment that appears to have occurred between slave ships,
abolitionist propaganda (notably the Wedgwood Medallion), and the commemoration of the
slave trade via metal tokens (among other media) suggests a compelling prospect (Webster:
Forthcoming). The Wedgwood medallion and other tokens which were adorned with the same
image were utilised on a large scale from its initial production in 1787. The image was used,
quite obviously, to encourage members of the British public to envision the slave trade as
something negative and barbaric, something which was hitherto unheard of and unconsidered
prior to the 1780s. One other such item of abolitionist propaganda must be mentioned here: the
Brooks placard (See Figure 4.10).
Amidst the frenzy of data collection carried out by the Committee of the Privy Council, a set
of measurements were taken from nine Liverpool docked slave vessels (Webster:
Forthcoming). One of these aforementioned ships was the slave ship Brooks, constructed in
1781 (TSTD 80663). In 1789, SEAST’s London Committee utilised these measurements to
produce a plan that illustrated the ‘packing’ process used to transport slaves on the decks of
Brooks. The plan, which was published by Liverpool based printer James Philips, swiftly
became the most well-known image of a British slave ship (Webster: Forthcoming). The image
of the Brooks placard was no doubt used in such a way as to encourage members of British
society to view slave vessels negatively, as shockingly unsanitary spaces that were
overcrowded and inhumane (ibid).

50
One would be inclined to argue therefore, that these strategies used by SEAST compelled slave
ship owners and syndicate members, like Harper, Brade and Ward to create their own
propaganda tools, but used instead to commemorate and celebrate the slave trade. Thus,
positive and beautified images of their slave ships were commissioned and adorned upon
commemorative metal tokens. The use of metal tokens, a long running tradition, allowed the
vessel owners to reinvigorate the image of the slave ship, promoting the successes of commerce
and trade, and nullifying the image of barbarity and inhumanity that many had come to
associate with the transatlantic slave trade (Wahab & Jones: 2011: 5).
Figure 4.10: 1789 ‘Plan and Sections of a Slave Ship’ Brooks, James Phillips

51
Chapter Five: Conclusion
5.1: Summary:
The dissertation has identified and collated a number of surviving metal tokens that, I believe,
were produced to commemorate slave ships. It began by providing an analysis of the previous
work committed to the material culture of slave ships, as well administering a methodology
regarding the sources available for identifying slave ship commemoratives. Following this, I
have discussed some historical background of the transatlantic slave trade, in order to put the
identified commemorative tokens into context and to facilitate a better understanding of the
reasons for their commission. The following chapter discussed the use of commemorative coins
and tokens throughout history, and then goes on to discuss the identified tokens known to depict
slave ships, unfolding the evidence that shows these tokens were indeed commemorative of
slave vessels. The third chapter covered a biography of the vessels depicted on the tokens, and
the vessels owners. The discussion in chapter three also endeavoured to ascertain whether the
images depicted on the coins were true representations of the ships they are believed to
illustrate. The fourth chapter and penultimate chapter of this dissertation provided some
historical background of the abolition movement within Britain, alongside a discussion of
abolitionist propaganda and the response of pro-slavery groups and slave merchants. As a result
of this discussion, the suggestion has been made that the commemorative tokens I have
identified were produced explicitly as a response to the emerging abolition strategies in the late
eighteenth century, particularly with regard to anti-slavery tokens.
5.2 Areas for Further Study:
This dissertation has endeavoured to uncover as many commemorative tokens as possible and
provide ample information of the ships and owners biographies. Given that this research is part
of a new, emerging area of study regarding the material culture of slave ships however, there

52
is much scope for further research. Throughout this study, it has proved extremely difficult to
identify and collate metal tokens that potentially depict slave ships. Of the thousands of metal
tokens looked at, only six have been identified as slave ship commemoratives. Indeed,
identifying any slave ship commemoratives is a challenging venture, as it appears they are
somewhat of a rarity (Webster: Forthcoming). Nevertheless, the commemorative items that
have been identified arguably have opened up a new facet of material culture studies in
reference to the transatlantic slave trade, and in particular, slave ships. As a result, I believe
there is ample opportunity for further study regarding this topic. This dissertation has only
focused on one particular object used by pro slavery groups in order to commemorate slave
ships. It has been proven however, both through Jane Webster’s forthcoming work on ceramics,
and the evidence of the Beilby glass goblet, that metal tokens were not the sole media used to
celebrate the transatlantic slave trade. It is entirely possible therefore, that numerous other types
of artefacts were employed and decorated to commemorate British slave ships. Just like the
numerous objects employed by abolitionists to circulate anti-slavery sentiments, much the
same may be possible of existing pro-slavery objects. One possible outlet for further study is
the identification of glass goblets that could potentially depict slave vessels, just as the Beilby
goblet celebrates the slave ship King George; it is entirely possible that other slave ships were
commemorated in the same manner.
5.3 Conclusion:
The research, identification and study of metal tokens that commemorate slave ships has, in
my opinion, proven to be beneficial. These newly identified material culture arguably provide
important insights into the social, political and economic aspirations of those explicitly
involved with the transatlantic slave trade, and also those affiliated with the trade through other
mediums, such as the consumption of sugar and tobacco. As a result of this research therefore,

Dissertation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Dissertation

Similar to Dissertation (20)

Dissertation