| The gallery tab shows only items with images. Click the thumbnails to enlarge. |
| Slot: |
1791 France New Constitution "Serment Du Roi" Medal (Maz-244)- (Lettered Edge) |
| Origin/Country: |
FRANCE - ESSAIS |
| Design Description: |
|
| Item Description: |
BRONZE 1791-DATED MAZ-244 NEW CONSTITUTION |
| Grade: |
NGC MS 64 BN PL |
| Research: |
View Coin |
Owner Comments
This is an incredibly cool and attainable medal struck at the Soho Mint to commemorate an event that transpired during the French Revolution. The Monneron brothers initially had the idea to strike a series of medals to commemorate exceptional events and figures in French history, but the series was abruptly abandoned due to the financial failure of their ventures. Only three medals were produced out of the proposed series. The current piece, often dubbed the “Serment Du Rois ‘Je Jure’ medal was struck to immortalize the King’s acceptance of the new French Constitution. It is interesting to note that Dupre opted to provide the date of the commemorated event on the medal as opposed to when it was struck (i.e., 1791 instead of 1792), which seems to have been a general practice at the time (Tungate, 2020). This is one of the few medals in this collection that allows seeing an engraver’s work that is not overtly detailed in the main write-up. Despite his comparatively limited involvement with the medals struck at the Soho Mint, Dupre was an extraordinarily talented artist.
The pictures are courtesy of NGC's new PhotoVision Plus Service.
Historical Context: The French Revolution has captivated the interest of countless historians, which has generated an abundance of modern interpretations. Those interested have no doubt had the opportunity to read these works but may not have had a chance to read an adultered contemporary account of the series of events that transpired. To this end, I present a series of publications from 1791 that provide a glimpse of contemporary analysis from the British perspective. I hope that readers will consider this information in conjuncture with the write-ups for other relevant medals in this set.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Derby Mercury
Thursday, August 18 1791
FRENCH CONSTITUTION.
The Form of Government which the French nation has adopted, having met with applause from some, and the highest disapprobation from others, it appears necessary, since it is now finished, to present to the public a few of its fundamental principles: - First, the basis of the whole form is supposed to be, that every citizen shall enjoy protection and encouragement in every part of his inoffensive conduct, civil and religious. To secure this, the National Assembly has endeavored to provide for a constant free Representation of the People, to be called the Legislative National Assembly, from whom the laws are to proceed: with such a legislature they suppose the laws will be pure and impartial. -to ensure the faithful administration of these laws, they have thought it necessary to restrict the King to the execution of them only, without having an influence in their formation, by his Ministers or other dependents. To him is given the care and government of the Kingdom call one he is to provide for its internal and external safety, and to see that justice and support be given to the citizens alike period to encourage him in this arduous, yet illustrious and benevolent engagement, the Nation has allowed him dignity and emolument, as the head and organ of a great nation. The People, the Legislature and the King are subject to public Laws, of which each are supposed to approve: the authority of the King is plainly defined; the extent of the decrees of the Assembly is fixed; the rights and duties of the citizens declared. Thus the Legislative National Assembly, which is deemed the voice of the People, makes the laws; - the King sanctions and puts them in force - and the People reverence and obey the Law, considering it as the will of the nation, and respect the Chief Magistrate, as their Head and Organ.
The above may be called the foundation of the New Constitution; from which, in the following Abridgement, are readers may form a tolerable idea of the whole fabric: -
On the 5th instant, M. Thouret, in the name of the Committees of Constitution and Revision, presented from them to the National Assembly the report, intituled, The French Constitution; and M. Fayette moved, that a decree should be prepared for presenting the Constitutional Act to the most independent examination and free acceptation of the King.
After the preamble, and seventeen Articles of the Declaration of the Rights of a Man and a Citizen, it precedes thus: “the National Assembly, meaning to establish the French Constitution on the principles recognized and declared before, abolishes he revocable by, the institutions that injure liberty and equality of rights. - there is no longer Nobility, or Peerage, or distinction of orders, or feudal system, or patrimonial jurisdictions, or any of the titles, denominations, and prerogatives derived from them, or any orders of chivalry, corporations or decorations, for which proofs of nobility are required, or any other superiority, but that of public officers and the exercise of their functions. - no public office is any longer saleable or hereditary. - there is no longer, for any part of the nation, or for any individual, any privilege or exception to the common right of all Frenchmen. - There is no longer warden ships, or corporations of professions, arts and craft.- The law no longer recognizes religious vows or any other engagement contrary to natural rights, or to the Constitution.”
This report is then classed under separate heads. - Under the first, it declares that the Constitution guarantees as natural and civil rights, that all citizens are admissible to places & employments within any distinctions; that all contribution shall be divided equally among the citizens, in proportion to their means; that the same crime shall be subject to the same punishments without distinction of persons; liberty to all men of going, staying, or departing; of speaking, writing, and printing their thoughts, and of exercising the religious worship to which they are attached; liberty to all citizens of assembling peaceably, and of addressing to all constituted authority, petitions individually signed; and it declares there shall be a general establishment of public succours for the relief and instruction of the poor. Under the 2d head, it declares the Kingdom shall be divided into 83 departments, the departments into districts, and the districts into cantons; it settles the election of municipal officers, declares who shall be French citizens, and who shall be deprived of that privilege (by naturalization in a foreign country, consumacy to the laws, an initiation in any foreign order which requires proofs Nobility). Head the 3d relates to the public powers; it declares the French Government Monarchial, and the constitution representative; the executive power is the King's; - the legislative, the National Assembly’s; the representative shall be 745; the electors to consist of every active citizen not under 25 years of age, who has resided one year in the Canton for which he votes, and who is not a menial servant; every citizen is eligible as a representative who is not a Minister, were employed in certain places of the Household of Treasury. - the representatives are to meet the 1st of may; but shall perform no legislative act tell their number be more than 373. The National Assembly shall be formed by new elections every two years.
The other parts of the3d head relate to the Royalty, Regency, and King. The royalty is declared indivisible, hereditary to the race upon the throne from male to male, to utter the exclusion of women. The King's title shall be only King of the French, and his person sacred and inviolable. On his accession he shall take an oath, “to employ all the power delegated to him to maintain the constitution decreed by the National Assembly, in 1789, 1790, and 1791, and to cause the laws to be executed.” If he violates this oath, leaves the Kingdom, heads an army against the country, or does not oppose such a one, he shall be held to have abdicated the throne. The King is to be held in minor until the age of eighteen, his next relation (aged 25) not a woman, is in such case to be Regent, and to take an oath similar to the King’s; he is, however, to have no power over the person of the King, the care of whom shall be confided to his mother. In case of mental incapacity, there is also to be a Regency. The presumptive air is to bear the name of Prince Royal, and cannot leave the Kingdom without the King’s and the Assembly’s leave; the Minsters are to be chosen by the King, but cannot be sheltered by him from responsibility.
The next section under this head, relates to the power and functions of the National Assembly. They are to decree all laws, fix the public expenses, public contributions or taxes, pay and establishment of the army, Navy, &c. War cannot be resolved on, or carried on, but by their decree, sanctioned by the King; no treaties of peace, alliance, or commerce, can have effect without their ratification, nor can any troops be marched within 30,000 toises Of their body, what's out there requistition or approbation.
The next section respects the holdings of the sittings, and form of deliberating in the Assembly; in the following sections respect the Royal assent and Royal connexion with the Assembly; the King has a power of refusing his assent to a decree of the Assembly; but that refusal is only suspensive, for if the two following Legislatures shall present to him the same decree, it shall be decreed to have the King's consent; - the King’s consent shall be in the following words, - the King consents, and will cause it to be executed, - his suspensive refusal is to be thus expressed, the King will examine. The King May open and close by a speech, if he pleases, the National Assembly, when they have sent him notice, that they mean, at such time, to open an end their sittings, and he may, if state necessity requires it, at any time during the intervals of their sittings, convoke them. The King Is declared supreme head of the general administration of the Kingdom; Of the land and sea forces, and of watching over the exterior security (by his ambassadors) of the Kingdom, he only bestows the rank of Marshalls of the army, and of generals of the fleets; He is to name two thirds of the Lieutenant generals, camp Marshalls, captains of ships, and colonels of National Gendarmeries, - a third Of colonels and Lieutenant colonels, and a sixth of the lieutenants of ships.
The next objects of the report are, on the manner of promulgating the walls; on the interior administration; on exterior connexions (where it is declared the King alone can interfere in foreign politics, and signed treaties with foreign powers) on the judicial power (which can in no case be exercised by the legislative body or the King); on the public force; on public contributions; And on the connexion of the French nation with foreigners, which concludes the report and the following words:
“The French nation renounces the undertaking of any war with a view of making conquests, and will never employ its forces against the liberty of any people.”
Foreigners, whether settled in France or not, inherit the property of their parents whether Foreigners or Frenchmen. They can contract, acquire, and receive property situated in france, and dispose of it, as well as any french citizen, and every mode authorized by the laws.
Foreigners in France are subject to the same criminal laws and regulations of police as French citizens. Their persons, effects, industry, and religion, are equally protected by the law.
French colonies and possessions in Asia, Africa, and America, are not included in the present constitution.
None of the powers instituted by the constitution have a right to change it in its form or its parts.
“The constituting National Assembly commits the deposit to the fidelity of the Legislative Body, of the King and of the Judges, to the vigilance of fathers of families, to wives and to mothers, to the attachment of young citizens, to the courage of all Frenchmen.”
Such are the outlines of the new government, which is considered by one party as founded on bad principles, and incapable of proper action; - by the other, as an improvement on the British Constitution, as in the French they say the means of corruption are not so great, and that by it Liberty is more equitably and liberally extended: But it seems evident, but the merits or demerits of it must be left to the impartial and experimental decision of posterity.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Reading Mercury
Monday, September 12 1791
Friday and Saturday’s Posts.
Yesterday arrived the Mails from France.
Paris, September 2.
The Constitution being finished, the Assembly called yesterday for the report on the mode of presenting it to the King. M. Beaumetz declared that the three following articles were considered by the Committee as indispensable.
1st, “That a deputation be appointed to present the constitutional act to the monarch.”
2nd, That Louis XVI to take for his guard, and for his Royal dignity, whatever measures he may judge expedient.”
3rd, That the King do name the day on which he may think proper to accept the Constitution, and give orders for the solemn forms to be observed on the occasion.”
These articles were decreed.
On Saturday the 3d instant the New Constitutional Code was presented to the King by M. Thouret, who thus addressed him:
”The Representatives of the nation come to present to your Majesty the Constitutional Act which fixes the indefeatable Rights of the French people, which restores to the throne its real dignity, and organizes the government of the Empire.”
The King’s Answer.
“I receive the Constitution, which the National Assembly commissioned you to present to me; I shall examine it with all the attention and objects so important requires and I shall make known my determination to them with the shortest possible delay - I am resolved not to leave Paris, and I shall immediately give orders to the commander-in-chief about my bodyguards.”
The Deputation of 60 Members, named by the National Assembly to carry the Constitutional Act to the King, proceeded in the following order: a squadron of cavalry and front commanded by M. laFayette. Next to the Deputation, flanked by a body of National Guards, a squadron of calvary close the rear. The hole was preceded, followed and flanked by a great number of flambeaux. The streets through which they passed were lined with cavalry. An immense concourse of people filled the Court of the Mange, and the environs of the King's Palace. The Deputation, found the King sitting in the midst of his Ministers, in the Council Chamber.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Derby Mercury
Thursday, September 22 1791
WEDNESDAY’s MAIL.
Postscript.
London, (Tuesday) Sept. 20.
On Wednesday last, the French king went to the National Assembly, and publicly confirmed his letter, by avowing his ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONSTITUTION, and the presence of an immense multitude of spectators; The ceremony, which was grand and awful, was accompanied by a general discharge of the artillery belonging to the National Guards. In the evening the city was eliminated, the great rejoicings took place. – His Majesty did not appear in the Cordon Bleu, notwithstanding the decree of the assembly; and very graciously observed, that “he wished not to be distinguished by an external mark of dignity, from the rest of the citizens.”
The French King’s acceptance of the new constitution will be followed by the submission and return of the Refugee Princes. And entire amnesty to all the opponents of the Revolution, and a provision for the Princess suitable to their rank.
If His Majesty too has accepted it with sincerity, he may yet be the great King of a great and free people.
The declaration of the King of France is dexterously worded. Everything that can palpitate his flight, reconcile the inconsistencies of his conduct, and give an air of freedom and sincerity to his present acceptation. Perhaps, indeed, experience of the danger and folly of all attempts to escape may determine him quietly at last, if not quarterly, to submit.
In this situation arts and commerce will flourish, trade revive among them, and the Monarch be divested of some of his worst prerogatives,Lettres de Cachet, the Bastile, and the power of tyrannizing over his subjects.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Derby Mercury
Thursday, September 22 1791
THURSDAY’s MAIL.
London, (Monday) Sept. 19.
FRENCH KING’S LETTER
TO THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY,
ACCEPTING –
THE NEW CONSTITUTION.
On Tuesday last, the French king sent the following letter to the National Assembly. It was delivered to the President by the Keeper of the Seals.
Immediately it was announced by the President, and declared to be written with the King's own hand.
“GENTLEMEN,
I have carefully examined the Constitutional Act which I have received from you. I accept it, and we'll take care to have it executed. At any other time, the simple declaration might have been sufficient; but in the present conjuncture, I owe it to the nation, I owe it to myself to declare the motives by which I am influenced.
I had long ago resolved to establish the happiness of the people on a permanent foundation. Shocked at the several abuses which had weakened the springs of Government; alarmed, above all, at the situation of the finances, at the disproportion between the receipts and the expenditure, are resolved at the different parts of Government should be subject to uniform rules. But, convinced that I could not alone attain this great object, I called upon the nation for its assistance.
During the progress of the Revolution, when he began to make Constitutional Decrees, I did not wait till the Constitution should be finished before I gave my assent to them.
I have, by all means and my power, contributed to the consolidation of its parts, even before I was able to judge of it in its whole. And when, during the progress of your labours, I was grieved at the prevalence of disorders, I was still in hopes, that at some time or other, the law would have its full force, and that the people would pay that regard to it which can alone constitute their happiness.
I long entertained these hopes, and my resolution has never relaxed, except at the moment that hope forsook me. Everyone may remember the epoch when I left Paris. At that time opinions instead of being united in a common centre, we're divided among several parties. Every species of disorder, in the licentiousness of the press were then at their height. No authority was respected. It was impossible for me, in the midst of this chaos, to distinguish the real wishes of Frenchman.
Had you at that time presented the Constitution to me, I should not have been of opinion, that the interest of the people would lead me to accept it. And when I quitted Paris, I had but one object in view, that of withdrawing myself from all parties, that I might learn and the most unequivocal manner the sentiments of the nation.
The motives by which I was then guided, exist no longer. You have manifested a disposition of maintaining order, you have revised the Constitution, and you have modified some parts of it which had appeared to me likely to be productive of disagreeable consequences.
You have secured a farther revision of it, according to legal forms. At length, the sentiments of the nation are little longer ambiguous. I have observed that they adhere to the Constitution which you have made. I therefore accept this Constitution; and I take upon me, TO DEFEND IT AGAINST ALL INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL ENEMIES. I will have it executed by all the means in my power.
Knowing that it was approved by a very great majority of the nation, I declare, that by accepting it, I give up the claim which I formally made, of having a share in this work, and that being responsible to the nation alone, - no one, when I give up this claim, has a right to complain.
I should, notwithstanding, be wanting of regard to truth, if I were not to observe, then I have perceived, as I thought, and some parts of your work, a want of energy, so necessary to give the laws their full force, and to preserve that unity, so necessary, of all the parts of the vast Empire; but, in this case, experience alone must be allowed to decide, and after I shall have caused the execution of those laws with which I am entrusted, the nation will still be enabled to express their sentiments by all the means in their power.
But, Gentlemen, in order to establish Liberty, and to settle the Constitution for the individual security of all Frenchmen, all respective and common interests must unite and restoring order, and in giving to the laws that respect which is due to them. Now that the Constitution is finished all Frenchmen ought to be united we ought to have no other enemies than confusion and anarchy.
I will combat those common enemies. But it is necessary, that those whom persecution has exiled, be sure of being under the protection of the law, whenever they shall return to their country. And, with a view to stifle all kinds of animosities, and to destroy the spirit of party produced by this great Revolution, let us agree to forget all that is past.
Let all those accusations and trials which have originated in the Revolution, be extinguished in a general reconciliation. It is possible that those who have shewn an attachment to my person should appear guilty in your eyes? As for those who through a guilty or imprudent zeal, have drawn upon themselves the severity of the laws, I find that I am for them the King of all Frenchmen.
LOUIS
Sept. 13, 1791.
_____________
P.S. It is my opinion, Gentlemen, that I ought to accept in person, the Constitution in the midst of the Representatives of the nation, and on the same spot whence it was derived its birth. I therefore give you notice that tomorrow at noon, I will be with the Representatives of the nation, with an intention to declare my solemn acceptation of the Constitution.”
It is impossible to describe the tumults of joy that followed the reading of this letter. Mons. De la Fayette made the following motion: - “gentlemen, give me leave to second the wishes of the King, and to make the express motion, that every person either accused or confined in the consequence of the King's departure from Paris, BE SET AT LIBERTY, and that every criminal process against them BE AT END; that the prohibitory law relative to passports and that which concerns immigrantsBE REPEALED; and that the committees of constitution and of criminal jurisprudence be ordered to draw up and to present, to Morrow, a degree to those purposes.”
This motion was adopted by acclamation.
A deputation of 60 members was immediately appointed to testify to the King the satisfaction of the Assembly, and to inform him that they would be ready to receive him tomorrow.
The manner in which Louis XVI. Has signified his acceptance of the Constitutional Act, has had a wonderful effect on the minds of the people.
In a few days the jails will be thrown open; and it is hoped that a general amnesty and oblivion will be followed by the happiness of a people who by their perseverance and exertion seem worthy of that liberty which they are about to enjoy.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Obverse: The obverse depicts three figures surrounding a central pillar. The front plate of the pillar is adorned with fasces surmounted by a Phrygian and flanked by an oak wreath. The engraver’s initials D . F. appear on the front plate of the base. To the left, and partially behind the pillar appears what I believe to be an allegorical depiction of Liberty wearing a pointed helmet and flowing robes. Her right arm is lowered holding a pike in front of her. Her right arm is completely obscured by a tablet grasped in her left hand. She is gazing to the right of the pillar. This tablet is resting on the top of the pillar and is inscribed CONSTITUTION in two lines. To the right of the pillar appears King Louis XVI wrapped in decorated robes that flow freely to the ground. A large medallion is affixed to a ribbon that falls across his shoulders and rests on his chest. His right arm is extended outward, and his hand is tracing the writing on the tablet as if he were reading it. His left arm is bent and resting on the hilt of his sword, which seems to disappear within the inner wraps of his robes. His right leg is straight, but his left leg is partially outstretched behind him resting on a slightly higher platform. To this end, the King is stepping down to a platform level with all other figures. Appearing between Liberty and the King is a third figure who is obscured by Louis XVI. I have learned that this is an allegorical figure of Egalité (i.e., equality). Her right is reaching upwards holding a perfectly balanced set of scales. Her gaze is unmissably fixed on the King. This entire scene occurs on a slightly textured foreground that is allowed to extend to the inner ring on both sides but is sharply cut at the bottom to form an exergue. The legend appears above the main device and is closely wrapped around the edge of the inner rim. It reads JE JURE D’ETRE FIDELE A LA NATION ET A LA LOI. In exergue appears the date, 14 SEPTEMBRE 1791 in two lines. All of this is contained within a thin raised outer rim.
Reverse: The reverse design is simple and is divided into two rings that progress in width as they approach the center of the medal. Within the outermost ring of the two appears the legend MESSAGE DU ROI A L’ASS . NAT: CONSTE . TE PRESID . T G . ME THOURET •. It is important to note that some of this legend appears as superscript. This legend contains a lot of shorthand for what I imagine is “Message du Roi á L’Assemblée National Constituante, Président Jacques Gillaume Thouret”. Within the center of the medal the legend LE VOEU PEUPLE N’EST PLUS DOUTEUX POUR MOI: J’ACCEPTE LA CONSTITUTION. 13 SEPTEMBRE L’AN III DE LA LIBERTÉ. appears in nine lines. This wording should sound fmailir, as it is a loose replication of the words from the King’s letter accepting the constitution. All of this is contained within a thin raised outer rim.
Edge: SE. VEND. A. PARIS. CHEZ. MONNERON (PATENTE)
Size: 35mm
Notes: Although the images of this medal are dramatic (compliments of NGC’s newish amazing imaging service), they do not do this medal justice. The cameo contrast is strong against the mirrored fields. I have no idea why this piece was designated as MS as opposed to PF, but it presents all the hallmarks of proof. This medal is classified by Jean Mazard (1965) as Maz-244 and is considered to be common. However, common is a relative term as Tungate (2020) records only 612 were struck across all metals. Nonetheless, this “common” medal is anything but common in this extreme state of preservation. It is graded by NGC as MS-64 BN PL!
References:
Mazard, J. (1965) Histoire Monétaire et Numismatique Contemporaine 1790-1963 – Volume 1 1790-1848. Paris: Émile Bourgey.
Tungate, S. (2020) Matthew Boulton and The Soho Mint: copper to customer. Worcestershire: Brewin Books.
|
| Slot: |
1791 France Marquis De Lafayette Medal Bronze Ex. Boulton (Plain Edge) |
| Origin/Country: |
FRANCE- MEDALS |
| Design Description: |
|
| Item Description: |
BRONZE 1791-DATED FRANCE MARQUIS DE LAFAYETTE DUMAREST - (35mm) Ex. Boulton |
| Grade: |
NGC MS 63 BN |
| Research: |
View Coin |
Owner Comments
The medals struck at the Soho Mint predominantly commemorate noteworthy historical events or organizations, with almost no specific focus on a single individual. However, in stark contrast are the medals struck by order of the Monneron Brothers, intended to celebrate influential and historically significant French patriots. Unfortunately, this series was short-lived, with only two medals produced, one depicting Marie-Joseph-Paul-Yves-Roch-Gilbert du Motier Marquis de Lafayette and the other depicting Jean Jacques Rousseau. In researching medals such as these, collectors have the freedom to explore a wide range of topics that fall under the larger context of a notable figure such as Marquis de Lafayette. This facet of freedom seems most fitting considering Lafayette’s steadfast dedication to liberty, which gave rise to his fame and affection in America, but subsequently perpetuated his turbulent place within French history. Marquis de Lafayette lived a fascinating and somewhat tragic life. Although one could remark upon those extraordinary circumstances, I have opted to focus on his efforts in the American and French Revolutions in this brief write-up.
Historical Context:
The American Revolution
When discussing the American Revolution, it is easy to focus on marching armies, the tragedies that invariably accompany decisive battles, and the figures that led the charge. Despite our reflectively disproportionate focus on these facets, winning a war does not only require victory on the battlefield, which is a point the American forefathers understood well. There is no reasonable way to dismiss the power of both social and political influences on the outcome of the American Revolution. After all, the colonies declared and fought for independence from one of the most powerful kingdoms in the contemporary world. To have any hope of success, the Americans would have to win both the physical and the largely silent sociopolitical war. In this hidden war, the Americans made strategic moves to increase the legitimacy of their cause while the British downplayed it as a doomed rebellion.
The English military enjoyed a reputation as a well-oiled war machine, with a distinct advantage in training, weapons, and tactical experience. Perhaps even more importantly, the English were seen as a global powerhouse with wide-reaching influence that afforded them great respect. These social and political advantages afforded the English unquestionable legitimacy, which is something that the Americans would struggle with well beyond the end of the war. The English had many enemies, affording the Americans an opportunity to recruit young politically and economically connected foreigners who were eager to prove themselves on the battlefield against the formidable English military. The constant influx of well-connected foreigners added a sense of legitimacy to the American cause, which allowed them to grow their influence beyond their borders to secure additional funds, weapons, and soldiers. Notable figures such as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin made their argument clear for the social and political usefulness of these partnerships, which often resulted in the foreigner receiving a rank and title of an officer in the American forces (Kramer, 1981). Most of these men would eventually return to their homelands with little more than a fancy title and a few stories. In reality, they were given honorary titles with no real command opportunities. These foreign soldiers were a means to an end to obtain the goal of changing the global perspective on the American cause from a hopeless rebellion poised for defeat to a legitimate and conceivable victory. The well-established quid pro quo was simply a vehicle for social and political mobilization for all parties involved.
For many, the nineteen-year-old Lafayette was at first seen as yet another powerful connection to be made. Unlike his contemporaries that would join the American ranks, Lafayette was a Marquis. The nature of his place within French society meant that he had a good amount of personal wealth and powerful connections that the Americans desperately sought to exploit to increase the legitimacy of their cause. Leibiger (2013) notes that Lafayette's reception was of the highest importance, and it demanded the personal attention of several notables such as Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. Upon his arrival and reception by Washington, congress commissioned Lafayette as a Major General. Much to Lafayette's displeasure, his new title was honorary, and he was given no troops to command. Underscoring the importance of his social status, he was referred to as The Marquis by all colonial forces. This fact further highlights the idea that he was worth far more to the American Revolution as a social and political symbol than a commanding officer on the battlefield (Kramer, 1981). Eventually, the Americans would view Lafayette as something more, and his role in the American Revolution evolved.
Lafayette’s general disposition towards the war and what he viewed as his role in progressing the American cause eventually changed the way the Americans thought of him. Unlike his fellow foreigners, Lafayette expressed through his actions a desire to learn, not teach (Kramer, 1981). Remember, the American forces did not share the same global perception of legitimacy as the English, which often resulted in foreign partners pushing European conventions, which implied that the American approach was feeble and ill-conceived. Lafayette’s disinterest in pushing these conventions and his lack of desire to gain personal fame and wealth from his service earned him the respect of Washington and so many other influential figures (Kramer, 1981). His disposition won him respect, but his understanding of the power of politics in warfare solidified his role in the American Revolution.
Lafayette was keenly aware that public opinion was critical to winning a war against a much better-equipped military. The American forces constantly encountered shortages of essential supplies such as food, medicine, and weapons. Many locals eschewed continental money in favor of English currency, making it more challenging to obtain the supplies needed. After all, the American forces could not forcefully take what they needed while arguing that they were fighting against a tyrant who stole what they wanted. This delicate position meant that the American forces needed to sway the social and political perceptions of the war in their favor to earn the support of the people who could help them both at home and around the globe.
The role of politics in warfare was not a consideration of other military leaders such as Comte de Rochambeau(1), who argued that politics had no place and those who thought otherwise should leave it to professional soldiers to get the job done (Kramer, 1981). Rochambeau’s approach to war meant that his engagement would be restricted to skirmishes that advanced the military agenda, but not necessarily the political agenda that was vital to resolve the supply chain issues that subdued the ability of the American forces. On the other hand, Lafayette, the sociopolitical star of the American cause, understood this delicate balancing act, and his actions on the battlefield reflected this. Lafayette's role would shift from an observer to a participant in September of 1777 at Brandywine when he was shot in the calf while organizing retreating troops (Leibiger, 2013). The wounds he suffered further cemented the respect he won earlier and signified to many that he was there to support the American cause. Lafayette had once again proven himself a competent and passionate patriot. Up to this point, Washington had kept Lafayette’s ambition of commanding troops of his own at bay; however, there was a genuine concern that continuing to do so may persuade Lafayette to turn away from the American cause and return to France (Leibiger, 2013). By December, he had a division of troops under his command and would go on to participate in several successful and politically savvy skirmishes.
Lafayette distinguished himself both on and off the battlefield, which only added to his globally recognized reputation and esteem. His partnership with the Americans could not have proven more fruitful for either party, and Lafayette returned to France in 1779, aiming to seize the opportunity to capitalize on his growing influence. Upon his return, Lafayette was greeted warmly in France as a champion of liberty (Leibiger, 2013). He was suddenly a beloved celebrity, and there is little doubt that his social and political status influenced the assistance provided to the Americans on behalf of the French Government. Lafayette returned to America by order of King Louis XVI in March of 1780, carrying a message that the French would supply six warships and 6,000 troops to help the Americans win the war. He would continue to prove himself a worthy battlefield commander during his campaign through Virginia in 1781. During which he continuously delivered political and military blows to the English forces. Kramer (1981) notes that Lafayette made a point to allow Cornwallis to suffer the disgrace of surrender if for no other reason than to demonstrate to the world that the English could not silence Virginia. Lafayette would once again return to France to seek aid for the Americans, eventually securing a substantial loan that helped end the war.
Lafayette, a young inexperienced Frenchman of noble birth, played a substantial role in the American Revolution. It is a shame that so many popular retellings of the story focus on his military exploits while simultaneously ignoring what he accomplished off the battlefield. His social status and political prowess undoubtedly influenced the American cause and, in doing so, afforded the American forefathers the ability to exert their influence both within and beyond their borders. It would be impossible to separate his military and sociopolitical influences on the outcome of the American Revolution; however, it is clear that his partnership with the Americans helped both sides achieve goals that otherwise were mere dreams. The memory of Lafayette lives on in America, and even to this day, over two centuries later, there is a sense of fondness when discussing his role in the American Revolution.
The French Revolution
Due to his role in the American Revolution, Lafayette became a herald of liberty for many. Perhaps this fact makes his role in the French Revolution so peculiar. Lafayette returned to France in 1782, but the political landscape had already started to change. I cannot help but wonder if Lafayette felt the early shutters of the French Revolution knocking at his door. The state of political affairs in France was bleak by the late 1780s, and the threat of a full-blown revolution seemed all but inevitable. Lafayette still believed in abolition, equal rights for French protestants, and full civil rights for French Jews, but he held steadfast in his belief that the monarch played a vital role in the French government (Bukovansky, 2009). In line with his experiences in the American Revolution, Lafayette argued for the need for a constitution to ensure equal rights; however, he argued for a constitutional monarchy. Lafayette found himself at odds with the two major political factions. The Monarchists who sought to preserve the current form of government felt Lafayette’s stance was weak. In contrast, the Republicans who wanted to overhaul the current government viewed him as part of a larger aristocrat conspiracy. Lafayette occupied a dangerous middle ground that lacked widespread support.
Unlike the American Revolution, Lafayette’s position in the French Revolution was turbulent. His middle-of-the-road stance was not popular, and although he did his best to apply the lessons learned while fighting alongside Washington, the consequences of his position nearly proved fatal. Bukovansky (2009) discusses a chain of events that would unfold, eventually culminating in Lafayette’s appointment as the commander of the National Guard. Things started to take a turn for the worse during his tenure in this command. On July 17th, 1791, a demonstration turned violent when Lafayette’s troops opened fire on a crowd of Republicans, resulting in many deaths. Although it is unclear who gave the order or what triggered the violence, Lafayette, as commander, was held accountable in the eyes of the Republicans. The following year the Tuileries Palace in Paris was overrun by revolutionaries resulting in several hundred deaths and widespread destruction. Lafayette, now the commander of the armée du Centre, unsuccessfully tried to rally his troops. The monarchy had fallen, and Lafayette was in grave danger as his middle-of-the-road stance alienated him from both main factions.
Seen as a traitor on all fronts, Lafayette and his wife, Adrienne de La Fayette, were imprisoned in Austria after a failed attempt to flee to Belgium in 1792. Beyond losing his estates, his mother-in-law, grandmother-in-law, and sister-in-law were executed at the guillotine (Bukovansky, 2009). Despite his fame and admiration in America, there was little hope of setting him free. However, thanks to Washington’s political connections and vast wealth, Adrienne was saved from the guillotine and eventually released (Leibiger, 2013). Due to an odd set of circumstances, Lafayette regained his freedom but only due to the action of a new powerful figure, Napoleon Bonaparte. As a condition of peace with Austria, Bonaparte demanded the release of Lafayette, and he was set free in the hands of the American consulate in September of 1797. The powers of France did not welcome Lafayette back with open arms. In fact, it would not be until 1800 that his civil rights and property were restored (Bukovansky, 2009). From here, he would live a relatively quiet life, returning to America with his son, George Washington Lafayette, as a revered hero before making his way back to France in 1825, where he received a warm welcome. Despite his advanced age, Lafayette would play a role in one final revolution, the July Revolution, in which he had a hand in declaring Louis Philippe King of France. Lafayette would pass at the ripe age of 76 in 1834. According to Bukovansky (2009), his death went largely unnoticed throughout France, with the only exception being Paris, where thousands of people paid tribute.
Lafayette’s stance on the French Revolution seems at odds with his actions during the American Revolution. Lafayette was a man who risked his life, fortune, and reputation to defend the ideals of a free nation but was otherwise incapable of doing the same to create a similar government for his beloved France. One potential explanation suggested by Kramer (1981) is that Lafayette viewed the ideals of the American Revolution through rose-tinted glasses. His understanding that the English government was corrupt, leading to the undue suffering of their subjects, especially in the American colonies, may have driven his support of the American cause. Although it should not be a surprise that a Frenchman would think the English government is corrupt, it is odd that a herald of liberty such as Lafayette would not seek the same rights for his people as he did the Americans. His firm support of a constitutional monarchy and for equal rights underscores the need for change, but it seems as though Lafayette did not see the two revolutions as being one of the same. Although Lafayette’s place in American history lives on in notoriety, his place in French history is far less pronounced.
Footnotes:
1. It is worth noting that, unlike Lafayette, Comte de Rochambeau was only in America because he was under direct orders from King Louis XVI to command the French expeditionary forces. Before he arrived in America, he was already a well-established career military leader (i.e., he was stuck in his ways).
1791 Marquis de Lafayette Medal |
Obverse:
The obverse depicts the uniformed bust of Lafayette facing left. His hair is in the traditional Whig style, with a large singular curl protruding from in front of his ear to the rear of his head. Most of his hair falls in a tightly wrapped ponytail secured by a bow with two loops and two loose ends. The upper loose end bisects the two bows while the lower loose end droops below. The ponytail droops behind his shoulder and rests behind his back, culminating in a large bud at the end. Dressed in a traditional military uniform, a medal rests upon his left breast. His left shoulder is adorned with an intricately engraved epaulette. At the tip of the bust, in substantially smaller letters, appears the engraver's name, “DUMAREST, in the upright position. The legend, “LAFAYETTE DEPUTE A L’ASS • NAT • CONSTITUANTE NE EN 1757”. is contained within two outer circles and a moderately wide rim.
Reverse:
The reverse depicts a wreath comprised of an oak branch on the left and a branch of holly on the right. The two are conjoined at the bottom center by a ribbon with one bow and two loose end. The left loose end wraps behind the stem of the holly branch while the loose end on the right falls under the end of the holly branch, but in front of the oak branch. Immediately above the bow are to lines, the top of which is substantially longer than the bottom. Just above, an inscription reading “IL A COMMANDE LA GARDE NATIONAL PARISIENNE EN 1789 1790 ET 1791” appears in four lines. The reverse legend falls just outside the wreath and reads, “COLLECTION DES FRANCAIS PATRIOTES”. This legend is enclosed within two outer circles and a moderately wide rim.
Edge: Plain
Size: 35 mm
Notes:
Tungate (2020) notes that the obverse was engraved by Rambert Dumarest, while the reverse was completed by Noel-Alexandre Ponthon. Purportedly, 2,699 of these medals were produced, but that number does not distinguish between originals and Soho restrikes. The Lafayette medals are common, but this piece is in a league of its own as it once resided in the Boulton Family Collection. Although graded a mint state piece, this example has proof-like watery fields and a pleasing chestnut brown color. Those unfamiliar with the series may balk at the numerous imperfections, but this medal is as struck. The plain edge of this piece signifies that it is a later restrike using retouched dies. This would help explain the numerous missing details in the legends and main designs. These details were likely obliterated due to over-polishing of the dies. Furthermore, minor rust spots can be found on the obverse and reverse, especially on Lafayette’s cheek, indicating that the dies were improperly stored at one point and revamped for later production.
References:
Kramer, L. S. (1981). America's Lafayette and Lafayette's America: A European and the American Revolution. The William and Mary Quarterly, 38(2), 228-241.
Leibiger, S. (2013). George Washington and Lafayette: Father and Son of the Revolution. In R. M. S. McDonald (Ed.), Sons of the Father: George Washington and His Protégés (pp. 210-231). University of Virginia Press.
Bukovansky, M. (2009). Legitimacy and Power Politics: The American and French Revolutions in International Political Culture. Princeton University Press.
Tungate, S. (2020) Matthew Boulton and The Soho Mint: copper to customer. Worcestershire: Brewin Books.
Vice, D. (1995). A fresh insight into Soho Mint restrikes & those responsible for their manufacture. Format Coins, Birmingham, 3-14.
Interesting links:
https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/marquis-de-lafayette/?gclid=CjwKCAjw77WVBhBuEiwAJ-YoJGC7OJIlz1CTNflkJbhlbQ0vkRpIoJwBHdpGC5c-2tBbdzzg1iozexoCvgEQAvD_BwE
https://about.lafayette.edu/mission-and-history/the-marquis-de-lafayette/
|
| Slot: |
1791 France Marquis De Lafayette Medal Bronze Ex. Boulton (Lettered Edge) |
| Origin/Country: |
FRENCH NAPOLEONIC MEDALS |
| Design Description: |
|
| Item Description: |
BRONZE (1791) JULIUS-183 LAFAYETTE |
| Grade: |
NGC MS 63 BN PL |
| Research: |
View Coin |
Owner Comments
I recently had the opportunity to acquire a small group of premium quality French pieces produced by the Soho Mint. Most of these were duplicates of pieces already in my collection with prestigious provenances (e.g., Watt Jr Collection, Boulton Family Holdings, etc.), but they were too attractive to pass up. A few have since found new homes, but I saved a few. The current medal is one from that group. Although this medal is in the same technical grade as the other example, this piece has been assigned the coveted Proof Like (i.e., PL) designation. It currently resides in an NGC MS-63 BN PL holder.
The pictures are courtesy of NGC's new PhotoVision Plus Service.
Historical Context: The write-up for the medal immediately before this entry details the broad impact Lafayette had on both the American and French revolutions and his falling out of favor with the French people. A long series of events, missteps, and general bad luck led to a denigrated reputation. Frustrated with the Jacobin sympathizers among his ranks he hastily made his way to Paris to personally express his displeasure. The following is an account of this event.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Leicester Journal
Friday, July 6, 1792
FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
Paris, June 28th.
MONS. DE LAFAYETTE arrived here this day, and sent a letter requesting admission to the bar of the National Assembly. - Being admitted to the bar, M. Raymond read the following Address of Mr. M. La Fayette to the assembly: -
“It becomes me, Gentleman, in the first place to declare to the Assembly, that my presence in this capital will in no way tend to injure either the welfare of the empire, or the safety of the state. The measures concerted betwixt Marshall Luckner and myself will be a security against every surprise. My motives for coming hither are as follow:
You have been told, that the letter bearing my signature, and dated the 16th inst. cannot have come from me. I appeared before you to acknowledge the letter, and to call on your justice to avenge the attempt of the 20th made at the palace. This attempt against liberty, and the safety of the King, has excited an indignation in my army, and in the heart of every good citizen. I am charged to communicate to you the patriotic hatred they have sworn against the fictitious leaders of this tumult. My brave companions were desirous to address the Assembly - they have renounced this project by my order, and I have taken upon me to lay before you their sentiments.
Several of them have already asked, whether it is the cause of liberty and the constitution which they defend. It is time to defend the Constitution against the faction which aims to destroy it, so defend the National Assembly and the King, and to maintain the independence and authority delegated to them. I demand, therefore, that the authors and instigators of the troubles of the 20th, shall be prosecuted as having been guilty of leze-nation.
I beseech the National Assembly, and the name of myself and of every honest man in the Kingdom, to take the most effectual measures to have a due respect paid to the constituted authorities, those of the Assembly and the King, and to guarantee the army that no attempt shall be made against the Constitution, at the moment when they are spilling their blood for the country.
The President replied in the name of the Assembly, that it had sworn to maintain the laws, and knew how to defend them.
M. Gaudet then, After expressing his surprise that M. la Fayette was not come to relate a victory, but to offer advice, moved, that it should be enquired of the Minister at War rather he had given M. la Fayette permission to leave his army.
In the course of the debate upon this motion, it was shown, that M. l Fayette Had prevented his troops from signing an agreement of association, which they would have otherwise have done; and the General did not, in this sitting, receive any reproof for having quitted his army to interfere in the legislative concerns of the country.
The motion of M. Gaudet Was rejected by the following division:
For the Address – 339
Against it – 334
The Minister then read a Letter which the King had received from M. Luckner and which the General desired might be communicated to the National Assembly.
Letter from M. Luckner to the King.
“Sir,
Called, by your choice, to command of one of the French armies, loaded, by you and by the National Assembly, with honors, it has been my wish, and I have endeavored, to shew myself worthy of so many favours.
I am, for my life, devoted to the Service of France. I think of nothing, and I will tend to nothing beside the maintenance of the Constitution. Already I had taken footing on the enemies territories, a much greater success would have crowned our efforts, had others properly cooperated with me. Thus situated, we have been informed of the outrages to which you have been exposed. A terrible and sudden indignation burst forth throughout the army. Everyone admires your courage. Sire, we have enemies before us; suffer not a faction to weaken us internally.
LUCKNER
One of the Members demanded, that the Generals of the army should in future be prohibited from writing such letters.
The letters of Messrs. La Fayette and Luckner were referred to Committee.
PARIS, JUNE 29.
The arrival of M. la Fayette yesterday morning unexpectedly, has caused a most uncommon agitation in this capital. The National Guards carried him in triumph to and from the National Assembly, but the people were far from joining in the applauses which his brother soldiers bestowed on him. The King received him with open arms. The gates of the Thuilleries, were, for the first time since the 20th, thrown open to receive him; he was met by two soldiers, deputed from the troops of the line in garrison, who begged the honour of carrying him on their arms to the palace.
The city of Rouen has addressed the King, and informed His Majesty, that 20,000 men, at the disposal of the Municipality, are ready to fly to his assistance should it ever be necessary. They have also issued a thundering Phillippic against the Jacobins. It is expected that most of the Departments will address the King, in consequence of the late criminal proceedings at Paris, and promise to support him against all his enemies.
The Jacobines call La Fayette "a bastard son of Washington”.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bury and Norwich Post
Wednesday, August 8, 1792
LETTER from M. LA FAYETTE.
July 26., Fourth Year of Liberty.
The Minster for the Home Department has signified to me an act of the Legislative Body of July 21, and the information which six of its Members have signed.
If I were questioned respecting my principles, I should say, that a constant proclaimer and defender of the Rights of Man, And the sovereignty of the People, I have everywhere and always resisted the authorities which Liberty disavowed, and which the national will had not delegated; and that I have every where, and always, obeyed those of which a free Constitution had determined the forms and the limits.
But I am questioned respecting a fact. - Did I propose to Marshall Luckner to March to Paris with our armies? – To which I answer in 4 words - It is not true.
La Fayette. ________________________________________________________________________________________________
It is clear from the tone of the first entry above that Lafayette had overestimated his influence while underestimating the power currently possessed by the faction he sought to put in check. His letter and that of Luckner were not well received by the National Assembly. At best, his presence seemed to be deemed as an interruption to legislative duties. At worst, it seemed like a direct threat to the security of the nation in a time of war. Despite the cold reception by the National Assembly and populace of Paris, he was well received by the troops and the King. It is interesting to note that Lafayette justifies his presence by insinuating that he is there to express the concerns of his men, but we know from other contemporary records that a large portion of his army sympathized with the ideals of the National Assembly. Nonetheless, his largely cold reception largely foreshadows the ill fate he is about to endure.
The second entry highlights the degree of suspicion that arose from his unexpected presence at the National Assembly, which was only further fomented by the Brunswick Manifesto Lafayette found himself in a horrible position. The National Assembly thought he was a threat to their power, and as such he was not safe in France. Fearing for his safety, he tried to flee but was apprehended by the Austrians who viewed him as a threat to all monarchs given his undeniable reputation from the American Revolution and his opaque role in the French Revolution. There is little doubt that his published letter was an effort to set the facts straight, but it was too late. Lafayette had no way to escape the misfortune that awaited. It is interesting to note that the letter appears in the August 8th publication of the Bury and Norwich Post. This is just two days before the storming of the Tuileries and the eventual imprisonment of the Royal Family.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Obverse: The obverse depicts the uniformed bust of Lafayette facing left. His hair is in the traditional Whig style, with a large singular curl protruding from in front of his ear to the rear of his head. Most of his hair falls in a tightly wrapped ponytail secured by a bow with two loops and two loose ends. The upper loose end bisects the two bows while the lower loose end droops below. The ponytail droops behind his shoulder but is weakly struck and only traces be seen towards the tip. Dressed in a traditional military uniform, a medal rests upon his left breast. His left shoulder is adorned with an intricately engraved epaulette. At the tip of the bust, in substantially smaller letters, appears the engraver's name, “DUMAREST, in the upright position. The legend, “LAFAYETTE DEPUTE A L’ASS • NAT • CONSTITUANTE NE EN 1757”. is contained within two outer circles and a moderately wide rim.
Reverse: The reverse depicts a wreath comprised of an oak branch on the left and a branch of holly on the right. The two are conjoined at the bottom center by a ribbon with one bow and two loose ends. Unlike the previous entry, the two loose ends closely follow the structure of the branches but do not overlap them. A single line appears immediately above the bow. Just above, an inscription reading “IL A COMMANDE LA GARDE NATIONAL PARISIENNE EN 1789 1790 ET 1791” appears in four lines. The reverse legend falls just outside the wreath and reads, “COLLECTION DES FRANCAIS PATRIOTES”. This legend is enclosed within two outer circles and a moderately wide rim.
Edge: SE. VEND. A. PARIS. CHEZ. MONNERON. (PATENTE.)
Size: 35mm
Notes: As I previously mentioned, Tungate (2020) notes that the obverse was engraved by Rambert Dumarest, while the reverse was completed by Noel-Alexandre Ponthon. It is important to note that is a slightly different variety than the other example in this set with a proveo to the Boulton Family Holdings. A close comparison of the write-up for the obverse and reverse of these two medals will highlight a few differences. The most noticeable is that the current example has a lettered edge. This detail suggests that it is not a restrike (i.e., a late Soho piece for those familiar with Peck’s classification). I am still actively researching the pieces struck at the Soho Mint for the Monneron brothers, but I find it interesting that the edge lettering is the same for this medal and the 5 Sol pieces (you can find more on this within my set exploring the coinage struck at Soho). I wonder if this was done intentionally.
References:
Tungate, S. (2020) Matthew Boulton and The Soho Mint: copper to customer. Worcestershire: Brewin Books.
|
| Slot: |
1791 France Jean Jacques Rousseau Medal Bronze Ex. Boulton With Shells (Plain Edge) |
| Origin/Country: |
FRENCH NAPOLEONIC MEDALS |
| Design Description: |
|
| Item Description: |
BRONZE (1791) JULIUS-188 JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU |
| Grade: |
NGC MS 64 BN |
| Research: |
View Coin |
Owner Comments
As I have noted elsewhere, the medals struck at the Soho Mint by order of the Monneron Brothers present a rare opportunity to focus on a single person instead of a historical event. In this case, the subject is Jean Jacques Rousseau, the famous eighteenth-century political philosopher. Forgoing the general trend of ignoring biographical details within the write-ups of this set, I intend to do just that here for this medal. If you are only interested in the relevant details of the medal itself, you may find this information in the notes section below.
A Very Brief Biographical Sketch
In full disclosure, I am not an expert on Rousseau’s political philosophy. I remember reading his works in college, but that was nearly a decade ago, and I do not remember being particularly moved by his words. Perhaps I was too distracted by the irony of his political ideologies relative to some of the privileges he was granted at birth. For instance, Rousseau was born into a family of distinguished academics and, from birth, had access to a vast library fit for a well-respected scholar. Despite having some privileges, Rousseau also had a fair share of misfortune. His mother, Suzanne Bernard, died while giving birth to him, and his father soon squandered their entire fortune. Eventually, Rousseau was sent away to live with his uncle who later sent him on an apprenticeship in Geneva, where he purportedly received harsh treatment.
Wishing to improve his station and avoid further mistreatment, Rousseau fled Geneva in 1728. He found refuge in the home of Madame De Warens. From 1728 to 1742, Rousseau transformed from the house guest of Madame De Warens to one of her lovers (Bondanella, 1988). During this time, Rousseau was encouraged to spend his time studying and writing. It is during this critical period that Rousseau secures his status as a self-taught philosopher. This arrangement worked well, as evidenced by his long tenure under Madame De Waren's care, but eventually, Rousseau would grow tired of her affairs and seek other opportunities.
Until this point, Rousseau had largely been under the direct care of someone else, although the type of treatment he received varied wildly. This would all change in 1742 at the age of thirty. Having suffered the final blow of indiscretions by Madame de Warens, Rousseau made his way to Paris with the hopes of securing his position in the intellectual sphere of society. He brought with him his play, Narcisse, and a new method of musical notation that he hoped to present to the Academy of Sciences (Bondanella, 1988). Neither of these two afforded Rousseau the type of recognition he sought, but he did make several powerful connections that helped him find employment. For instance, through a series of connections, he secured an appointment as the secretary to the Comte de Montaigu. This appointment, however, was short-lived. Purportedly, Rousseau was treated as a simple servant by his new boss, and this offended Rousseau so deeply that he wrote On Social Contract. This work was seminal to the violent sociopolitical movement that would rock the entire world just a few decades later – the French Revolution.
Having relinquished his lofty position as the secretary to the French Ambassador of Venice, Rousseau soon found himself employed as a research assistant for the Dupin Family. Like before, Rousseau was free to study and write at his leisure and did so freely. It is during this time that Rousseau began his relationship with Thérèse le Vasseur. The two would go on to have five children, all of which were immediately turned over to the local orphanage. In his Confessions, Rousseau essentially argues that he gave up his children for fear of society corrupting them against him. He further paints himself in a positive light by insinuating he is the farthest thing from a callous or unloving man. His words strike me the same as they did nearly a decade ago – that of a paranoid pompous ass. Despite persuading to surrender five of her children and jointly suffer the series of often self-inflicted hardships, Rousseau would not marry Thérèse le Vasseur until he was fifty-six years old (Bondanella, 1988).
Rousseau would go on to win major recognition from the Academy of Dijon, and Le Dévin du Village was a great success. Despite finally securing his seat at the table among elite scholars, Rousseau would self-implode and revert to misery. Although his squabbles with other notable figures such as Voltaire and Hume were detrimental, it was ultimately Rousseau’s paranoid self-destructive nature that led to his downfall. His entire claim to philosophical claim was predicated upon his criticism of privilege and the old social structure. For fear of losing his credibility, he refused multiple lucrative careers and even an audience with the King (Bondanella, 1988). Instead, he earned just enough income to survive by copying music.
The decade between 1752 and 1762 marked a period of great productivity for Rousseau once he decided to move closer to his hometown. Rousseau's paranoia was further fueled by the presence of Voltaire in Geneva. Convinced that he lacked the necessary freedom to publish his work, Rousseau found refuge with Madame d’Épinay at L’Ermitage (Bondanella, 1988). In true Rousseau fashion, his infatuation with Madame d’Épinay’s sister-in-law eventually dissolved the arrangement, and Rousseau once again required a new host. From here, Rousseau found himself in hot water. His had already been banned from circulating in France, and Émile was so provocative that the Parlement of Paris issued a writ for Rousseau’s arrest on June 9th, 1762 (Bondanella, 1988). Feeling to Prussia, Rousseau published two works, one in 1762 and the other in 1765, to defend himself. Eventually, he would renounce his Genevan citizenship.
Growing old and tired, Rousseau would return to Paris in May of 1767. He lived in the shadows but was reunited with a city he once called home. He passed away on July 2nd, 1778, but managed to write his autobiography Confessions beforehand.
1791 Jean Jacques Rousseau Medal |
Obverse: The obverse depicts Rousseau facing left adorned by a traditional wig, and wearing a contemporary gentleman’s coat. The most notable portion of his hair is the series of tightly formed curls that rest on the side of his head just above the ear and extending to the vertical line of his jaw. His neck is wrapped with a silk ribbon that is obscured by the collar of his coat. A notable patch of die rust appears on the middle of this ribbon. The top two buttons of his coat are not buttoned, but the third clearly is. Immediately below the bust appears DUMAREST • F •. The legend J • JACQUES ROUSSEAU NEA GENEVE EN 1712. is confined within a series of two inner rings, which are separated from the raised thin rim by a third larger ring.
Reverse: The reverse design is rather simple, and is divided into two rings that progress in width as they approach the center of the medal. Within the widest ring of the two appears the legend CONTRAT SOCIAL LIV • 3 • CHAP • 1 •. Within the center of the medal the legend LA PUISSANCE LEGISLATIVE APPARTIENT AU PEUPLE ET NE PEUT APPARTENIR QU A LUI.. In English - THE LEGISLATIVE POWER BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE AND CAN ONLY BELONG TO THEM. All of this is contained within a thin raised outer rim.
Edge: Plain
Size: 35mm
Notes: Tungate (2020) notes that this was a joint project between Dumarest (obverse) and Ponthon (reverse) and that a total of 756 pieces were struck. It is unclear if this number only refers to the original strikings that have edge lettering, but the example depicted here is a later restrike (i.e., it has a plain edge). Nonetheless, it is a remarkably well-preserved specimen with the original shells and an unimpeachable provenance to the Boulton Family Collection. It is worth noting that lot 229 of the 1850 auction contained “pair of dies, one extra die of obverse. Two punches of obverse, the original engraving and steel collar” for this medal. Vice (1995) does not list these dies as one of the many that were reserved for M.P.W. Boulton, but even if he acquired them it is likely that they found their way into the hands of Taylor or others. Taken together with the actions that occurred just before the auction, there is little doubt why so many later strikes are found on the market today.
References:
Bondanella, J. C. (1988) Rousseau’s Political Writings: A Biographical Sketch. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Tungate, S. (2020) Matthew Boulton and The Soho Mint: copper to customer. Worcestershire: Brewin Books.
Vice, D. (1995). A fresh insight into Soho Mint restrikes & those responsible for their manufacture. Format Coins, Birmingham, 3-14.
Interesting Links:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rousseau/
https://www.college.columbia.edu/core/content/jean-jacques-rousseau
|
| Slot: |
1791 France Jean Jacques Rousseau Medal Bronze (Lettered Edge) |
| Origin/Country: |
FRENCH NAPOLEONIC MEDALS |
| Design Description: |
|
| Item Description: |
BRONZE (1791) JULIUS-188 JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU |
| Grade: |
NGC MS 65 BN PL |
| Research: |
View Coin |
Owner Comments
I briefly mentioned in a different write-up that I had the opportunity to acquire a small sample of high-quality pieces struck for the Monneron brothers at the Soho Mint. This piece was acquired around the same time, but from a different venue; however, it appears all these pieces were originally part of the same NGC invoice evidenced by their near consecutive certification numbers. I wish I would have been able to acquire the entire submission. This particular medal is graded by NGC as MS-65 BN PL.
The pictures are courtesy of NGC's new PhotoVision Plus Service.
Historical Context: The previous entry for a similar medal details the broad historical context of Rousseau; however, this write-up focuses on a less understood aspect – his death. I am by no stretch of the imagination an expert on Rousseau, but I am aware of the controversy surrounding his death. There is an overwhelming amount of contemporary analysis of this event that seems shrouded in misinformation. To this end, I opt to provide an account of the event from his widow published nearly twenty years after his death. Yes, you read that correctly. The death of Rousseau was still newsworthy decades after the event transpired. ________________________________________________________________________________________________
Caledonian Mercury
Monday, 13 August 1798
Death of J. J. Rousseau.
Citizen Corancez Having lately published, at Paris, an essay on the writings of J. J. Rousseau, and which he states some reasons for thinking that this celebrated man anticipated the period of his life, and shot himself with the pistol, his widow has written the following letter to him, inserted in the – “Journal de Paris”.
Plessis, Belleville, 27th Prairial,
June 15, 6th year.
Maria Theresa Levasseur, widow of J. J. Rousseau, to citizen Corancez.
“Citizen,
I am justly afflicted at the details you give of the death of my husband, and after the manner in which you say you heard it related at an inn. That death is, and ever shall be, present to my memory as long as I live, and I can now retrace all its circumstances; but first accept from the widow of your friend the double reproach of having long forgotten her, and neglected to consult her previous to your writing.
On the 3d of July 1778, they're not on the 2d, my husband rose at his usual hour, it did not go out that morning: he was to have given a lesson to Mademoiselle Girardin the younger. I and the servant prepared for him whatever was necessary for the toilet. We breakfasted, but he did not; having dined the day before at the Chateau Ermenonville, and perhaps eaten rather heartily, he felt himself indisposed. After breakfast he told me that the locksmith employed in fitting up our furniture desired to be paid, and I went to take him the money. At my return (it was not yet ten o’clock), in ascending the staircase, I heard the plaintive cries of my husband. Entering hastily, I found him lying on the couch, and called for assistance he did me desist, for he had need of nobody now that I was returned. In obedience to his desire I shut the door, and threw open the windows. With all my strength I then assisted in putting my husband to bed. I made him take some drops of Eau de Carmes, which he himself poured out. I came to him holding his hands, and at the moment when I thought him much relieved, he fell with his face to the ground so forcibly as to overturn me. I raised myself, sending forth piercing cries. - The door was locked, M. Girardin, who had another key to our apartment, came in, and not Madame Girardin; I was covered with the blood which issued from the face of my husband. He then expired, holding my hands and closed in his, without uttering a single word.
I aver to you; I aver to my fellow citizens; I aver to posterity, that my husband died in my arms and the manner I have described; that he did not position himself with a dish of coffee; that he did not blow out his brains with a pistol shot.
In a short time after my husband's arrival at Ermenonville, that residence excited his fears, and he communicated to me the necessity for his return to Paris. They appeared to me unfounded (I am bathed in tears at the recollection.). No, i shall never forgive myself my obstinacy and remaining at Ermenonville. Neither the pressing instances of M. Girardin, Who often besought me on his knees not to give my content to return to Paris, nor the enormous expense which our removal cost us, and which must be again repeated, appear to me since his death, but as very weak excuses. - my husband being dead, and forgetting all that he said to me, I threw myself into the power of that man who had prostrated himself before me, I remitted him all the ready money in my house; I let him take possession of the manuscripts of L’Herbier, of the music, and those other things of which our property composed.
As rapid in his cause as an edge in its course, this man arrived at Geneva, and without consulting me, or giving me time to recollect myself, he sold all my effects for bills of exchange, which have not been paid, and for which I have since been obliged to accept of an annuity.
I should not forget to inform you, that the money which I gave him to take care of me during my life, he has repaid in assignats.
There now remains the widow of your friend, the widow of J. J. Rousseau, almost 80 years of age, only a small annuity, badly paid by some individuals, and a pension of 1500 livres granted her by the nation, of which the 5th year is now due, and which is placed upon the same footing as the great pensions and annuities. Thus does she inhabit a thatched cottage in want of almost everything.
I conclude with requesting that you will remember me to your spouse.
Marie Teresa Levasseur
Widow of J. J. Rousseau
________________________________________________________________________________________________
The above account varies substantially from prior statements given by his widow. Still, I believe some grace should be exercised given the traumatic nature of the event recalled and the passage of a considerable amount of time. Nonetheless, the inconsistencies paired with further speculation (of varying degrees of plausibility) have led some to conclude that perhaps his widow was Rousseau’s murderer (Raspail, 1913). Anyone interested in reading more should consult the reference entry for the citation above. A quick Google search will allow free access to this interesting short read.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Obverse: The obverse depicts Rousseau facing left adorned by a traditional wig and wearing a contemporary gentleman’s coat. The most notable portion of his hair is the series of tightly formed curls that rest on the side of his head just above the ear and extending to the vertical line of his jaw. His neck is wrapped with a silk ribbon that is obscured by the collar of his coat. The top two buttons of his coat are not buttoned, but the third clearly is. Immediately below the bust appears DUMAREST • F •. The legend J • JACQUES ROUSSEAU NE A GENEVE EN 1712. is confined within a series of two inner rings, which are separated from the raised thin rim by a third larger ring. An interesting die flaw appears at the upper right limb of the first N.
Reverse: The reverse design is rather simple and is divided into two rings that progress in width as they approach the center of the medal. Within the widest ring of the two appears the legend CONTRAT SOCIAL LIV • 3 • CHAP • 1 •. Within the center of the medal the legend LA PUISSANCE LEGISLATIVE APPARTIENT AU PEUPLE ET NE PEUT APPARTENIR QU A LUI. In English - THE LEGISLATIVE POWER BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE AND CAN ONLY BELONG TO THEM. All of this is contained within a thin raised outer rim. Several large die-polish lines can be found throughout the center of the reverse.
Edge: SE. VEND. A. PARIS. CHEZ. MONNERON (PATENTE)
Size: 34mm
Notes: This medal is the epitome of gem. The only thing I find puzzling is why NGC did not designate it as a proof strike. All of the characteristics typically associated with proofs of this era are present. Nonetheless, I am happy to simply have it in my collection. Despite it being a somewhat common medal with a reported mintage of 756 according to Tungate (2020), I find it highly unlikely that a technical upgrade is even possible.
References:
Tungate, S. (2020) Matthew Boulton and The Soho Mint: copper to customer. Worcestershire: Brewin Books.
Raspail, J. (1913) The Mystery Surrounding the Death of Jean Jacques Rousseau (illustrated). The Open Court: 1913(3), Art. 2.
|
| Slot: |
1792 Sweden Assassination of Gustav III Medal (Hild. 98) Bronze With Shells, Box, and Note - Possible Exchange Piece Between The Soho Mint and the U.S. Mint |
| Origin/Country: |
SWEDEN - MEDALS |
| Design Description: |
|
| Item Description: |
BRONZE 1792-DATED HILD.-98 ASSASSINATION MEDAL AND SHELL SET |
| Grade: |
NGC MS 66 BN |
| Research: |
View Coin |
Owner Comments
Of all the medals in my collection, this is one of my favorite. The potential link back to the 5th U.S. Mint Director, Dr. Samuel Moore, is cool enough, but the associated history that this medal was produced to commemorate is fascinating in its own right. The medal itself is rather attractive, and the reverse design is nothing short of stunning when considering the immense amount of detail throughout. Contemporary records indicate that Küchler started working on the dies by March 1st, 1793, as he explicitly says so in a letter to Boulton (Pollard, 1970). From this letter, we can be sure the bust of King Gustav III was engraved using a painting of the King painted by Mr. Carl von Breda as a model. We learn from subsequent letters that Küchler consulted Breda to improve his engraving after Boulton received some feedback from several Swedish visitors. All of which commented on the quality of the work but agreed that it was not a good likeness of the deceased King. The legend also proved difficult, as neither Boulton nor Küchler were adequately acquainted with Gustav III to suggest an appropriate inscription. Boulton suggested that Küchler consult Mr. Planta of the British Museum, which seemingly did the trick. According to Pollard (1970), the dies seem to have been completed by October 7th, 1793, as this is the date reported to Küchler in an invoice dated January 21st, 1796. A total of 423 of these medals were struck, mostly bronzed copper, but it appears from contemporary letters that several tin examples may also exist (Pollard, 1970; Tungate, 2010). It is interesting to note that the dies and collar for this medal appeared as lot 210 when the contents, machinery, and other articles of the Soho Mint were auctioned off on April 30th, 1850. If these dies were to be released into the hands of the general public, restrikes might exist. Although it is more likely that the campaign launched by Matthew Piers Watt Boulton to sabotage the sale of dies prevented this from occurring (Vice, 1995). To any extent, restrikes in the typical sense (i.e., medals struck after the demise of the Soho Mint) are not known to me.
Historical Context:
The assassination of Gustav III of Sweden is a somewhat bewildering story full of deception, toxic egos, and controversy. Even the details surrounding the events that transpired are shrouded in mystery, which for a good number of years afforded a false narrative published by Sierakowski in 1797 to be accepted as truth. At least in part, it appears the truth was not fully discovered until the late 19th century (Bain, 1887). This is the story that I have decided to reiterate here, but for those interested, I encourage you to read the sources I cite for yourself as they can tell a far more interesting story than I can.
CONTEMPORARY ETCHING OF GUSTAV III |
The assassination of King Gustav III of Sweden was hatched by three men and supported by countless others. The main conspirator, Jakob Johan Anckarströn, was a fanatic hell-bent on the King's demise and had on several occasions stalked him armed and ready to act. Although his initial plans never progressed beyond intent, he now found strength in his two new partners, Count Clas Frederik Horn, and Count A. L. Ribbing. According to Bain (1887), an extensive network of conspiracy cast much doubt on the validity of perceived threats to the King's life and left those investigating none the wiser to the seriousness of the claims. In other words, the large degree of misinformation set a perfect smoke-filled stage to carry out the nefarious operations of those who wished to rid the country of Gustav III. The principal of which was General Pechin, who used his considerable influence to disguise his intentions and his fellow conspirators, which by this time involved over half of the aristocracy. As noted by Bain (1887), nothing happened within the confines of the conspiracy without his involvement, but in this instance, he is not the man who pulled the trigger, but more so the man that allowed it to happen.
It appears the plan between the three main conspirators was to attack the King at a masquerade. Bain (1887) notes that plots were made for the March 2nd and 6th masquerades, but both were abandoned. The last masquerade of the season was to take place on the 16th, making it the last assassination attempt that could be carried out. Evidently, they were less than secretive and voiced their intentions to numerous perceived allies. Their indiscretion added a new level of urgency to the situation, as waiting until the next season would likely end in their discovery and subsequent death. As such, the men fortified their plans, determined against all odds to carry it out. Ribbing went to discuss the matter with Pechin, who arranged for the masquerade to be packed with co-conspirators, thus avoiding the issue that prevented the March 2nd plot (i.e., there were not enough people to reasonably curtail suspicion). The most prominent of which were Johan Engeström, Major Hartmannsdorf, and Captain Pontus Lilliehorn. According to Bain (1887), Anckarströn was so excited for the upcoming slaughter that he spent his time before the masquerade preparing his weapons.
"He loaded each of his pistols with two bullets and fourteen pieces of lead of various shapes and sizes, and filed the blade of the huge butcher's knife with which he intended to complete his crime to a razor like sharpness, besides carefully barbing the point. "
The men were intent upon assassinating the King, and at 12:30, they, as well as their fellow conspirators, went to the masquerade dressed in what Bain (1887) describes as black dominoes with white masks.
THE ASSASSINATION OF GUSTAV III |
Before the masquerade, the King was lounging in his private room when he received a letter hurriedly written in pencil. If Bain's (1878) account is correct, the King read the letter twice before dismissing all but Baron Essen, his chief equerry, from the room. The letter was a warning, supposedly from a stranger, informing the King that an attempt would be made on his life that night. Much speculation exists about the contents of the letter as it was not saved, but the King informed Essen of the situation. Dismissing Essen's concerns, the King was determined to attend the masquerade but decided to spend at least fifteen minutes in his private box quietly observing the crowd before joining his guests. Purportedly, the King looked to Essen and said:
"They have lost a good opportunity of shooting me. Come, let us go down; the masquerade seems bright and gay. Let us see if they will dare to kill me! ".
This incredibly bold, if not entirely arrogant, decision ultimately led to his attack. The King, escorted by Essen, progressed through the crowd. His mask barely covered his face, and the decorations on his chest made him very easy to spot. It was not long until assassins surrounded him in their white masks and black dominoes. According to Bain (1887), a male voice said "Bonjour, beau masque", which I deduct was spoken by Count Clas Frederik Horn. Apparently, he had arranged for this to be the code word for Anckarströn to draw his weapon and shoot the King. Without hesitation, Anckarströn fired his weapon into the King's back. According to Anckarströn, the King did not fall when shot, and this shock provoked him to drop his weapons and disperse into the crowd. By this time, Gustaf Löwenhjelm, the Captain of the King's Watch and close companion of the King, noticed the incident. Going to investigate, he found the King surrounded by Black Dominoes, who were quick to disperse once Essen proclaimed, "Some villain has shot the King! ". Surprised, Löwenhjelm drew his sword and, with the help of a guard, cleared an area around the King, who was still standing with the support of Essen's arm.
Alarmed by the sudden realization that they needed to escape, the assassins enacted the next part of their plan and screamed "Fire" to create confusion. Unfortunately for them, Captain Pollet ordered the doors sealed, and the area inspected. The wounded King was then moved back to his private room, where he instructed Löwenhjelm that the assassin was to be caught but not harmed and report to anyone who asked that his wound was nothing more than a scratch (Bain, 1887). Löwenhjelm immediately jumped to action and ordered all gates to Stockholm closed until further notice. During the commotion, Ribbing supposedly approached Löwenhjelm and asked about the King. When informed that it was merely a scratch, he purportedly exclaimed, "Thank God! ". The King wounded and bleeding as he rested in his private room still received numerous visitors, including his brother, Duke Charles. It is here that he expressed his displeasure with the recent set of events, exclaiming:
"How unfortunate that, after having braved in warfare the fire of the enemy, I should have been wounded in the back in the midst of my own people. "
Despite his displeasure, Bain (1887) notes that the King kept his composure and at times consoled visitors distraught by his current condition. For instance, when Gustaf Maurits Armfelt began to cry in despair, the King supposedly told him:
"Be a man, Armfelt! You know from personal experience that wounds can heal! "
All of the commotion was eventually settled, and the Minister of Police, Liljensparre, actively recorded the names of every guest as they filed out of the main room two at a time. Horn had already escaped by this point, and the others were allowed to leave without suspicion. According to Bain (1887), Anckarströn, on the other hand, suffered a different fate. By his account, Anckarströn was the last to leave and remarked to Liljensparre, "You won't suspect me, I hope! ", to which Liljensparre responded, "Why you more than others? ". I can only imagine how awkward that exchange must have been between the two, and even more awkward when Liljensparre came to arrest him soon after. Anckarströn had dropped his weapons after the first shot, which were soon identified as belonging to him. This was more than sufficient evidence for his arrest. As it turns out, the mysterious note warning the King was written by Lilliehorn, who was overcome with a sudden bout of conscientiousness. He passed the note to a baker boy who then passed it up the chain of command and into the King's hands. This witness trail led investigators back to him, and he was soon arrested. Likewise, Pechin and Ribbing were also arrested.
Liljensparre wasted no time in his investigation, and through cross-examination, he received the names of more than a hundred accomplices from Ribbing and Horn (Bain, 1887). The two alone had implicated over half of the nobility, but their word likely had little value. A postbag marked from March 16th was later retrieved with letters addressed to many of the nobility. The letter was short and read, "A minuit il ne sera plus; arrangez-vous sur cela" (At midnight, he will be gone; arrange on this). The nobility, suddenly concerned for their safety, tried to make peace with the injured King. To quell the political and social unease of the country, the Council of Regency ordered that no further arrests should be made. There is no telling how widespread Liljensparre's investigation would have become if the council did not muzzle him; however, it appears the King wanted the investigation to end as well.
By now, the King was well aware of the massive plot against his life, the numerous planned attempts made, and the widespread deceit that ran rampant throughout the nobility. Surprisingly, he urged for peace instead of vengeance. He stated that he wanted tranquility if he were to survive and if he were to die, that the past be forgotten to keep the peace. He urged his brother to conceal the names of those involved (Bain, 1887). More specifically, he justified his request to his brother as it related to the young crowned prince:
"As destined to rule this people, I do not wish the seeds of hatred and vengeance to be sown in his youthful mind"
I can only assume that he wished to restore peace to his kingdom and stabilize what might have otherwise been an unsafe environment for his son. Eventually, the King did succumb to his wounds. The doctors were only able to remove a single nail, and it appears extensive damage was done to his liver, kidneys, and spine. Even on his death bed, the King pleaded for peace and commanded that his brother not seek to hold all members of the nobility accountable. He passed away at 10:55 AM on March 29th, 1792.
Upon his death, his brother honored his final wish. He focused his wrath primarily upon the man who pulled the trigger, Anckarströn. For his crime, he was forced to stand for three days straight in the pillory, publically lashed, his right hand was chopped off, followed by his head, and then he was quartered. Anckarströn's punishment was most severe, followed by that of Baron Bjelke. He had committed suicide by poisoning before Liljensparre arrested him, but his body was hung at the scaffold before being buried below it (Bain, 1887). Pechin died in confinement four years after the King was assassinated. Ribbing, Horn, Engeström, Ehrensvärd, and Lilliehorn were all banished from the kingdom.
1793 Assassination of Gustav III of Sweden Medal |
Obverse:
The obverse depicts the bust of King Gustav III facing right. He is dressed in armor, with ornate detail surrounding the rivets just around the collar, across the peripheral of the breastplate, and the junction between his right shoulder and chest. Tufts of loose fabric can be seen protruding out beneath the armor around his neck and right shoulder. Three large rivets appear to secure the breastplate with the side of his armor. His armored bust is draped with a fur-lined fleece, clasped on his right breast by an oval clip. A piece of freely flowing cloth appears between the armor and the fleece covering most of the left side of his chest. A large but indistinguishable badge appears on the upper right-hand side portion of his chest. Another decoration appears below his bust, protruding into the rim of the medal and bisecting the engravers mark, which reads "C·H·KÜCHLER" on one side and "FEC·" on the other. The King's hair comes to a neatly formed mass at the top of his forehead, tightly secured behind his head by a ribbon wrapped around twice to form a tie. The tie has two bows and seemingly one loose end. The loose hair protruding from this tie falls below his neck ending in large, tightly wrapped curls that rest behind his right shoulder. The furthest of which nearly touches the rim. A series of relatively large curls appear above his ear in two rows. An interesting die crack originates at his right shoulder, protruding through the curls above his ear and bisecting another die crack at the top of his head. A similar but unconnected die crack protrudes from the uppermost curl above his ear, across the forehead, and dissipates into the detail of his hair just above his forehead. The legend "GUSTAVUS III · D : G · REX SVECIAE" appears wrapped around the inner part of the rim above the bust. All of which is contained within an inner circle surrounded by a moderately wide rim.
Reverse:
The reverse design of this medal is intense, with so many fine details, which I would struggle to describe accurately. I opted to provide a general sense of the design, highlighting the most crucial parts. At the center is a tomb, on which the assassination is depicted on the outfacing panel. The scene shows the King walking, with a man close behind firing a pistol while others observe. Immediately below is a ribbon with the legend "HEU MALE PEREMPTUS". Resting upon and behind the tomb are a host of armaments and allegorical symbols, with a crowned urn front and center. Immediately above the crowned urn is a series of rays, as the sun is often depicted, but in this instance, thirteen stars formed together in an oval make up the center of the rays. On the left of the tomb is a putto standing on a partially concealed cannon and pointing toward the scene on the panel. An intricate scene of armaments, banners, tools and allegorical symbols appear in the background behind him. To the right of the tomb is the allegorical figure of fame, with an outstretched arm holding a wreath toward the rays. A pillar appears to her left, behind which appears a closed book, a cartouche, and an open bag spilling the contents of money onto the foreground. Upon the exergual line appears "C·H·K . FEC". In exergue, a legend separated into four lines appears. "NATUS D · XXIIII JAN · MDCCXXXXVI. SUCC · D · XII FEB · MDCCLXXI. TRUCID : D · XVI MART · MDCCXCII. OB · D · XXIX SUP · MENS · ET AN. ". The main legend is divided between the rays around the primary devices and reads "TAM MARTE" on one side and "QUAM MERCURIO. " on the other. All of which is contained within an inner circle surrounded by a moderately wide rim.
Edge: Plain
Size: 56mm
Notes:
I find the design of this medal to be very intriguing, and the high relief of the obverse design makes this piece really pop in hand. The fact that this medal has retained the silver-lined brass shells over the last two centuries further attests to its originality. Beyond these characteristics, this piece came with an interesting note, which appears to have been written by Nelson Thorson, the 19th president of the ANA and an avid collector of Swedish medals. The note reads, "One of a number of medals sent by Mr. Bolton, President of the English Mint to Dr. Samuel Moore, President of the United States Mint in return for a collection of American coin and medals sent by Dr. Moore to Mr. Bolton". A quick google search revealed that Dr. Samuel Moore was the 5th U.S. Mint Director and served between 1824 and 1835. Matthew Boulton passed away in 1809, meaning the Boulton referenced in the letter must be Matthew Robinson Boulton. Given the research I have done on the silver-lined brass shells produced at the Soho Mint, this period would make sense for the medal to be paired with the shells. None of this was mentioned to me when I purchased the item, so the extra details were a complete surprise. Excited, I took what I thought to be the next logical step. I went to the archives to find anything that would corroborate the details of the note.
Initially, I struggled to find anything remotely useful, but I reached out to Roger Burdette, who was kind enough to guide me where I needed to look. Thanks to Doty (1998), I knew that Dr. Moore was in communication with Matthew Robinson Boulton about the bronzing process used on medals at the Soho Mint in mid-February of 1825 (MBP245, Letter Box M2: Samuel Moore to Matthew Robinson Boulton, February 16th, 1825). Looking over the Boulton correspondence upload to NNP, I could not locate any mention of this, meaning that additional documents must exist that are not included in those files. The first bit of correspondence from Dr. Moore to Boulton was dated 1829, so there was a substantial gap in the documentation that spanned several years. Roger suggested several other sources to check that had been processed and uploaded to NNP, and it is here that I finally had some luck!
I decided to start by finding a copy of the correspondence discussing the bronzing process used at Soho. Given that this process, as discussed by Doty (1998), was centered on the production of medals, it seemed logical that the trade mentioned in the note may have organically come up during those conversations. Sure enough, I located a letter dated June 18th, 1825, in which Dr. Moore agrees to accept Matthew Boulton's offer to send him a small packet of bronzing powder for their experimentation. It appears the bronzing powder arrived at the Philadelphia Mint on either August 24th or September 23rd, as detailed in a letter from Dr. Moore to Boulton dated November 19th, 1825. The first bit of the letter acknowledges and thanks Boulton for his favors and the specimens of bronze powder. The letter discusses an experiment the two were conducting as it relates to the shipping of copper planchets (this will be an interesting story for another day), but of most interest to the current topic is the final paragraph.
"I beg leave to prepare a request from Mr. Eckfeldt, Chief Coiner of the Mint to be favored with a few medals in copper if you have impressions in any size of any that you could conveniently part with. He had the pleasure once to receive from your Father a medal of himself finely executed, together with some beautiful specimens of copper coins. I communicate his wish the more freely because I am sure that were he known to you, you would greatly esteem hm, and that he will [do] whatever in his power with much pleasure reciprocate this attention."
At first, I could not read this entire portion of the letter as the original scans of the document were less than ideal, but once again, Roger was kind enough to help. From this letter, it is clear that some form of trade was proposed, but I did not have enough evidence to suggest that it occurred. I continued my search, and I found another letter dated May 22nd, 1826, in which Dr. Moore goes into detail thanking Boulton for the medals he received. In this letter, he wrote:
"The medals which you were so obliging as to forward were received in perfect order, and present many interesting and pleasing specimens of this method of recording public events and perpetuating the likeness of eminent men. That of your most estimable Father is particularly admired by all who view it. His name has long been familiar here, and numbered among those who have been distinguished as the benefactor of Mankind. Accept sir, from Mr. Eckfeldt and myself, our cordial acknowledgement for this attention, and do us the favor to transmit by the first convenient opportunity, a special amount of xxx xxx incident to the forwarding of those packages."
It is far from an itemized list of the medals received, but it alludes to public events and eminent men. The assassination of Gustav III falls under both categories. It is interesting to note that I have been unable to locate digital scans of the correspondence sent by Boulton to Dr. Moore. I know that this correspondence likely survived. If not in the U.S. Archives, it would have been persevered in the archives held in Birmingham. I am actively pursuing this, and I hope to locate Boulton's side of the correspondence to fill in a few gaps. It is also worthy to note that the record books at Soho were meticulously kept, so it remains possible that an itemized list of the medals sent was recorded. Perhaps just as intriguing is the possibility the Boulton may have written back to Dr. Moore thanking him for the pieces he received from Philadelphia. If I can locate this tidbit of information, it would fully support the notion that a trade between the two took place. Although this is pure speculation, this trade might help make sense of why several high-end early U.S. coins appeared in the auction of Matthew Piers Watt Boulton's collection (the grandson of Matthew Boulton) conducted by Sotheby, Wilkinson, & Hodge of London in 1912 (Lots 50-56). It would be fascinating if these pieces could all be linked together, but for now, I plan to keep searching for clues and update this section as new information is available.
References:
Bain, R. N. (1887). The Assassination of Gustavus III of Sweden. The English Historical Review, 2(7), 543-552.
Doty, R. (1998). The Soho Mint and the Industrialization of Money. London: National Museum of American History Smithsonian Institution.
Pollard, J. G. (1970). Matthew Boulton and Conrad Heinrich Küchler. The Numismatic Chronicle, 10, 259-318.
Tungate, S. (2010) Matthew Boulton and The Soho Mint: copper to customer (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I.
Tungate, S. (2020) Matthew Boulton and The Soho Mint: copper to customer. Worcestershire: Brewin Books.
Vice, D. (1995). A fresh insight into Soho Mint restrikes & those responsible for their manufacture. Format Coins, Birmingham, 3-14.
Interesting links:
http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/assassination-of-gustav-iii-king-of-sweden-1792/
https://artsandculture.google.com/exhibit/that-fatal-shot-the-royal-armoury-sweden/SwISevye_fzGJQ?hl=en
|
| Slot: |
1793 France (BHM-483) Louis XVI Final Farewell Medal Bronze With Shells |
| Origin/Country: |
FRENCH NAPOLEONIC MEDALS |
| Design Description: |
|
| Item Description: |
BRONZE 1793-DATED JULIUS-251 LOUIS XVI MEDAL AND SHELL SET MEDAL #1/3 |
| Grade: |
NGC MS 66 BN |
| Research: |
View Coin |
Owner Comments
The complex and heartbreaking nature of the scene depicted makes this one of the most difficult Soho Mint medals to write up. Nonetheless, it serves as a reminder of a tragic chapter in French history. Oddly enough, this was the first medal Küchler produced for the Soho Mint, and it appears he completed the work quickly. On May 25th, 1793, Küchler sent Boulton a sketch of his proposed design, and by July 6th, we see that Boulton was charged £30 for his work completing the dies (Pollard, 1970). When the Soho Mint was dismantled and the contents sold in 1850, the auction contained several examples of this type. More importantly, lot 212 consisted of two pairs of dies and one pair of punches for this medal. To this end, restrikes may exist, but I do not know of them. According to Tungate (2020), only 423 of these medals were struck. This particular example has retained its original silver-lined brass shells since its creation over 220 years ago.
General Introduction:
One only needs to take a cursory glance to realize that the French Revolution is a far more complex historical event than what is typically portrayed in classical education. Notable scholars still debate the underpinnings, intent, and consequences of the French Revolution, and it appears that no settlement on those discussions is likely to conclude soon. All this is to say that any attempt to provide a truly holistic view of the French Revolution is far beyond the scope of this set. Instead, I plan to focus on the events depicted by the medals produced at the Soho Mint. In total, this narrow scope will account for three pieces. The current medal depicts the king’s final farewell to his family before his execution. In this write-up, I intend to reiterate the tenderness of that moment by exploring the final months of the king’s life, including the hardships suffered by the entire royal family. Beyond a passing mention, I intend to forgo any discussion of the events that proceeded their imprisonment, the king’s trial, or his actual execution. These details will be covered briefly in the write-up for the other relevant Soho medals depicting scenes from the French Revolution.
The story below follows a tragic chapter in the lives of several notable people. King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette need no introduction. However, their children are far less notorious, so it seems necessary to introduce them here. The eldest child, Marie-Therese, was born on December 19th, 1778. As we will see, this date will prove a painful reminder to the king during his incarceration. As the eldest and only surviving daughter, the young princess is known colloquially as Madame Royal. In 1781 the queen gave birth to a boy named Louis-Joseph, the first dauphin and heir to the French throne, but tragically he passed away in 1789. Consequently, the title of dauphin transferred to their second son, Louis-Charles, upon his birth on March 27th, 1785. It is worth noting that the queen gave birth to a fourth child in 1786, but she passed away before her first birthday.
The last person to be introduced is Jean-Baptiste Cléry, a royal servant to the dauphin who later became the valet de chambre to Louis XVI. As explained by Cléry, despite numerous hardships and the scrutinizing watch of his captors (e.g., municipals, guards, etc.), he was able to take notes of the events that transpired during his tenure as a prisoner alongside the royal family. These notes would eventually be organized as a journal and published for the world to read. Although his work is of great historical value, it is not without prejudice. Upon reading his work, it is clear that he was a staunch royalist and, by his own account, seemingly built a special bond between himself and the entire royal family. To this end, one must view his words with a degree of speculation as they are no doubt aimed to solicit a bit of sympathy for the hardships faced by those he served. Of course, this is not to say that any sympathy is undeserved, as the treatment afforded to the family was, in many ways, inhumane and overtly cruel.
Royal Prisoners
Although the night of August 10th, 1792, technically marks the incarnation of the royal family, this write-up begins on August 13th. On this date, the family was officially imprisoned at the petite tower of the Temple (i.e., the Tower). By most accounts, the Tower was an old building dating back to the 12th century that had fallen into disrepair. Nonetheless, the royal family was afforded some degree of luxury in the early days of their incarnation. For instance, they were provided means of self-entertainment (e.g., books and supplies for needlework), good meals, walks in the gardens, and several servants. Although their initial treatment was hospitable, their status as prisoners was undeniable.
The comfort of the royal family would take a significant blow in the early days of September. The Paris Commune continued to accumulate power, and as a result, their efforts to squash royalist affections intensified. September 2nd marked an important day in their efforts as they began interrogating and subsequently trying overt royalists with crimes against the state. The already incarnated servants to the royal family were easy targets, and they were transferred to La Force before being tried. Among them was Princess Lamballe. Her status likely sealed her fate, but her close friendship with Marie Antoinette, who at the time was arguably the most despised person in France, certainly added fuel to the fire. Although the story of her death conjures up tales of graphic violence of every type, the result is always the same. Her decapitated head was placed on a pike, and her nude body was drug by a crowd of people through the streets with a specific and heinous mission.
Unaware of the horror that just befell Princess Lamballe and many others, the royal family went about their day. While dining, their meal was cut short in response to the unrelenting beat of drums and shouting from a large crowd that had gathered outside their prison. Per their routine, the family retired to the queen’s room for the evening. The few servants who remained, mainly Cléry, retired downstairs to eat dinner. During their meal Princess Lamballe's head was raised to the window. One of the servants screamed out in terror. This scream was mistaken for the queen's, and the crowd cheered in celebration. Cléry (1798) reports that the mob positioned the head in the window so that it could not be obscured from view. It is at this time that he was able to observe that “though bloody it”, meaning Princess Lamballe’s head, “was not disfigured, her blond hair, still curling, floated around the pike”. This paints a rather horrific picture. One can only imagine how gut-wrenching that sight must have been, but it is not hard to understand how much more intense this would have been for the king or queen, considering their connection to the princess. It was only because of the strong stance taken by their captors that they were spared this misfortune.
Leading up to this, a rumor was spread that the king and queen were no longer incarcerated at the Tower. In response, the crowd gathered below to see for themselves. Eventually, a deputation was formed and tasked with entering the Tower to investigate, which was permitted by the municipals to quell the ever-growing crowd surrounding them. A struggle ensued as the crowd, with the naked body of Princess Lamballe in tow, was determined to enter the Tower alongside the deputation. The guards held off the invasion, and the deputation proceeded upstairs to address the family. Under the careful watch of the municipals, the deputation urged the king and especially the queen to peer over the edge of their balcony so that the crowd could be reassured of their continued residence at the tower. This request was refused by the municipals. Cléry (1798) notes that one of the deputies protested the municipals' rejection of their request and crassly asserted that they only did so because they did not want the queen to see the decapitated head of Princess Lamballe. Upon hearing this, the queen reportedly fainted, and the children started to sob. Having completed their objective, the deputation left. Although the psychological torment of that day likely lasted for the rest of their lives, the mob would eventually dissipate, and with it, the threat of the family being massacred that night.
The Royal Routine – A blessing or a curse?
The events of September 3rd were tragically horrific, but the days that followed were relatively calm. This afforded the family the opportunity to settle into something that more or less resembled a routine. The day-to-day actions of the royal family are not inherently interesting, but a breach of royal protocol born out of necessity arguably brought the family closer together. In consequence, the final farewell depicted on the current medal was made a much more tender moment than it might have been otherwise. Luckily for us, Cléry (1798) provides a highly detailed description of the routine from his perspective during his tenure in service to and shared imprisonment with the royal family.
By Cléry’s account, the king would rise at 6 AM, prepare for the day, and then proceed to the reading room, where he would pray for several minutes before pursuing a book of his choice until breakfast with the family. All members of the royal family, but especially the king, were under constant surveillance without break. As explained, the reading room was too small to sit two people, so the doors had to remain open while at least one municipal stood watch without so much as breaking his sight of the prisoner. As time progressed, this would become an increasingly hostile situation for the king. During this time, Cléry would help the other family members prepare for their day. Breakfast would be served every morning at 9 AM. After breakfast, the family would retire to the queen’s quarters at around 10 AM. In a breach of royal protocol, the king would spend hours attending to his son’s education while the queen tended to their daughter’s. This would last until 1 PM. The family would then go on walks through the gardens to get fresh air and a bit of needed exercise for the two young children. Although accompanied by no less than four municipals and the captain of the National Guard of Paris, these walks served as a much-appreciated escape from the harsh reality of their situation. At least in the beginning. The family would return to the Tower for lunch at 2 PM. For the next couple of hours, the family would eat while all of their rooms were searched by the Commanding General of the National Guard of Paris and two of his aids-de-champ. These activities took a lot of time as the next activity listed by Cléry is the king's nap at 4 PM. During which the children would read silently by his bedside. Once awake, the king would supervise writing lessons given to the dauphin by Cléry. Once the dauphin finished, the entire family would sit together while the queen and Madame Élisabeth would take turns reading aloud to the family. This would continue until roughly 8 PM when the children ate dinner and prepared for bed. The queen led the young dauphin in prayer and then joined her husband for dinner at around 9 PM. Following dinner, the king would say goodnight to his family before returning to the reading room until midnight. With slight variations, this routine would largely hold until the end of September.
As one may have noticed, the family spent a great deal of time together, and even more notable is the time and involvement of the king in the education of the dauphin throughout the majority of September. As king, royal protocol and the duties of his office would not have allowed either of these two things to normally occur. The incarnation of the family essentially gave rise to an environment where royal protocol was somewhat irrelevant in a number of respects. Rather tragically, the family would take comfort in the time they spent together and find joy in their mutual activities, but these would be slowly and painfully torn away. As time progressed, their captors became more overt in their displeasure with the king. Cléry (1798) notes that at one point, a guard had written “the guillotine is permanent, and is awaiting the tyrant, Louis XVI” on the king’s door. Upon Cléry’s attempt to remove it, the king refused, and from what I can gather, it remained. The king caught the brunt of the abuse, but that is not to say that the rest of the family made it out unscathed.
Many of the activities that the family had come to enjoy came under attack. For instance, the guards took the family walks through the gardens as a chance to taunt the entire family (Cléry, 1798). They were greeted in the stairwell with engravings calling for the murder of the entire family, or depicting other graphic and obscene scenes. The guards would laugh at the slightest reaction and hurl insults. Once outside, the artillery men would organize to sing revolutionary songs in hopes of provoking a response. Robbing the joy from the walks was not enough for their captors. Next, they set their eyes on making life even more miserable within the confines of the Tower. To this end, the municipals enforced decrees that removed tools used by the family to entertain themselves (e.g., pens, paper, needlework supplies, etc.). The only form of entertainment that remained constant during their incarnation was the thousands of books at their disposal. This point is further highlighted by Cléry’s claim that the king read over 250 volumes during his tenure at the Tower. Nonetheless, the family still spent a considerable amount of time together, and the removal of these items only led them to find other creative ways to cope with their bleak situation.
A New Level of Depravity
Despite their captors’ efforts to turn the events that the family had once enjoyed into painful reminders of their situation, the family still found comfort in each others company. I imagine this was unacceptable to those who wished to see the king and queen suffer. To this end, they missed no opportunity to witness an emotional response from either in the event of developing news. One such instance was the announcement of the abolition of royalty, during which several visitors came to announce the news in person in hopes of catching a glimpse of displeasure among the king or queen. When these antics failed, they resolved to threaten the very thing that provided the king comfort - being with his family.
As noted by Cléry (1798), September 29th proceeded like any other day until around 9 PM. At this time, the municipals informed the king that he would be separated from his family. No reason was given, even upon request. The king, noticeably and understandably distraught, offered his first farewell to his family, fully aware of the fact that it could be his last. This is a point well understood by his family and likely added to their mutual despair. The king was transferred to the Main tower of the prison along with Cléry. The following morning Cléry notes that he went about his routine helping the king prepare for the day before heading off to do the same for the rest of the family; however, he was refused entry to the petite tower. In his journal, he notes that the guard told him “you are to have no communication with other prisoners, nor your master either, he is to never see his children again”. It is not hard to imagine that this must have been a gut-wrenching message to receive and a difficult one to later deliver to the king. At 9 AM, the usual breakfast time, without luck the king petitioned the municipals to see his family. The queen and the children are far more successful in their pleas, and the municipals give in. At first, this was a temporary arrangement until they received further orders, but they never came. In the meantime, the family would remain separated, and the only considerable time they were allowed to spend together occurred when they were dining or walking through the gardens. The king was permitted to continue to oversee the dauphin’s education, but he remained under the queen’s care, which provided her great comfort. Things would change again on October 26th when the family was once again reunited under the same roof. Of course, the queen was given little time to enjoy this news as it was closely followed by the removal of the dauphin to his father’s care. This was devastating to the queen. This distress was only magnified when the prince fell ill with a fever, and the queen was denied access to care for him throughout the night. Eventually, this fever would pass to the entire family and Cléry, but all would recover.
An All but Certain Fate
Leading up to December, the family would still endure their captors’ malignant attempts to rob them of their last scraps of hope and joy. The one source of comfort came from their shared experience as a family, but this was constantly under threat. As detailed by Cléry (1798), December 11th marked the day that this threat would become a devastating reality. Although their clandestine operations afforded them a warning of the events that would unfold that day, I can imagine that it still struck terror throughout them all. A large group of soldiers, including cavalry and cannons, organized in the garden of the Tower by 5 AM. Doing their best to remain stoic, the royal family continued their routine as they would have on any other day in November. While the king is giving the dauphin his reading lesson for the day, a group of municipals entered and informed the king that his son is to return to the care of his mother. When the king protested and asked for a reason the municipals refused to give one. It is not difficult to imagine how anxiety-provoking this must have been for the king, but this was compounded by the extensive time he waited before he received any updates from his captors. The king would eventually be escorted to the National Convention by the Mayor of Paris, who intended to request that the king be permanently separated from his family – a request that was all but guaranteed to be granted. Upon the king’s return to the Tower, he requested to see his family, which was promptly denied. Likewise, his request to oversee the care of the dauphin as he had done since October 26th, was also denied. To this end, it appeared that the rumors of him never seeing his family again were true.
Despite rejection at every turn, the king remained persistent, and the following morning he enquired about dining with his family. That request was also denied. Later that evening, the king would be presented a decree informing him that his trial had been initiated and that he had a right to counsel. Remaining steadfast in his mission to be reunited with his family, he requested a direct response from the National Convention on the subject, which would deliver yet another devastating blow on December 15th. At this time, the king was informed that he was to have no contact with either the queen or Madame Élisabeth during his trial. This must have been heartbreaking enough, but the next set of conditions was nothing more than a cruel attempt to hurt the king. The terms dictated that the king could see his children if he wished, but they would subsequently be unable to return to the care of their mother during the trial. Cléry (1798) notes that in response to the presented terms, the king remarked:
“you see the cruel alternative in which they place me; I cannot resolve to have my children with me; as for my daughter; it is impossible; as for my son; I feel the grief it would occasion the queen; I must consent to this fresh sacrifice”.
To this end, if the king wished to see his children, he would have to place them in a state of limbo while also depriving his wife of their company. In this way, he really had no choice in the matter.
The following day the King was presented the official arraignment, which consisted of over a hundred documents and took nearly eight hours to go through. From here, the king would diligently work with his counsel to prepare for his trial, all the while remarking on the distress caused by not being with his family. As noted by Cléry (1798), December 19th was particularly painful for the king. While preparing for the day, the king purportedly turned to Cléry and said to him, “14 years ago you got up earlier than you did today – that was the day my daughter was born – and today, her birthday, I am deprived of seeing her”. The king, certain of his doomed fate, would spend Christmas day alone writing his last will and testament. No longer concerned with preserving his life, he focused his efforts entirely on seeing his family and doing what he could to ensure their proper care. The new year would come, and on the morning of January 1st, 1793, the king asked his wishes for a happy new year to be passed to his family, but he made no request to see them. When asked about this, he simply replied “In a few days they will not refuse me that consolation; I must wait”. The king had accepted his perceived fate, and he even states it so clearly himself several times. For instance, when Cléry suggests hope that the king’s punishment may be limited to imprisonment or transportation, he replies, “May they have that moderation for my family – It is only for them I fear”. On January 17th, the king would learn of his punishment – a public death by guillotine.
Final Farewell
The king’s fate was sealed. Nonetheless, his desire to protect his family persisted, and to this end, he intended to make several requests, such as the ability to see his family. At 2 PM, the Executive Council presented the king with the decrees made in the last five days. In response, the king took the decrees and handed the secretary a list of requests for their consideration. The first was that he would be given three days to prepare for his death, including the right to a priest who was free of later conviction. Next, he requested that the constant guard he found himself under be lifted and that he be allowed to see his family upon request without supervision. Concerning the fate of his family, he requested that the National Convention take up the matter immediately. Finally, he sought continued security for those who had served him, arguing that many men, women, and children were in harm as a result of his imprisonment. In the end, his request for three days of preparation, and the complete removal of his guard, would be declined. As a consolation, he was afforded a priest just before his execution and allowed to dine with his family in private, but the guard would keep a close watch through the glass partition in the dining area.
The king was prevented from seeing his family since December 11th and would only be granted a mere few hours with them before his execution. With great anticipation, the king entered the dining area and waited until 8:30 PM before his family finally arrived. The queen holding the hand of the young dauphin entered first, closely followed by Madame Élisabeth and Madame Royal. Upon seeing the king, they all ran and embraced him at once. Eventually, the family would settle around a small round table that allowed them to hold one another in half embrace. There were no witnesses inside the room, and no direct record of what was said exists. Cléry, who was just outside the partition, watched in distress as the king spoke, and the family broke out in fits of despair. There is little doubt that the king must have shared his tragic fate with his family.
The scene that unfolds at 10:15 is nothing short of heartbreaking. At this time, the king rises followed by the rest of his family. The queen clasps the king’s right arm and both hold the hand of the dauphin. Madame Royal clings to the king’s left side while Madame Élisabeth is slightly behind her grasping the king’s left arm. As a group, they take a few steps forward while sobbing in despair. The door opens and Cléry hears the king say “I assure you that I will see you tomorrow at eight o’clock”. To which the family replies with “You promise? ”. The king offers his reassurance which is rebuffed by the queen saying “Why not seven o’clock? ”. The king aware of the pain this exchange is causing them replies with “Well, then, yes at seven o’clock” after which according to Cléry the king then somewhat precariously said “adieu”. In response, the sobs intensify and Madame Royal collapses and clasps her father’s feet. Once Madame Élisabeth and Cléry help Madame Royal back to her feet the king swiftly held them in an embrace before pleading “Adieu, adieu”. He then turns and immediately returns to his chamber. The king would never see his family again.
The following morning the king handed Cléry several items and said “give this seal to my son – and this ring to the queen; tell her that I part from it with pain and at the last moment”. The king continues “Say to the queen, to my dear children, to my sister, that although I promised to see them this morning, I wish to spare them the pain of so cruel a separation – how much it pains me to go without receiving their last embrace”. Before exiting the Tower that had been his prison for so long, the king addressed the municipal at his side and said “I desire that Cléry should remain with my son, who is accustomed to his care; I hope that the commune will accede my request”. His departure was marked by the sounds of trumpets and drums. The king was executed at 10:22 AM at which time salutes from artillery and cries of “Vive la nation! ” erupted across Paris.
Obverse:
The obverse design depicts the conjoined busts of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette both facing left with Louis XVI at the forefront. Two large rolls of curled hair appear above his ear with a smaller less condensed role appearing just above them. His hair falls behind his neck tightly tied by a ribbon with one bow and only one visible loose end. Protruding from the ribbon, the hair flows in large curls behind his bust with one curl flowing under his truncation and another resting upon his right shoulder. His bust is draped and at the truncation of his shoulder the letters C.H.K. appear. Partially obscured by her husband, Marie Antoinette’s hair is tightly gathered at the top of her head. A small crown denoted by a decorated band and five circular jewels rests upon a cushion of hair. A series of small curls can be seen protruding from the top. Her bust is draped in a gown with frilly lace. A large curl of hair rests upon her right shoulder. Likewise, a large curl of hair rests on her left shoulder. The obverse legend, LUD • XVI D:G • FR • ET NAV • REX. MAR • ANT • AUSTR • REG • appears wrapped around the bust and closely fit to the innermost part of the inner rim. The phrase FATI INIQUI appears in substantially smaller font immediately below the bust of Louis XVI. All of this is contained within a moderately broad raised outer rim. It is worth noting that the mark that appears in the field in front of the queen’s bust is on every specimen that I have examined. Although I am uncertain of what caused it, I have no doubt that it was a defect in the die which subsequently transferred to all struck specimens.
Reverse:
The reverse depicts the king’s heartbreaking farewell to his family the night before his execution. The scene presumably is occurring at the Tower. King Louis is depicted in the center in traditional attire. His left arm is extended resting upon the head of the young dauphin. The King’s glance is entirely occupied by his young son, who is on his knees gazing up at his father while clinging to his curtails. His feathered hat has fallen to the floor and rests on the ground to the left of the entire family. The queen is depicted wearing a traditional gown and is slightly hunched as she clings to her husband’s left side. Her head rests upon his left arm and her gaze is directed down. Immediately in front of the king’s left leg appears Madame Royal. She is resting on her knees and gazing up at her father with her left arm reaching towards his face. Madame Élisabeth appears in the background. Her face is obscured by a linen which she uses to wipe away her tears. To the right of the king appears either a door or a window. In the far distance a crowd can be seen gathered around a scaffold upon which rests a guillotine. A ribbon appears at the very top just above the family, it reads AN EST DOLOR PAR DOLORI NOSTRO. The entire scene seemingly rests upon a cutaway which gives way to a sharp exergual line containing C • H • KUCHLER . FEC •. Immediately below this a legend broken into four lines. The first line reads NATUS XXIII AUG. MDCCLIV. Which is closely followed by SUCC . X MAY MDCCLXXIV. on the second line. The third line reads DECOLL . XXI JAN. and the fourth reads MDCCXCIII. All of this is contained with a modestly thin inner rim and a slightly wider outer rim.
Edge: Plain
Size: 48mm
Notes:
The design of this medal is stunning, but this is only magnified by the high degree of preservation exhibited by the current example. Despite it being classified as a non-proof strike, the obverse has an undeniably strong cameo contrast. The reverse exhibits the same quality, but the frost is less pronounced and incomplete in several areas. It is interesting to note the discrepancy that arises between Cléry’s first-hand account of the final farewell and that depicted on the reverse of the medal. Of course, Küchler did not have the benefit of reading Cléry’s account. Nonetheless, his depiction was not wildly inaccurate. That of the queen is rather close to reality, but she appears on the wrong side, according to Cléry. Likewise, Madame Royal should appear on his left side. The placement of the dauphin and Madame Élisabeth are notably incorrect. On the medal, the dauphin is depicted on his knees, hanging on the curtails of the king’s right side; however, according to Cléry’s account, the dauphin’s hands were held by both the queen and king on his right side. Likewise, Madame Élisabeth was purportedly on his left side, slightly behind the rest, holding onto his left arm, but on the medal, she is weeping in the distance. Perhaps the biggest inaccuracy is the guillotine and the large crowd seen in the distance to the left behind the family. Remember, the king said his final farewell to the family the night before his death; therefore, this mob would not have already organized. Nonetheless, this addition adds another sense of despair which appropriately highlights the changing British opinion on the French Revolution.
References:
Cléry, M. (1798). A journal of occurrences at the temple, during the confinement of Louis XVI: King of France. By M. Cléry, Translated by R. C. Dallas. London: printed by Baylis, and sold by the author.
Pollard, J. G. (1970). Matthew Boulton and Conrad Heinrich Küchler. The Numismatic Chronicle, 10, 259-318.
Tungate, S. (2020) Matthew Boulton and The Soho Mint: copper to customer. Worcestershire: Brewin Books.
|
| Slot: |
1793 Great Britain (Eimer-853) Board Of Agriculture Medal Bronze With Shells and Wrapper Ex. James Watt Jr. Collection |
| Origin/Country: |
GREAT BRITAIN - MEDALS |
| Design Description: |
|
| Item Description: |
BRONZE 1793 G.BRIT Eimer-853 BOARD OF AGRICULTURE MEDAL #1/3 |
| Grade: |
NGC MS 67 BN |
| Research: |
View Coin |
Owner Comments
Collecting the medals struck at the Soho Mint introduces quite a bit of variety. Although I likely would have admired the artistry of the piece, I find it unlikely that I would have taken the time to procure it for my collection. Beyond the societal level impact of agricultural science, my general collecting interests are unrelated, and as such, this piece would not have normally garnered a second glance. Nonetheless, it was struck at the Soho Mint, and Küchler engraved the dies, and therefore it deserves a prominent position in my collection. It is interesting to note that Pollard (1970) attributes this medal as being struck in 1793, but more recent research by Tungate (2020) indicates that it was struck in 1797. The Board of Agriculture ordered medals in September of 1797, and Sinclair (the president at the time) requested that specimens in copper, silver, and gold be sent for inspection. Tungate (2020) notes that a bill of over £44 was sent to the Board of Agriculture on October 7th, 1799. This bronzed copper specimen has retained its original silver-lined brass shells and inscribed wrapper. It appeared as lot 227 of the 2002 Moton & Eden sale of the James Watt Jr. Collection. At the time, it sold for £260. Tungate (2020) indicates that only 74 of these pieces, across all metals, were reportedly struck. It appears that Matthew Pier Watt Boulton (i.e., Matthew Boulton’s grandson) retained the dies upon the Soho Mint's demise in 1850, but no other information about their whereabouts is known (Vice, 1995).
Historical Context:
I initially had some difficulty obtaining information about the Board of Agriculture. It appears most of the digitally available information pertains to the National Agricultural Society, still currently in operation. At the time, I did not realize how closely the two were related. The modern society owes its very existence to some degree to the original Board of Agriculture. This short narrative aims to familiarize readers with the historical context that gave rise to the medal presented and reiterate the cautious tale of unchecked egos and unrealistic ambitions. The two later facets were undeniably the eventual downfall of the Board of Agriculture.
Although some degree of controversy once existed about who deserved credit for establishing the Board of Agriculture, it appears that this argument has essentially been put to rest in modern times (Clarke, 1898; Mitchison, 1959). Our story begins just before the idea for a Board of Agriculture became more than a fleeting fantasy. In April of 1793, the Kingdom was suffering from a currency shortage, and the government seemed to have few ideas of how to remedy the issue. Sir John Sinclair made a simple suggestion to issue temporary low-value exchequer bills in a total of £5,000,000 to temporarily relieve the shortage. Mitchison (1959) noted that Sinclair had already arranged for several bankers to send the money requested before the legislation had even moved beyond the preparation stage. This set up a nice quid pro quo situation in which Pitt found himself in the debt of Sinclair (Clarke, 1898; Mitchison, 1959). Sinclair, eager to call in his favor, floated the idea of establishing a Board of Agriculture. Pitt's understanding was that Sinclair was naming his price, and thus backed the proposal for the creation of such a board. With the help of Lord Melville, the idea was sent before the house for approval to formally present to the King. As reproduced by Clarke (1898), the proposal read:
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, entreating that His Majesty would be graciously pleased to take into his Royal consideration the advantages which might be derived by the public from the establishment of a Board of Agriculture and Internal Improvement: Humbly representing to His Majesty that, though in some particular districts, improved methods of cultivating the soil are practised, yet that, in the greatest part of these kingdoms, the principles of Agriculture are not yet sufficiently understood, nor are the implements of husbandry, or the stock of the farmer, brought to that perfection of which they are capable: That his faithful Commons are persuaded, if such an institution were to take place, that such inquiries might be made into the internal state of the country, and a spirit of improvement so effectually encouraged, as must naturally tend to produce many important national benefits, the attainment of which His Majesty has ever shown a most gracious disposition to promote; and, in particular, that such a measure might be the means of uniting a judicious system of husbandry to the advantages of domestic manufacturing industry, and the bene6ts of foreign commerce, and consequently of establishing on the surest and best foundations the prosperity of his kingdoms : And if His Majesty shall be graciously pleased to direct the institution of such a Board for a limited time, to assure His Majesty that his faithful Commons will cheerfully defray any expense attending the same to the amount of a sum not exceeding £3,000. "
The proposal was supported by many, as was customary further discussion was tabled until a second meeting held on May 15th, 1793. It appears, however, that by the next meeting, a large body of opposition had taken hold of the house, and Sinclair's proposal would be put to the test. Clarke (1898) lists some of the most boisterous members of the opposition, which included arguments that other societies such as the Society of Arts already performed the objective of the new board. The merits of this argument could be examined, but in reality, the potential of the proposed Board of Agriculture would far extend any mutual interest with the Society of Arts. Nonetheless, the Society of Arts had been established for over 40 years and by now was self-sufficient and therefore not reliant upon government funding. This led to a suggested amendment of the proposal that essentially eliminated the need for government funding (Clarke, 1898). Of course, this would have spelled doom of the Board of Agriculture, as the money provided by the government would at times be the only thing sustaining the board, and as we will soon see, without any government assistance, the board could not survive. Luckily the proposed revision was rejected, and the original proposal was overwhelmingly supported by a vote of 101 to 26. The newly formed Board of Agriculture and Internal Improvement was provided a royal charter.
In Sinclair's haste to get things going, he inadvertently pissed off one man of considerable influence, Lord Chancellor Loughborough. Before the business of the new Board of Agriculture could begin, the Great Seal had to be affixed to its charter; however, Sinclair had already arranged for the board's first meeting to occur on August 22nd, 1793. He sent the Royal Charter to be sealed the day before with a note explaining his hope that the process would be done quickly, citing the meeting scheduled for the next day (Clarke, 1898). Aggravated by Sinclair's disregard for the duty of his office, Lord Loughborough took his time sealing the charter. The charter was not sealed, or at least Sinclair was not made aware it had been sealed until the afternoon of August 23rd, 1793, which required that the first meeting be postponed. The Royal Charter stated that the board was to be made of sixteen officers and thirty ordinary members. In addition, the board could appoint any number of honorary members as they needed, but the rights of these members were to be limited to attending and voting within general meetings on all matters unrelated to the internal structure of the board. The lowest class of membership consisted of corresponding members, which could include foreigners, who had no right to attend or vote in meetings. An annual meeting was to be held around March 25th, during which new officers would be elected, and five ordinary members would step down to allow five honorary members to be promoted. Usually, those who attended the least number of meetings were asked to step down (Clarke, 1898; Mitchison, 1959). All votes were to be cast by ballot and counted after each vote commenced. It appears this practice was employed throughout the lifespan of the Board of Agriculture. By March 18th, 1800, honorary members were granted the right to debate on all matters unrelated to the internal structure of the board, and it appears that such memberships reached a peak of over 500 by 1809 (Clarke, 1898). Although several notable changes were made to the powers associated with the presidency, the overall structure endured.
The Board of Agriculture held its first meeting on September 4th, 1793, upon which the session was adjourned until January 23rd, 1794 (Clarke, 1898; Mitchison, 1959). It was during this period that set the board on a collision course that would take years to correct. The president, Sir John Sinclair, had an idea to send surveyors to all parts of the Kingdom to write reports upon the agricultural activities and best practices employed. In theory, that would not have been a terrible idea. Sinclair, however, acted in haste and set surveyors about their business without first consulting the other members or setting strict terms of the employment of the surveyors, nor the terms of publishing their findings (Clarke, 1898). During his first address, Sinclair made his plan clear to the other members, and it was eventually settled upon, but even if the other members objected, it was too late to halt what was already in motion. The cost of producing and subsequently printing the reports was extraordinary, and despite multiple complaints from those in charge of the board's finances, the damage had already been done. By May 11th, 1795, the board was in debt to the tune of £5,863 with only £200 in funds available on hand. If not all of it, most of this debt was incurred by Sinclair (Clarke, 1898). A resolution was eventually passed in March of 1797, limiting the president's powers to access funds held by the board, which undoubtedly was an effort to keep this madness from occurring in the future.
Sinclair's reports were almost all received by July of 1795, but they were mostly in poor order (Clarke, 1898). The lack of coherent structure and the considerable variation in the quality of the reports made them all but useless. The reports hurt the board's reputation and, in some instances, roused suspicion about its intentions. One such incidence, as it relates to tithes, is well recorded as causing a rift between church leaders and government officials, which translated to tension between the board and all parties involved (Clarke, 1898; Mitchison, 1959). This tension would continue to cause issues for the board until its eventual demise. In short, the reports by large were a failure, and the cost of printing them far exceeded any revenue they generated. In 1796 the board decided to forego printing the remaining reports unless they merited special attention. In its place, they published "Communications", which aimed to disseminate the collective knowledge of the board. Of course, Sinclair added his own flair to the project and took no less than 82 printed pages to detail how the board came about (Clarke, 1898). During Sinclair's tenure as president, the board did influence several essential acts of parliament, such as the legislative action that shifted the responsibility to maintain proper weights to local magistrates. This reduced the ability of unethical traders to take advantage of the poor by ensuring they received the fair amount of product they paid for. Clarke (1898) detailed that perhaps the most crucial development was the report made of Joseph Elkington's methods of draining wastelands. Without the action of the Board of Agriculture, his knowledge would have undeniably been lost upon his death as he made no effort to write about his practices. Despite all of the advances made, Sinclair left the board in deep debt.
A new president was elected in 1798, John Southey Somerville, and his quick thinking eventually resolved the financial issues of the board. When he took office, the board was £420 in debt with an anticipated incoming expense for services rendered that amounted to an additional £1692 (Clarke, 1898). He proposed that all printing, except for that done to publish the communications be seized, and that no less than £400 of the yearly government grant of £3000 be put aside to pay off debt each year until it was resolved. Seizing to print Sinclair's reports amounted to a saving of £1000 per year. He further proposed that the savings should be used to offer premiums (i.e., prizes) for essays of "discoveries and improvements in the most important and leading points of husbandry", which was adopted by the Board on May 25th and 29th of 1798 (Clarke, 1898). This system of annual prizes would become a permanent fixture of the Board of Agriculture, and by 1800 there were no less than 23 prizes offered for essays on a host of topics. These prizes were intended to be honorary awards of little financial significance, so it is not surprising that gold and silver medals were the original source of recognition. As time went on, monetary rewards were associated with the medals, and in some instances, the entire prize was monetary (Clarke, 1898). Nonetheless, the medal depicted here is of the general design employed by Küchler at Mathew Boulton's Soho Mint. The essay's provided useful material that allowed the board to fulfill its primary task of disseminating knowledge about best practices. In short, the annual prizes proved an effective tool to generate new material that the board could then, in turn, publish and sell to others.
The annual prizes would serve a critical role in late 1800 and early 1801. The price of wheat had skyrocketed. This provided a large amount of motivation to convert otherwise fertile grasslands into wheat farms to turn a handsome profit on the temporarily high prices. The consequences of doing so were not well understood. The Board of Agriculture played an important role in what would have otherwise been a national catastrophe had the majority of the grasslands been converted. On December 17th, 1800, the board offered prizes totaling £800 for related essays, further supplemented by an additional £800 provided by parliament (Clarke, 1898). Over 350 essays were submitted, which gave rise to a report on June 19th, 1801, presented to the Lord's Committee laying out the recommended course of action (Clarke, 1898). As it turns out, converting the grasslands to produce wheat was detrimental to the soil and caused enough destruction to make its conversion back to grasslands nearly impossible. As Clarke (1898) argued, this undoubtedly played a crucial role in saving some of the most bountiful grasslands in the world.
As useful as the Board of Agriculture could have been, the government largely dismissed it, and its somewhat peculiar status made many question its true intentions. This is very clear when considering the general dismissal of the board's recommendation to avoid what they predicted would be a massive food shortage in 1800. The board recommended that the government import large quantities of rice from India through the East India Company, but the government ignored their pleas (Clarke, 1898). The food shortage of 1800 eventually became so widespread that the government decided to act, but they were too late, and by the time the rice had arrived, the issue was resolved by a large crop yield in 1801. In all, the failure of the government to heed the warning of the board is estimated to have cost upwards of £2,500,000 (Clarke, 1898). Throughout the remaining years of the board, they worked diligently to influence the passing of an enclosure act, but the rift between them and the church made this all but impossible (Clarke, 1898; Mitchison, 1959). The government already dismissed the board out of hand, and with the influence of the church against them, they truly stood little chance of being effective in their efforts.
The Board of Agriculture hit an era of prosperity, and by 1819 they had a positive balance of over £2,000. The yearly government grant was soon to be applied for, and for reasons not entirely clear to me, the board decided only to request £1,000 of the usual £3,000 grant (Clarke, 1898). This lapse of judgment would prove nearly fatal for the board as the government soon decided to withdraw any consideration of further government funding. Without the annual influx of the government grant, the board's financial situation became bleak. In part, this was due to their inability to scale down their scope of activities within the means of their available funds. They continued to offer hefty prizes for related essays and spent large sums of money organizing exhibits. To offset these costs, the board opted to raise money through donations and subscriptions. This practice was later extended to the general public, who could become an honorary member with the endorsement of two existing members. This privilege came with a subscription fee of £2 and two shillings per year or twenty guineas for life membership (Clarke, 1898). From contemporary documents, it appears this was initially a success, but by May 24th, 1822, it was clear that some form of government grant would be needed to maintain the board. Although the leadership petitioned parliament, they were not granted any further support of a notable amount. Eventually, plans were made to dissolve the board, and it was decided that relevant documents should be relinquished to the Record Office in the Tower. In addition, the remaining balance of the board minus the expenses paid to publish any worthy work were turned over to the board to the Chancellor of Exchequer. This amount summed to just over £519 and was relinquished just before the board's final meeting on June 25th, 1822 (Clarke, 1898).
As noted by Clarke (1898) and Mitchison (1959), the Board of Agriculture fell victim to many shortcomings that eventually led to self-destruction. Perhaps the greatest of which was the board's inadvertent quarrel with the church of England over a perceived threat to tithes, which in turn led to friction between the church and government. This friction between the two harbored a great deal of intense ill-will between the board and both church and government officials (Clarke, 1898). It is little wonder why the board was never able to secure additional funding, much less influence a sweeping reform of the enclosure act. Nonetheless, the board of agriculture did impart several notable influences on the current state of agricultural science. If nothing else, it laid a solid foundation for the Royal Agricultural Society of England. The latter would continue the work of the former, expanding upon their research while also avoiding the same pitfalls that led to the demise of its ancestor. There is so much more to this story, and the information provided above is only a tiny portion of the fascinating history surrounding the Board of Agriculture and its members. I encourage those interested in learning more to seek out the publications I have cited repeatedly here.
1793 BOARD OF AGRICULTURE MEDAL |
Obverse:
The obverse design depicts King George III facing right. Unlike Kuchler's usual renditions, the King is neither draped nor armored, but instead, the bust is truncated with the initials "C. H. K." appearing at the undermost portion. The King's hair is short, with several small locks of hair falling closely behind his neck and a large lump of hair appearing just above his ear. Resting upon his head is a crown of laurel tied together by a knot with two bows and two loose ends. The second bow is partially obscured by the first, but both extend behind the King's head toward the rim. The two loose ends fall behind the neck, one of which closely adheres to the curve of the truncation and partially rests below it. A large wave of hair partially obscures the laurel crown just below the three uppermost leaves. The legend "GEORGIUS III · D : G · MAG · BR · REX. " appears near the bust of George III. This legend is contained within a neatly formed circle of tiny beads. Between the innermost rim and the beaded circle is an open wreath. The left-hand side is a laurel branch, while the right appears to be wheat. The two branches are tied at the bottom center of the medal by a knot with one big bow and two loose ends. The loose end on the left wraps around the front of the laurel branch, while the right wraps behind the wheat branch to the front. The inner beaded circle and wreath are superseded by a piece of partially rolled parchment, upon which the legend "BOARD OF AGRICULTURE ESTABL'D · 23 · AUG · 1793 ·" appears. This is contained within a relatively wide and raised rim, which shows numerous rust spots indicating that this die was improperly stored for some time before being reused.
Reverse:
The reverse of this medal depicts an allegorical figure designed to represent agriculture. She stands in the center facing right and wearing a loose-fitting gown draped over her shoulders, which extends to her sandaled feet. In her right hand, she holds some tool that is not immediately identifiable to me. Her left hand rests upon a spade partially dug into the ground with a snake coiled around it. Resting upon her head is a winged cap. She stands upon a piece of land at the foreground with small pieces of grass protruding through, upon which "C · H · KÜCHLER . FEC·" appears on the exergual line. In the immediate background, a plough appears to her left, and two tools, one of which is a scythe, appear to her right. I am not sure what the second tool is, and it appears Boulton was also unsure as he asked Küchler, "What is this ball intended for? " in his notes upon the initial design (Tungate, 2020). It is worth noting the distant background appears to depict two very different farming landscapes (i.e., the flatlands and a mountainous region). Immediately above and wrapping around the inner portion of the rim is a blank ribbon partially rolled on each end. In exergue, the word "VOTED" appears in the upper right corner. These two areas were left initially blank so that the medal could be engraved with the winner's details; however, as noted by Pollard (1970), a significant degree of variation occurred in how this was executed. This is contained within a relatively wide and raised rim, which shows numerous rust spots indicating that this die was improperly stored for some time before being reused.
Edge: Plain – although it appears some medals were engraved with the winner's details (i.e., name, titles, and what it was awarded for).
Size: 48mm
Notes:
Interestingly, a single bronzed copper specimen resided in the James Watt Jr. Collection. We know that Sinclair requested that specimens in copper, silver, and gold be sent, but it seems unlikely that many copper or bronzed copper pieces would be struck. These were prize medals commissioned on behalf of the Board of Agriculture, meaning that the quantity struck was under the careful control of Boulton at the board's request. We know from other contemporary accounts that Boulton refused to sell copies of commissioned pieces, even to his most esteemed collectors (Pollard, 1970). Given other contemporary information, it is likely safe to assume that this medal was produced at the Soho Mint under the careful direction of James Watt Jr., who was an avid collector. It is no secret that he would sometimes use old dies to produce a piece or two missing from his collection of Soho Mint wares. The Board of Agriculture seized to exist in mid-1822, which coincides nicely with Watt Jr.'s tenure as Master of the Mint. Given that this medal was not struck in gold or silver, it seems unlikely that it was ever meant to be issued, suggesting that it might have been a one-off piece struck later to fill a hole in an otherwise remarkable collection. This would also account for the numerous rust spots throughout the obverse and reverse designs. This medal is graded MS-67 BN by NGC.
References:
Clarke, E. (1898). History of the Board of Agriculture 1793-1822. London: Royal Agricultural Society of England.
Davies, E. A. (1952). An Account of the Formation and Early Years of the Westminster Fire Office. Glasgow: Robert MacLehose & Co. Ltd.
Mitchison, R. (1959). The Old Board of Agriculture (1793-1822). The English Historical Review, 74(290), 41-69.
Tungate, S. (2020) Matthew Boulton and The Soho Mint: copper to customer. Worcestershire: Brewin Books.
Vice, D. (1995). A fresh insight into Soho Mint restrikes & those responsible for their manufacture. Format Coins, Birmingham, 3-14.
Interesting links:
https://merl.reading.ac.uk/collections/royal-agricultural-society-of-england/
https://www.library.wales/discover/digital-gallery/printed-material/gwallter-mechains-reports-for-the-board-of-agriculture
|
| Slot: |
1798 British Victories of 1798 Medal Gilt - Bust Type 3a |
| Origin/Country: |
GREAT BRITAIN - MEDALS |
| Design Description: |
|
| Item Description: |
BRONZE 1798 G.BRIT Bhm-458 VICTORIES OF THE YEAR GILT |
| Grade: |
NGC MS 63 PL |
| Research: |
View Coin |
Owner Comments
The British celebrated many military victories both on land and sea in 1798. Proud of these accomplishments, and always looking to turn a profit, Matthew Boulton seized the opportunity to produce a medal to celebrate these victories. Pollard (1970) notes that this medal is Küchler’s earliest depiction of George III, but that contemporary documentation suggests that it was not struck until 1800. He further notes that this medal is only known to exist with what he cataloged as Obverse 3a. Brown (1970) confirms this information and notes that it is found in silver gilt, copper gilt, and copper. Although NGC did not specify, this is a gilt copper example. I only know this because a small fleck of brown can be seen on the edge. To this end, Brown would rate this medal as Very Rare.
Historical Context:
The Battle of the Nile was likely the most publicized of the victories achieved in 1798. As collectors likely already know, it was celebrated with a specific commission so I will forgo any discussion of that historical event here. Instead, I would like to focus on the Battle of Tory Island. Students of history will likely be very familiar with the events that unfolded and the significance they had to England’s domestic security, but they have not had the opportunity to read a contemporary report.
In the section below I provide a series of related texts published in the London Gazette. The first, dated October 21st, 1798 details the initial dispatch from John B. Warren to Vice-Admiral Kingsmill announcing the victory at Tory Island. It reads:
Admiralty-Office, October 21, 1798.
LIEUTENANT WATERHOUSE arrived here late last Night with the Duplicate of a Dispatch from Sir John Borlase Warren, Bart, and K. B. Captain of His Majesty's Ship Canada, to Vice-Admiral Kingsmill, of which the following is a Copy:
Canada, Lough Swilly, Ireland, 16th October, 1798.
SIR,
IN pursuance of the Orders and Instructions I received by the Kangaroo, I proceeded with the Ships named in the Margin [Canada, Robust, Foudroyant, and Magnanime], off Achill-Head, and on the 10th Instant, I was joined by His Majesty's Ships Melampus and Doris, the latter of whom I directed to look out for the Enemy off Tory Island, and the Rosses; in the Evening of the same Day, the Amelia appeared in the Offing, when Captain Herbert informed me he had parted with the Ethalion, Anson, and Sylph, who, with great Attention, had continued to observe the French Squadron since their sailing on the 17th Ultimo. In the Morning of the 11th , however, these Two ships also fell in with us, and at Noon the Enemy were discovered in the N. W. Quarter, consisting of One Ship of Eighty Guns, Eight Frigates, a Schooner, and a Brig. I immediately made the Signal for a. general Chace, and to form in Succession as each Ship arrived up with the Enemy, who, from their great Distance to Windward, and a hollow Sea, it was impossible to come up with before the 12th.
The Chace was continued in very bad and boisterous Weather all Day of the 11t h , and the following Night, when at Half past Five A. M. they were seen at a little Distance to Windward, the Line of Battle Ship having lost her Main Top Mast.
The Enemy bore down and formed their Line in close Order upon the Starboard Tack, and from the Length of the Chace, and our Ships being spread, it was impossible to close with them before Seven A. M. when I made the Robust's Signal to lead, which was obeyed with much Alacrity, and the Rest of the Ships to form in Succession in the Rear of the Van.
The Action commenced at Twenty Minutes past Seven o'Clock A. M. the Rosses bearing S. S. W. Five Leagues, and at Eleven, the Hoche, after a gallant Defence, struck ; and the Frigates made Sail from us : the Signal to pursue the Enemy-was. made immediately, and in Five Hours afterwards Three of the Frigates hauled down their Colours also; but they, as well as the Hoche, were obstinately defended, all of them being heavy Frigates, and, as well as the Ship of the Line, entirely new; full of Troops and Stores, with every Necessary for the Establishment of their Views and Plans io Ireland.
I am happy to say, that the Efforts and Conduct of every Officer and Man in the Squadron seemed to have been actuated by the same Spirit, Zeal, and Unanimity, in their King and Country's Cause; and I feel myself under, great Obligation to them, as well as the Officers and Men of this Ship, for their Exertions upon this Occasion; which will, I hope, recommend them to their Lordships' Favour.
I left Captain Thornbrough after the Action; with the Magnanime, Ethalion, and Amelia, with the Prizes; and am sorry to find he is not arrived; but trust they will soon make their Appearance.
I have the Honor to remain, SIR,
Your most obedient humble Servant,
JN. WARREN.
P.S.—The Ships with us in the Action were, the Canada, Robust, Foudroyant, Magnanime, - Ethalion, Melampus, and Amelia.
The Anson joined us in the latter Part of the Action, having, lost her Mizen-Mast in Chace the Day before.
I have sent my First Lieutenant Turguand to take the Command of the Hoche.
The details provided paint a detailed picture of what must have been an incredible scene to witness. Despite the decisive victory, the full account was yet to be made at the time of the initial letter detailed above. We will not get additional details published in the London Gazette until November. The account below is out of order relative to the publication, but it is directly related to the conflict at Tory Island. It is here that we learn of the number of wounded and killed on both sides and information about the captured French Vessels. It reads:
Admiralty-Office, November 20, 1798.
Copy of a Letter from Commodore Sir John Borlase Warren, K. B. io Evan Nepean, Esq; dated on board the Canada, Plymouth-Dock, 18th November, 1798.
SIR,
I Have been waiting with great Anxiety the Arrival of the Robust and La Hoche at this Port to enable me to make a Return of the Killed and Wounded in the different Ships under my Orders upon the 12th October last ; but, as I understand those Ships may be still further detained by Repairs at Lough Swilly, I send the inclosed, which it was impossible for me to obtain before the present Moment, as the Whole Squadron was separated in Chace of the flying Enemy, and have successively arrived at this Port; it was impracticable, therefore, to communicate the Particulars to their Lordships sooner, or to state the very gallant Conduct of Captains Thornbrough and De Courcy, in the Robust and Magnanime, who, from their Position in the Van on that Day, were enabled to close with the Enemy early in the Action, and were zealously and bravely seconded by every other Ship of the Squadron, as well as by the Intrepidity displayed by the Anson in the Evening, in obeying my Signal to harass the Enemy, and in beating off their Frigates.
For further Particulars I refer their Lordships to the Letters they may have received from Captains Countess and Moore of the Ethalion and Melampus.
I am happy in reflecting that so many Advantages to His Majesty's Arms have been purchased with so inconsiderable a Loss in the Ships of the Squadron.
I have the Honor to remain, Sir,
Your most obedient humble Servant,
JOHN WARREN.
A Return of the Killed and Wounded on board the Squadron of His Majesty's Ships under the Orders of Sir John Borlase Warren, Bart. K. B. in the Action with a Squadron of French Ships, on the 12th October, 1798.
Canada. 1 Seaman wounded; since dead.
Foudroyant. 9 Seamen wounded.
Robust. No Return. But I understand the First Lieutenant Mr. M'Colby lost his Arm, and One Marine Officer was killed.
Magnanime. 7 Seamen wounded.
Ethalion. 1 Seaman killed, 4 Seamen wounded.
Melampus. 1 Seaman wounded.
Amelia. No Return.
Anson. 2 Seamen killed, 2 Petty Officers, 8 Seamen, 3 Marines wounded.
Total. 3 Seamen killed. 2 Petty Officers, 30 Seamen, 3 Marines, wounded.
(Signed) JOHN WARREN.
A List of a Squadron of the French Republic in the Engagement on the 12th October, 1798, on the Coast of Ireland, with a Squadron of His Majesty's Ships under the Orders of Captain. Sir John Borlase Warren, Bart. K. B.
La Hoche, 84 Guns, (no Return,) Commodore Bompard ; Monsieur Hardi, Commander in Chief of the Army, Monsieur Simon, Adjutant-General. Taken by Sir John Borlase Warren's Squadron.
La Coquille, 40 Guns, 580 Men, Captain Deperon. Taken by Ditto.
L'Ambuscade, 36 Guns, 559 Men, Captain Clement la Konsieur. Taken by Ditto.
La Resolue, 36 Guns, 510 Men, Captain Berjeat. Taken by Ditto.
La Bellone, 40 Guns, 240 Seamen, 340 Troops, Captain Jacob. Taken by Ditto.
L'Immortalite, 40 Guns, 580 "Men, Captain Le Grand ; General of Brigade, Monsieur Menage Taken by the Fisgard.
La Romaine, 40 Guns, Captain Berguine. Escaped.
La Loire, 44 Guns, (no Return,) Captain- Second. Taken by the Anston.
La Simielante, 36 Guns, Captain La Costune. Escaped.
La Biche, 8 Guns, Schooner. Escaped.
Killed and Wounded on board the French Ships.
La Coquille. 18 killed, 31 wounded.
L'Ambuscade. 15 killed, 26 wounded.
La Resolue. 15 killed, 16 wounded.
La Bellone. 20 killed, 45 wounded.
Total. 68 killed, 118 wounded.
JOHN WARREN.
Evan Nepean, Esq;
The Battle of Tory Island was a strategically important victory that came at a low cost relative to the heavy losses suffered by the French. Not only were several French Vessels captured, but the victory effectively put an end to both the Irish Rebellion and any risk of French Land invasion. King and country certainly had a lot to be proud of. This point is very clear in the King’s speech on November 20th, 1798 which was reproduced in the London Gazette. It reads:
This Day His Majesty came to the House of Peers, and being in His Royal Robes, seated on the Throne with the usual Solemnity, Sir Francis Molyneux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, was sent with a Message from His Majesty to the House of Commons, commanding their Attendance in the House of Peers. The Commons being come thither accordingly, His Majesty was pleased to make the following most gracious Speech:
My Lords, and Gentlemen,
The Events which have taken place in the Course of the present Year, and the signal Success which, by the Blessing of Providence, has attended My Arms, have been productive of the happiest Consequences, and have essentially promoted the Prosperity and Glory of Our Country.
The unexampled Series of Our Naval Triumphs has received fresh Splendor from the memorable and decisive Action in which a Detachment of My Fleet, under the Command of Rear-Admiral Lord Nelson, attacked and almost totally destroyed a superior Force of the Enemy, strengthened by every Advantage of Situation: By this great and brilliant Victory, an Enterprise of which the Injustice, Perfidy, and Extravagance, had fixed the Attention of the World, and which was peculiarly directed against same of the most valuable Interests of the British Empire, has, in the first Instance, been turned to the Confusion of its Authors; and the Blow thus given to the Power, and Influence of France has afforded an Opening which, if improved by suitable Exertions on the Part of other Powers, may lead to the general Deliverance of Europe.
The Wisdom and Magnanimity so eminently displayed at this Conjuncture by the Emperor of Russia, and the Decision and Vigour of the Ottoman Forte, have shewn that those Powers are impressed: with a just Sense of the present Crisis; and their Example, joined to the Disposition manifested almost universally in the different Countries straggling under the Yoke of France, must be a powerful Encouragement to other States to adopt that vigorous Line of Conduct, which Experience has proved to be alone consistent with Security or Honor.
The Extent of Our Preparations at Home, and the Demonstrations of Zeal and Spirit among all Ranks of My Subjects, have deterred the Enemy from attempting to execute their vain Threat of invading the Coasts of this Kingdom.
In Ireland, the Rebellion which they had instigated has been curbed and repressed; the Troops which they landed for its Support have been compelled to surrender; and the Armaments since destined for the same Purpose have, by the Vigilance and Activity of My Squadrons, been captured or dispersed. The Views and Principles of those who, in Concert with Our inveterate Enemy, have long planned the Subversion of Our Constitution, have been fully detected and exposed, and their Treasons made manifest to the World. Those whom they had misled or seduced must now be awakened to their Duty; and a just Sense of the Miseries and Horrors which these traitorous Designs have produced, must impress on the Minds of all My faithful- Subjects the Necessity of continuing to repel with Firmness every Attack on the Laws and established Government of their Country.
The speech continues, but it is political and simply pleads the case for continued funding of the war with France. The King reiterates his desire to maintain the credit of the nation while simultaneously raising its stature. As expected, the King points to Providence as its benefactor and sends wishes for continued prosperity throughout the kingdom. Although the bulk of the speech is likely in recognition of Nelson’s victory, the King makes specific mention of the Battle of Tory Island. Interestingly, he mentions at length that those misled must be brought back to the fold to resume their duties to the King and Country. Despite an open rebellion among his subjects, he blames the French for its existence. I suppose the King opted to ignore history in this instance.
Obverse: George III is depicted facing left wearing armor that protects his chest and back (i.e., cuirassed). His hair is tightly pulled into a single thick strand tied behind his head with a ribbon double wrapped around the strand and secured by a knot with two bows and a single loose end. Almost immediately below the knot, the hair forms several strands of large curls. One rests on his left shoulder while the others fall behind his back. The lowest curl nearly touches the last letter of the legend. A curl is tightly wrapped around his back and protrudes under the bust. Three rows of tightly looped curls appear just above his ear, the lowest of which conceals all but his earlobe. A tightly drawn scarf covers the King's neck and is partially obscured by a series of ruffles from what appears lacey fabric closest to the King’s chest. The lacey fabric is superseded by a thicker fabric that protrudes from his breastplate in large curvy swells. The breastplate is decorated with what appears to be a face in the immediate center. A large curvy ribbon is draped around the King’s shoulders and partially obscures the less intricate design found on the breastplate and the armor wrapped around his left shoulder. Attached to this ribbon is an oval medal with a series of twenty well-formed beads (I assume these are meant to represent gems) containing yet another oval of smaller beads. A depiction of St. George slaying a dragon appears in the center of the medallion. It is worth noting that the bottom portion of the medallion bisects the inner rim of the obverse but does not extend to the edge. His left shoulder protrudes out toward the viewer and is covered by a thick fabric which is superseded by a thinner ruffled fabric and the edge of the armor. Three equally spaced dots appear on the lightly striated truncation of the left shoulder. The engraver signed his work in the exergue between the inner rim and the truncation of the bust. It reads C · H · KÜCHLER . FEC.. The obverse legend is divided by the King’s portrait. The obverse legend appears above the bust closely in line with the inner rim. It reads GEORGIUS III · D : G · on the left, and M · BR · FR · ET H · REX·. The entire obverse design (albeit the portion of the medallion) is contained within a slightly raised inner rim, which is superseded by a substantially wider rim of greater relief. A small lump appears on the edge of the medal at 7 o’clock. Although no argument has been made specific to this medal, other Soho Medals with this peculiar lump have been argued to be presentation copies designated for notable individuals. The argument is that the lump helped delineate the ordinary medals from the presentation pieces.
Reverse: The reverse design is relatively intricate and includes many minor details that I do not feel necessary to describe at length. Nonetheless, I will provide a general description of the amazing scene that paints a clear allegorical representation of the victories of 1798. The central object of the reverse design is a seated Britannia facing right. She is wearing a plumed helmet and armor on her chest. The remaining portions of her figure are covered in the typically encountered loosely flowing robes. Her left arm is extended out and upward. She supports an angle-like figure with outstretched wings in her left hand. Her right arm rests upon an oval shield that adorns the crosses of St. George and St. Andrew (heraldically colored). Her wrist is wrapped around a spear that partially obscures the shield. At the base are three stacked cannon balls, which obscure a relatively small, mounted cannon. A drum, rifle, and several other arms are depicted in the background. At least two banners droop towards the ground behind Britannia. Her left leg is extended out, but the right leg is bent and points towards the viewer. Her right foot sits upon a shield (I assume this is likely French). A massive cannon with a French Design is depicted resting on the foreground immediately in front of her left leg. A rope is wrapped over the cannon, and a tightly formed coil of rope can be seen behind it. An anchor protrudes from behind the cannon. A series of arms are depicted in the background. Two banners droop towards the ground in front of Britannia. Centered below Britannia’s left foot appears a raised area of the foreground, which contains the engraver's initials C.H.K. The foreground is sharply cut by a vertical line. A legend appears in three lines within the exergue, AVITUM TRANSCENDIT HONOREM MDCCXCVIII.. The main legend, in a much larger font, appears wrapped around the upper portion of the medal above the main devices. It reads MARI VICTRIX TERRAQUE INVICTA.. It is worth noting that the “C” in “VICTRIX” is pierced by the tip of Britannia’s spear. The entire reverse design is contained within a slightly raised inner rim, which is superseded by a substantially wider rim of greater relief.
Edge: Plain
Size: 48mm
Notes: I bought this piece online from terrible quality images. I thought it might have been struck in white metal as the seller did not specify. Imagine my surprise when I open the package to find a problem-free gilt specimen of a popular Soho Mint Medal! The copper versions of this medal are common, so I am in no hurry to acquire one. That said, I likely do not have the same privilege of choice when it comes to the silver gilt example.
Sadly, I am horrible at capturing images of gilt pieces. This will be abundantly clear within the set discussing the Soho Mint tokens. To this end, please envision a nice evenly colored gilt specimen with an admittedly notable amount of hairlines commensurate with the assigned grade.
References:
Brown, L. A. (1980). A Catalogue of British Historical Medals: Vol. I The Accession of George III to the Death of William IV 1760-1837. London: Seaby Publications Ltd.
Pollard, J. G. (1970). Matthew Boulton and Conrad Heinrich Küchler. The Numismatic Chronicle, 10, 259-318.
|
| Slot: |
1800 Staffordshire Agricultural Society Medal – Unfinished Pattern – Ex. Boulton Estate |
| Origin/Country: |
GREAT BRITAIN - MEDALS |
| Design Description: |
|
| Item Description: |
WATT (C1800) GB BOULTON & STAFFORDSHIRE AGRI. SOC. AE, 48mm,46.3g, SOHO MINT |
| Grade: |
NGC MEDAL PF 63 BN |
| Research: |
View Coin |
Owner Comments
One of the more challenging parts of building this set is finding the needed information to provide the historical context of the medal presented. This medal is an excellent example of that complication. Despite having it for years, I have been unable to add it to the set because details of the Staffordshire Agriculture Society’s early history are not readily available. This organization is still in operation today, so it seems reasonable that some archive of its history exists. Despite my best efforts, I have had no success locating any such archive. As is often the case, my best attempt to provide any amount of historical context is contingent upon what I can glean from contemporary newspapers.
Historical Context:
For those of you who have not already done so, I would encourage you to stop here and resume after you have read the entry for the Board of Agriculture medal in this set. That write-up provides a larger context for the importance of agricultural societies in England and helps the reader understand why these medals were ever struck.
The first mention of the Staffordshire Agricultural Society that I could find was published in the STAFFORDSHIRE ADVERTISER, And Political, Literary, and Commercial Gazette on April 26th, 1800. It reads:
________________________________________________________________________________________________
“STAFFORDSHIRE
AGRICULTURE SOCIETY.
The first Meeting will be held at the Swan Inn, in Lichfield, on Tuesday the 20th day of May next, at Eleven o’Clock in the forenoon, to consider of proper Premiums to be given for different kinds of Stock, and other improvements in the Farming line; - and also Premiums for the encouragement of Industry and good behavior amongst Servants and Labourers, bringing up Children, without expence to the Parish, and for long and faithful service in Husbandry.
RICH. DYOTT, President,
Appointed by the Board of Agriculture.
Freeford, 24th April, 1800.
Present Members and Annual Subscribers of One Guinea each. [OMITTED FOR BREVITY]
Any Person of the County Stafford wishing to become a Member, must apply to the President, or to Mr. William Bond, of Lichfield, Secretary to the Society.
W.M. BOND, Secretary.
There will be a dinner provided at 3 o’Clock.”
________________________________________________________________________________________________
We learn a few interesting pieces of information from the above text. First, we learn that the Board of Agriculture had a direct influence as it appointed the first president. Second, we learn that membership of the society is limited and requires the duty of one guinea. Third, we learn that this society will largely function the same as the Board of Agriculture. Fourth, we learn that the Staffordshire Agricultural Society intends to provide premiums (i.e., prizes) to encourage agriculture and good citizenship. This local society deviates from the function of the national society by providing prizes to parents who do not accept resources from the local parish. We learn more about the structure of the organization and the parameters of the proposed premiums from a copy of the STAFFORDSHIRE ADVERTISER, And Political, Literary, and Commercial Gazette dated June 7th, 1800. It reads:
________________________________________________________________________________________________
“STAFFORDSHIRE
AGRICULTURE SOCIETY.
At the first Meeting, held at the Swan Inn, in Lichfield, on Tuesday the 20th day of May,
Present
RICHARD DYOTT, President,
[two columns of 12 names have been omitted for brevity]
Resolved,
That THOS. ANSON, Esq. be elected Vice President.
That Mr. WM. BOND be appointed Treasurer and Secretary.
That Premiums be given, in proportion to the sums subscribed annually, so that a sum of money be left towards defraying any incidental charges.
That no person be permitted to shew for any Premium, who is not a Subscriber, and resident within the county.
That the annual Subscription of One Guinea shall entitle a person to be a Member, and that every person who has given, or may give in his name as a Member, is and shall be deemed such, and his Subscription be considered as justly due the Society, until he gives notice in writing to the Secretary, of his intention to withdraw it.
That the Subscriptions be paid annually, into the hands of Mr. Wm. Bond the Treasurer, on or before the third Tuesday in June, in each year.
That the meeting of this Society shall be held as follows, on the third Tuesday in June, and the third Tuesday in September, in each year.
That a let of such Premiums as the Society may think to offer for the present year, be immediately printed and published.
That as the principal design of this Institution is the exciting a spirit of Industry and Ingenuity, to promote the public good, the Premiums offered shall be more immediately directed to such improvements as are best adapted to this part of England.
That Premiums be annually offered, for the encouragement of Industry and good behavior amongst Servants in Husbandry, and Labourers in this county.
That the following Premiums be offered for the present year:
To any Labourer in Husbandry, who shall have brought up the greatest number of children, born in wedlock, without assistance from the parish, the sum of 3.3.0 [pounds, shillings, pence].
To the second 2.2.0 [pounds, shillings, pence].
To any servant in Husbandry, who shall have continued the greatest number of Years on the same Farm 3.3.0 [pounds, shillings, pence].
To the second 2.2.0 [pounds, shillings, pence].
Applications to be delivered to the Secretary, on or before the first day in September next.
The application must describe the ground of claim, and be accompanied by a Certificate, signed by the resident Minister of the parish, in which the Claimant lives, or by the Master and Mistress under whom he has served, and two other credible Householders, having a positive knowledge of the fact certified.
Not less than six Children, or fifteen years of service, will be deemed a sufficient pretension. – The Claimants are desired not to attend, as the successful Candidates will have notice in the Birmingham Paper.
That the following Premiums be offered for the year 1801.
To the person who shall, on the third Tuesday in June, produce the best three years old Fat Wether Sheep – A Silver Medal
For the second best – ditto.
For the best two years old Fat Wether Sheep – ditto.
For the second best – ditto.
For the best Shearhog Ram – ditto.
For the second best – ditto.
To the person who shall, on the 3d Tuesday in September, produce the best Fat Wether Shearhog – ditto.
For the second best – ditto.
For the best Theave – ditto.
For the second best – ditto.
The Sheep to have been fed with Grass, Hay, or Roots, not to have had Corn, and to be shewn by the Person who bred and fed them.
For the best Stirk – A Silver Medal
For the second best – ditto.
For the best Two Years old Bull – ditto.
For the second best – ditto.
For the best Grey faced Two Shear Ram – ditto.
For the best Grey faced Ewe – ditto.
That [10 people listed by full name – omitted for brevity] gent. be elected Honorary Members of this Society, and that one or more of these Gentlemen be required to attend the Annual Meetings, in order to determine upon the Premiums to be allowed.
That none but Members be admitted to the Meeting; unless introduced by a Member.
W.M. BOND, Secretary.”
________________________________________________________________________________________________
From the extraordinarily informative notice reproduced above we learn a few mundane details (e.g., who is appointed an officer, the subscription process, the appointment of honorary members, etc.). Perhaps one of the more interesting fact we learn is that a cash prize is to be presented to those with the largest unassisted family or the longest continuous service. We also learn about the parameters of this award. To be considered one must have no less than six kids of fifteen years of service. Even by today’s standards, that seems like a rather hefty minimum requirement. The most germane piece of information we learned is that the society intends to award silver medals for first and second-place winners across at least 16 categories. At the time of this proposal, the society will require the production of no less than 32 silver medals per year. As you may have guessed, the Soho Mint would have no issues fulfilling such a meager order. As history soon revealed, the Staffordshire Agricultural Society would up the ante once their ledger was reviewed. We learn in an October issue of the STAFFORDSHIRE ADVERTISER, And Political, Literary, and Commercial Gazette the names of those who won and the prizes they were granted. It reads:
________________________________________________________________________________________________
“1800.
STAFFORDSHIRE
AGRICULTURE SOCIETY.
At the Meeting, held at Swan Inn, in Lichfield, on Tuesday the 30th of September, 1800,
Present
RICHARD DYOTT, President,
THOMAS ANSON, Vice-President:
[two columns of 14 names have been omitted for brevity]
The Treasurer’s Accounts were examined, and approved; and there appeared a balance, in his hands, of 81.17.9 [Pounds, Shilling, Pence]. In favor of the Society.
The Secretary was directed to apply to the several Members who are in Arrear, and to solicit Payment.
The Premiums to the following Persons, were ordered to be paid by the Secretary.
To Labourers in Husbandry, having reared Families without Assitance from the Parish.
William Wright, of Huntington, in the Parish of Cannock, 13 children – 3.3.0 [Pounds, Shilling, Pence]
John Cheadle, of Whittington, 11 ditto, – 2.2.0 [Pounds, Shilling, Pence]
To Servants in Husbandry, for long and faithful Services.
Francis Astle, 55 Years with Mr. Adams, of Tatenhill, 3.3.0 [Pounds, Shilling, Pence]
William Harpur, 34 Years with Jane Sherratt, of Blithford, 2.2.0 [Pounds, Shilling, Pence]
To Labourers in Husbandry, for long and faithful Services.
William Sansom, 45 Years on Tamhorn Farm, in the Occupation of Richard Dyott, 3.3.0 [Pounds, Shilling, Pence]
Edward Smith, 44 Years on Tanforn Farm, in the Occupation of Richard Dyott, 2.2.0 [Pounds, Shilling, Pence]
The premiums are continued for Labourers in Husbandry, bringing up Children, born in Wedlock, without Assistance from the Parish; Servants in Husbandry, for long and faithful Services; and Labourers in Husbandry, for the same.
Applications to be delivered to the Secretary, on or before the 21st day of September, 1801.
The application must describe the ground of claim, and be accompanied by a Certificate, signed by the resident Minister of the parish, or by the Master and Mistress under whom he has served, or two other credible Householders, (having a positive knowledge of the facts certified).
No Person to receive any of the above Premiums more than once in four Years.
The following Premiums are offered for the ensuing Year.
To the Person who shall on the third Tuesday in July next, produce the best Shear Hog Ram – A Gold Medal
For the second best, – A silver Medal
For the best Two Shear ditto, - A Gold Medal
For the second best, – A silver Medal
For the best three years old Fat Wether Sheep – A Gold Medal
For the second best, – A silver Medal
For the best two years old Fat Wether Sheep – A Gold Medal
For the second best, – A silver Medal
For the best Boar Pig – A Gold Medal
For the best Gilt, in pig – A Gold Medal
For the best Yearling Bull – A Gold Medal
For the second best, – A silver Medal
For the best two years old Bull, - A Gold Medal
For the second best, – A silver Medal
To the Person who shall on the last Tuesday in September next, produce the best Fat Wether Shear Hog, - A Gold Medal
For the second best, – A silver Medal
For the best Theaves – A Gold Medal
For the second best, – A silver Medal
For the best grey-faced two Shear Ram – A Gold Medal
For the best Grey-faced Ewe – A Gold Medal
For the best Grey-faced Two Shear Wesher - A Gold Medal
For the best Stirk – A Gold Medal
For the second best, – A silver Medal
For the best old Heifer, - A Gold Medal
For the second best, – A silver Medal
The Seheep and Cattle to have been fed with Grass, Hay, or Roots, not to have had Corn, and to be shewn by the Person who bred and fed them.
By the Order of the Society,
WM. BOND, Secretary.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Although we do not learn who won the medals, we do learn who won the cash prizes. It is interesting to note how large the winning families were. In my opinion, it is staggering to think of raising so many children on what I would assume was a meager wage. It is also interesting to note that the workers under the employment of the Society’s President won the two service-related awards for Labourers in Husbandry. Nonetheless, they were very deserving with each accruing over four decades of committed employment. The most important piece of new information we learn is that the Society has greatly expanded the breadth of the awards to now include 24 medals. Of the 24 medals, 14 are to be struck in gold and 10 in silver. It appears that the Society was doing very well financially to afford the lavish expense of producing so many relatively large (i.e., 48mm) medals struck in precious metals.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Obverse: It is worth noting the obverse design is complete on this pattern piece. It is missing the laurel wreath and the obverse legend that appears above Britannia and below the exergue line.
The reverse depicts Britannia seated facing left. Her hair is tightly formed and concealed by a crown made of laurel. She is wearing a robe that clings tightly to her body. Her right arm is extended outward her fist clinched as if she is supposed to be holding something (e.g., a laurel wreath). She embraces an upside-down cornucopia that is spilling its contents into the foreground. A heraldically colored shield rests on the ground pinned down by a large lion that rests behind Brittania’s back. The lion is facing the viewer. A farmer guiding a mule and plow is depicted in the distant background in front of Britannia. A small mountain range can be seen in the farthest distance on either side of Britannia. The foreground is cutoff with the sharp exergue line and is curved on either side that it does not touch the inner rim.
Reverse: A wreath of two branches tied together with a ribbon with two large bows and two loosed ends is depicted. The loose end of the right bow droops below the branch of the right stem and overlaps it from behind. The loose end of the left bow drops below and overlaps the left stem from the front. The engraver’s initials adorn the outfacing parts of the loose ends with C. appearing to the left and H. K. to the right. The middle of the wreath is intentionally devoid of detail to allow space to engrave the name of the recipient.
Edge: Plain [This is an educated guess as the edge is obscured by the holder]
Size: 48mm
Notes: It is clear from the sections above that a good number of these medals were likely produced; however, not many are offered for sale. Tungate (2020) reports a total mintage of 200 medals, but this does not include the patterns. Oddly, the unfished patterns of this medal are often the most frequently encountered.
It is worth noting that this piece appeared as Lot 10450 in a 2012 Stack’s Bowers Auction with he following description: “48 mm; 46.3 gms. Eimer-unlisted; BHM-unlisted. An unusual piece acquired directly from the Bolton family in 2007, copy of the documentation included. Bolton and Watt were co-proprietors of the Soho Mint. The obverse features Britannia seated at the seashore, a lion at her back. The legends, engraver's initials and the wreath held by Britannia in her extended hand on finished medals has not yet been added; Reverse: A wreath with central area blank. The recipients name would normally be found here. Choice prooflike surfaces with a few darker areas, especially on the periphery. Five or six pieces known, all from Bolton family holdings.”. It had an estimate of $400-600 but hammered at $763.75 (with BP).
Pollard (1970) further notes that “There are three trial pieces for the medal in the British Museum. One, struck in copper, lacking on the obverse the wreath held by Britannia, the inscriptions, and the artist's initials; two bronzed lead trial pieces of the finished medal.”. I have three of the purported six examples in existence, and I have reason to suspect that around a dozen or so of these patterns may exist.
The holder is very scuffed – the scratches you see are on the plastic – this medal is clean for the grade
References:
Pollard, J. G. (1970). Matthew Boulton and Conrad Heinrich Küchler. The Numismatic Chronicle, 10, 259-318.
Tungate, S. (2020) Matthew Boulton and The Soho Mint: copper to customer. Worcestershire: Brewin Books.
|
| Slot: |
1800 Great Britain (BHM-483) Failed Assassination Medal Bronze With Shells - Type 1 Bust |
| Origin/Country: |
GREAT BRITAIN - MEDALS |
| Design Description: |
|
| Item Description: |
BRONZE 1800 G.BRIT Bhm-483 FAILED ASSASSINATION MEDAL AND SHELL SET |
| Grade: |
NGC MS 66 BN |
| Research: |
View Coin |
Owner Comments
I find this piece's design attractive, and it seems to capture the simple but elegant designs that often were portrayed on pieces struck the Soho Mint. This medal was engraved by Küchler and came about after a failed attempt to assassinate King George III on May 15th, 1800 (see historical context below for more information). As was the case for several other medals, Boulton's London agent, Chippindall, wrote Boulton a letter on May 22nd informing him that a Mr. Gray of London was inquiring about a medal to commemorate the preservation of the King (Pollard, 1970; Tungate; 2020). Boulton replied on May 25th, explaining that he had two dies ready, but expressed a desire to wait until a more significant event occurred to use them unless Chippindall could secure an order for at least 500 medals (Pollard, 1970). Boulton described the two obverse dies as "one head in ye antique stile & the other the more modern in his dress wig" (Tungate, 2020). It appears Boulton had these dies prepared by Küchler when there was some suggestion in 1795 that the long-desired peace would finally be realized, which is the event that Boulton seems to allude to in his letter to Chippindale. In total, 227 medals were struck using two obverse (i.e., the antique and modern style busts) and two reverse dies with different legends, which resulted in four different types that depict the varying die marriages (Pollard, 1970; Tungate, 2020). Interestingly, the obverse and reverse dies used for this medal appeared as lot 209 when the contents, machinery, and other articles of the Soho Mint were auctioned off on April 30th, 1850. If these dies were released into the hands of the general public, restrikes might exist. Although it is more likely that the campaign launched by Matthew Piers Watt Boulton to sabotage the sale of dies might have prevented this from occurring (Vice, 1995). On any note, restrikes might exist.
Historical Context:
Researching this led me down a path of discovery that I likely never would have stumbled upon by happenstance. For those interested in history, true crime, and conspiracy, the events that propagated the production of this medal have it all! As argued by the main source of information that I cite continuously throughout this write-up, the assassination attempt coupled with the limited scope of a judicial precedent set the stage for a genuinely fascinating trial that forever changed the landscape of the insanity plea.
On May 15th, 1800, King George III was nearly shot twice in two separate events. The first occurred at Hyde Park during a military demonstration. Although the shooter was never identified, a single bullet was fired in the King's direction, which subsequently injured a naval officer standing nearby. I have had little luck finding contemporary sources to provide more detail of this event, but luckily for those interested, the second attempt on the King's life is much better documented. Seemingly undeterred by this near-death experience, the King decided to go about his day and later attended the Drury Lane Theatre. The King, entering into his private box, was greeted by the orchestra proudly playing 'God Save the King'. Unlike the event that transpired at Hyde Park, the attacker in this situation was very blatant. A man named James Hadfield, mixed within the crowd in the pit below, suddenly stood on a second-row seat, raised a horse pistol, and shot in the King's direction as he neared the front of the box (Moran, 1985). A great deal of chaos ensued as the shot rang out, and a bullet passed within eighteen inches of the King's head. According to contemporary accounts, the room filled with cries of "catch the villain!" and the like. With the help of a Bow Street Police Officer, a group of orchestra members tackled Hadfield to the ground. Purportedly, the King remained calm and took a few steps back before advancing to the edge of the box in an attempt to get a glimpse of the would-be assassin. Fully restrained, Hadfield was then removed to a separate room for questioning while the show would continue as planned.
Magistrate Sir William Addington conducted the initial questioning. He gathered several witnesses to deduct Hadfield's intent. More specifically, he sought to determine if he fired his pistol at random or if his shot was deliberately aimed at the King. The offenses, under current law, led to two very different charges (Moran, 1985). Most witnesses recalled seeing Hadfield take deliberate aim and fire at the King, but this contradicted what Hadfield told investigators. Hadfield instead claimed that he had no intent to harm the King. He went on to say that he wished for death but not by his own hand and had hoped that the crowd would retaliate and kill him after he fired his pistol. He further protested the idea of an attempted assassination by stating that he was "as good a shot as any in England". In other words, he bragged about his marksmanship while arguing that he obviously did not intend to harm the King because he was still alive (Moran, 1985). Once investigators finished their questioning, Hadfield was held locally for several hours. At around 10 in the afternoon, Hadfield was brought to the office of the Duke of Portland, who interrogated him further. He was once again asked if he was involved with the event that occurred in Hyde Park, which he continued to deny. He denied belonging to any political clubs and failed to name any accomplices. Once the Duke of Portland was satisfied with his interrogation, he was informed that he would stand trial for high treason. Hadfield was later transported to Newgate Prison, where he awaited his trial.
At face value, the story of the attack is interesting, but as is often the case, there is much more to tell that only adds to the intrigue. As fate would have it, Hadfield's story is rather remarkable. For this write-up, we will start by exploring his military career. As a private in the army, Hadfield served in the Fifteenth Light Dragoons under the direction of the Duke of York, the second son of King George III. During his service, he was severely injured in battle when he was shot, resulting in a broken wrist, which made his defense much more difficult. As the battle raged on, Hadfield would suffer many significant injuries, most notably to his head. Given the large degree of deformity indicated by the trial documents, it appears that Hadfield suffered no less than eight significant blows to the head. One of which was so forceful that it broke away part of his skull and left the outer membrane of his brain exposed (Moran, 1985). Left for dead by his army, Private Hadfield was eventually discovered by the French and captured as a prisoner of war. At least to me, it is unclear if all of his wounds were suffered on the battlefield or if he sustained several afterward during torture. I have found little contemporary evidence to persuade my opinion in either direction, but nonetheless, Hadfield had sustained severe trauma to his head. Eventually, Hadfield was released by the French army, and upon inspection, he was discharged from the 15th Light Dragoons as being mentally unfit to serve.
Upon his discharge, Hadfield found work at a silversmith's shop as a spoon maker in London. To fully appreciate Hadfield's story, we must first place it in the historical context that laid the path for a series of events that undoubtedly influenced one another. To do so, we need to backtrack several years just before the attack in May of 1800. The French revolution was the talk of the town, and many Englishmen, both studied and common, found sympathy with France's call for liberty. Political clubs began to spring up all over London, and understandably this made those in power very uncomfortable as any uprising could very well result in their loss of power, or as it occasionally did in the French Revolution, their life. Eventually, the government would respond, and several of the figureheads from numerous political clubs, such as the London Corresponding Society, were tried for high treason (Moran, 1985). With little luck at conviction, the figureheads were left no worse for the ware, but it did substantially impact the political clubs. In fear of prosecution, these clubs now operated in secret, which, if nothing else, seemingly made them more dangerous. Perhaps not surprisingly, it appears religious undertones and scare tactics were used by many of the fray political clubs to recruit new members and further propagate their agendas.
As noted (Moran, 1985), several religious scholars likened the "age of reason" as the start of the second coming of Jesus and thus the beginning of the end. Some of the main fanatics of the fray groups declared themselves prophets, arguing that they had a divine purpose that was destined to be fulfilled. One such self-proclaimed prophet was Bannister Truelock. We learn from the testimony of Sarah Lock that Truelock predicted that the King would be assassinated by May or June of 1800, and once it was done, Kings would be abolished from England and that the daily cost of living would be drastically reduced. According to Mrs. Lock, he knew these things because he proclaimed himself to be "a true descendant of God", who was a "Blackguard" by his account. According to him, his divine mission was simple, "destroy this world in the course of three days". He reiterated much of these sentiments in the Duke of Portland's office on May 16th. He was found to be so insane that he was transported without regular practice to a "lunatic asylum". Of course, this only came about after the actions of Hadfield had prompted an investigation. It appears that Hadfield met Truelock the Monday before the attack in Conduit Fields, an encounter that Truelock freely confessed to during his interview. As it is recorded, Truelock purportedly filled Hadfield's head with religiously laced lies that supposedly led to him making an attempt on the King's life. This would be a key argument of the prosecution to establish Hadfield's intent to harm the King.
Before discussing the details of the trial, it is essential to note that Hadfield was tried for high treason and not felony attempted murder, which many have argued saved his life (Moran, 1985). Under the contemporary law, any attempt on the King's life was high treason as it was politically motivated. In fact, these cases were tried in an entirely different court, and as noted by Moran (1985), afforded the accused many rights that were not granted to those tried in the ordinary courts. For instance, the burden of proof was doubled (i.e., two witnesses were required), the accused had the right to counsel, to call witnesses on their behalf, and was permitted to challenge potential jurors. It appears these extra precautions were put in place to protect those (mostly of rank and position) who fell victim to an attempt of political sabotage at the hands of rivals. Hadfield went on to plead not guilty and took full advantage of his rights by requesting counsel. More specifically, he requested to be represented by the Honorable Thomas Erstine, who was renowned for his work protecting the legal rights of the accused. By all accounts, he was a brilliant litigator, and his prowess is on full display within the argument made throughout the trial.
The trial took place on June 26th, 1800. The prosecution wasted no time and built a solid case. Their opening statement made it clear they intended to show that Hadfield purchased the gun, knowing that it could be used as a tool to cause harm, that he sought an opportunity to be in the presence of the King, and that he deliberately aimed his pistol at him with the full intent to kill him. The mounting evidence was overwhelming, and the testimony of the witnesses called by the prosecution provided an iron-clad motive to kill the King. As Moran (1985) suggests, the prosecution likely anticipated the defense would argue that Hadfield was insane and therefore entitled to an acquittal. The remaining portion of the prosecution's case built an argument against any claim of insanity. The Attorney General explained the law in great detail to the jury. In his address, he said the following:
THE CRIMINAL LUNATICS ACT |
"if a man is completely deranged, so that he knows not what he does, if a man is so lost to all sense, in consequence of the infirmity of disease, that he is incapable of distinguishing between good and evil- that he is incapable of forming a judgement upon the consequences of the act which he is about to do, that then the mercy of our law says, he cannot be guilty of a crime"
He further argued that both conditions must be met, given legal precedence, and proceeded to build a case suggesting that Hadfield was well aware of the consequences of his actions. Moran (1985) noted that under contemporary law, one could be convicted even if found to be insane, so long as the crime was committed when the accused was lucid. To this extent, the attorney general only needed to prove that Hadfield was lucid when he fired his pistol. The testimony by the Duke of York, who was one of the first to question Hadfield after the attack, made a strong case that would be hard to argue against. He testified that Hadfield had complete control of his faculties and clearly understood his actions, as Hadfield reported that he hoped the crowd would take his life in retaliation for the attack. If that testimony was not damning enough, the evidence made it clear that Hadfield purchased the pistol, loaded it with a lead bullet, and used the most advantageous position to carry out his attack (Morton, 1985). As such, given that Hadfield understood the consequences of his actions, he was lucid, and therefore not insane at the time of the attack. Establishing this fact, combined with the evidence and numerous testimonies made for a seemingly iron-tight case against an insanity plea, but the defense utterly destroyed their position.
Oddly enough, the prosecution did not dispute the evidence or the role Trulock played in the assassination plot, nor did they object to any of the testimony provided. They accepted everything at face value, but Erstine objected to the legal application of precedent to establish the grounds of insanity. In a twist of brilliance, he argued that delusions, either with or without fits of madness and rage, were the true measure of insanity. He argued that the ability to distinguish between good and evil and understand the consequences of ones' actions is irrelevant if the basis of reasoning is seeded by delusion (Moran, 1985). In other words, the two metrics of insanity as argued by the attorney general are useless in establishing if the accused is insane. To further illustrate his point, Erstine called upon two prior cases in which the accused was found to be insane despite violating the conditions set forth by the prosecution for insanity. In both cases, the accused could distinguish good from evil, understood the consequences of their actions, and displayed no fits of rage; however, in both instances, the accused was found to be insane because they suffered from severe delusions which clouded their judgment. The legal precedence cited established that a person could be found insane if they suffered from delusions and thus afforded the same procedure as those found insane by the prosecution's standards. Erstine now only had to establish that Hadfield was delusional.
Erstine called a flurry of witnesses to the stand, ranging from men who served beside him to medical professionals. All of which furthered the argument that the severe head trauma changed not only Hadfield's general mental acuity but also the physical structure of his brain, evoking permanent and irreversible insanity (Moran, 1985). One man, a fellow prisoner of war detained with Hadfield, reported that Hadfield had to be moved to a hospital because he was in a fit claiming to be King George III. This testimony, of course, helped establish that Hadfield suffered from delusions. From the testimony provided by his family, we learn that Hadfield attempted to attack and kill his infant son the night before he tried to assassinate the King. His family was able to constrain him, and when they asked him why he tried to attack his son he responded that God told him to. From this testimony alone, it seems clear that Hadfield was delusional, but it did not address how his delusions incited the attack on the King.
The prosecution had already mentioned Barrister Truelock, and his role in convincing Hadfield to attack the King was clear. Erstine only needed to reframe the argument to suggest that Truelock played into Hadfield's insanity, creating the delusion that it was his duty to kill the King. This point was established with ease, and although many witnesses were prepared to give their testimony, the trial came to an abrupt end. According to Moran (1985), the Chief Justice presiding over the trial, Lord Kenyon, started to think out loud, which led to several points being made that were agreed upon by both the prosecution and the defense. Lord Kenyon acknowledged that if the case were to be conducted properly, an acquittal due to insanity was likely; however, he further argued that Hadfield presented a clear danger to society and therefore could not be released. Neither side disputed the points made, but Lord Kenyon noted that the law only allowed him to remand Hadfield back to Newgate Prison, but he was best suited for an asylum (Moran, 1985). All parties agreed, but the law limited their ability. A member of the prosecution suggested that perhaps the jury could provide their verdict and the ground upon which they give it, which would provide sufficient legal justification for Hadfield's continued confinement. The jury was present for this entire exchange and never left the box to deliberate their verdict. Within minutes, the jury released their decision "We find the prisoner not guilty; he being under the influence of insanity at the time the act was committed". Moran (1985) noted that the entire trial only lasted 6 hours, and by the afternoon Hadfield was back at Newgate Prison.
This case brought about an interesting issue. Hadfield had attempted to kill the King but was found not guilty due to insanity. Under the current law, those acquitted on the grounds of insanity were to be detained but regained freedom once they were lucid. In Hadfield's case, he was suffering from delusions only as it related to religion and politics. Therefore he was perfectly lucid in every other manner; thus, he could be let free (Moran, 1985). The issue, however, is that allowing a man to go free after attempting to kill the King sets a dangerous precedent and presents a further danger to society. Parliament was quick to act, and within four days, a new bill was proposed to resolve the issue. As it is often referred to as The Criminal Lunatics Act of 1800, it consisted of two main parts. The first relegated attempts on the King's life as a common felony and thus stripped away the privileges that paved the way to Hadfield's acquittal. The second part allowed for the continued confinement of those found to be insane. It was sent to the House of Commons the same day. On July 11th, 1800, the bill was brought up for debate by the House of Commons, but only a few members were present and the bill was passed with little controversy. The final act consisted of four main sections. Section A made the bill retroactive to apply to Hadfield and provided little guidance as to the duration of confinement. It simply states, until "His Majesty's Pleasure be known", which translated to a life sentence as the King never released anyone up until his death in 1820 (Moran, 1985). Section B allowed one to be detained in the same manner as the first section of they were found to be insane during arraignment or trial, even for misdemeanors. This fixed the loophole that technically would have prevented the confinement of Trulock and established a standard legal approach to the practice (Moran, 1985). Section C allowed bail to be denied for anyone found to be insane, either current or in the past. The final section granted members of the Privy Council and their secretaries the power to detain persons who appear insane and were attempting to gain access to the King's palaces or residencies. The confinement of these persons was only legal until a jury could fully reach a verdict on their insanity (Moran, 1985). Overall, the bill provided sweeping changes to the legal procedures surrounding an insanity claim and forever altered its use.
Hadfield was just 28 at the time of the attack. He was transported to Bethlem Hospital on October 10th, 1800. The dark stain of his past never subsided and influenced the accusations that he killed a fellow patient on April 3rd, 1802. This was widely published in newspapers, but a medical examination soon determined that the patient suffered an apoplectic seizure, which triggered his death. Still, Hadfield would forever be branded as a murderous madman. Hadfield, and another patient, John Dunlop, managed to escape Bethlem on July 27th, 1802 but were later caught trying to cross the channel to escape to France (Moran, 1985). Because of this, he was transferred back to Newgate Prison for the remainder of his life. In 1816 he petitioned the House of Commons for his release, but it was dismissed. Hadfield was confined for 41 years before dying at the age of 69 from Tuberculosis on January 23rd, 1841. Hadfield's accomplice, Barrister Trulock, suffered a similar fate. He was transported to Bethlem on May 16th, 1800, without the same due process afforded to Hadfield. It appears this type of informal process of confining those found to be insane was very typical, but no regular procedure was in place before the Criminal Lunatics Act of 1800 (Moran, 1985). The Duke of Portland sent a letter to Bethlem explaining that Trulock should be healed within a year. The letter also informed the reader that the King desired that he should be placed on the incurable list and held indefinitely if he were not healed within a year. It appears no such recovery occurred as Trulock managed to escape Bethlem on December 8th, 1821. He eventually returned to Bethlem on his own accord, where he stayed until he died on November 2nd, 1830. He appealed for his legal release throughout his confinement and even tried to bribe the doctor with a £5 note (Moran, 1985). To this day, legal scholars continue to debate the true significance of the Hadfield trial, but its importance in forming modern law is undeniable.
It is interesting to note that several other attempts were made on the King's life, but none were quite as well documented as the Hadfield trial. For instance, Margaret Nicholson attacked the King with an ivory-handled dessert knife, but guards subdued her attack before she injured the King. Much like Truelock, she was found to be insane and was held indefinitely at Bethlem Hospital until her death. You can find more information about her story by following the second link located under the interesting links section of this write-up.
Obverse:
This particular example employs the obverse die described by Boulton as the "head in ye antique stile". George III is depicted facing left, wearing armor that protects his chest and back (i.e., cuirassed). The breastplate is adorned at the top below the collar with a non-descript design extending halfway down its length. Protruding out of the top of the armor is a piece of fabric ruffled in large waves, the interior of which is detailed with a random pattern of raised dots. A tightly drawn ribbon covers the King's neck and is partially obscured by the excess skin under his chin. His left shoulder protrudes out toward the viewer and is draped by what appears to be a fur fleece, rolled about midway around his shoulder and folded back behind the bust. The scales of his armor, divided into four distinct sections, can be seen under the fleece. Immediately below these scales is a small tuft of fabric bundled up, which partially covers a medallion of what I assume is St. George slaying a dragon. On top of the breastplate is a wide piece of tightly fit cloth superseded by a freely flowing garment. A small medallion can be seen pinned to the left side of his chest, which depicts a cross wrapped by an oval-shaped banner fastened by a circular clasp. The same fur fleece appears on his right shoulder, evidently wrapped around his back. His hair is tightly pulled into a single thick strand tied behind his head with a ribbon double wrapped around the strand and secured by a knot with two bows and a single loose end. Almost immediately below the knot, the hair forms several strands of large curls. One rests on his left shoulder while the others fall behind his back. The lowest curl nearly touches the last letter of the legend. Two rows of tightly looped curls appear just above his ear, the lowest of which conceals all but his earlobe. The engraver signed his work at the bottom right side between the bust and the inner rim. It reads "C · H · KÜCHLER . F.". The obverse legend appears above the bust closely in line with the inner rim. It reads “GEORGIUS III · D : G · MAGN · BRIT · FR · ET HIB · REX. ”. All of this contained within a slightly raised inner rim, which is superseded by a substantially wider rim of greater relief.
Reverse:
The reverse design of this medal, is in my opinion, is very simple yet elegant. The legend, "PERSPICIT ET PROTEGIT. " appears at the very top. In the upper center is an outward-looking eye contained with a triangle. The triangle is made of multiple straight lines or rays of varying width that protrude outward in all angles. Several of which divide "ET" from the surrounding letters in the legend. The rays intersect and often penetrate curled clouds of smoke that appear on either side of an open flame, which rests upon an alter at the center of the medal. The front panel is marked with the letters "D. O. " evenly spaced above "M." . The alter rests upon a background of land, with a small tuft of grass appearing in the middle of the alter. The engraver's initial "K" appears on the right side of the foreground. In exergue, the legend "A SICARIO SERVATUS MAI · XV . MDCCC. " is divided into two lines. Like the obverse, all of this is contained within a slightly raised inner rim, superseded by a substantially wider rim of greater relief.
Edge: Plain
Size: 48mm
Notes:
The pictures do this medal absolutely no justice as they fail to accurately depict the vibrant red luster, much less the magenta toning on both sides. Additionally, this piece is exceptionally well preserved (pun intended), which is undoubtedly due to the original silver-lined brass shells that protected it for over two centuries. All things considered, I find it difficult to believe that I would be able to find a more original or well-preserved piece out of the 271 produced. This piece currently resides in an NGC MS-66 BN holder, which entitles it to the coveted Top Pop status. These factors, paired with the fact that has retained the original shells set this example apart from its peers.
The picture to the right depicts one of the many other failed attempts on King George III's life during his reign. Despite contemporary political propaganda from his rivals and the heated rhetoric used by the American colonists, George III was actually a beloved ruler in his time. The moniker “Mad King” has survived the test of time, but the recent release of thousands of documents paints a very different picture. For those interested, The Last King of America: The Misunderstood Reign of George III by Andrew Roberts is a fascinating read.
References:
Doty, R. (1998). The Soho Mint and the Industrialization of Money. London: National Museum of American History Smithsonian Institution.
Moran, R (1985). The Origin of Insanity as a Special Verdict: The Trial for Treason of James Hadfield (1800). Law & Society Review, 19(3), 487-519.
Pollard, J. G. (1970). Matthew Boulton and Conrad Heinrich Küchler. The Numismatic Chronicle, 10, 259-318.
Tungate, S. (2020) Matthew Boulton and The Soho Mint: copper to customer. Worcestershire: Brewin Books.
Vice, D. (1995). A fresh insight into Soho Mint restrikes & those responsible for their manufacture. Format Coins, Birmingham, 3-14.
Interesting links:
https://www.regencyhistory.net/2013/05/double-assassination-attempt-on-george.html
https://georgianera.wordpress.com/2014/08/02/margaret-nicholson-the-woman-who-attempted-to-assassinate-king-george-iii/
https://europeanroyalhistory.wordpress.com/2019/05/15/on-this-date-in-history-may-15-1800-james-hadfield-makes-an-assassination-attempt-on-king-george-iii-of-the-united-kingdom/
|
| Slot: |
1800 Great Britain (BHM-483) Failed Assassination Medal Bronze With Shells - Type 2 Bust |
| Origin/Country: |
GREAT BRITAIN - MEDALS |
| Design Description: |
|
| Item Description: |
BRONZE 1800 G.BRIT Bhm-483 FAILED ASSASSINATION GEORGE III |
| Grade: |
NGC MS 66 BN |
| Research: |
View Coin |
Owner Comments
As noted by Pollard (1970), there are two distinct obverse busts found on the Preservation of George III medals. The entry immediately before this listing depicts the Type 1 bust, while the current entry depicts the Type 2 bust. I provide a thorough description of the obverse and reverse design of all medals in this set. Any differences between the types should be apparent from those descriptions. It is also worth noting that there are at least two distinct reverse types as well. I will forgo any discussion of the different reverse types for now and will introduce them when I find an acceptable example to add to the set. I provide relevant information pertaining to the development of this medal in the write-up for the piece with the Type 1 bust.
Historical Context:
If you have not already done so, please stop here and read the write-up for the medal that immediately precedes this entry, which provides a modern reflection of the events that transpired on May 15th, 1800. The current write-up examines the same history but through the lens of two contemporary newspaper reports from my collection. The transcripts below have been kept as close to their original style as possible.
 |
ATTEMPT TO ASSASSINATE HIS MAJESTY
It is with a mingled feeling of horror and congratulation that we have to state what last night happened at Drury Lane Theatre. At the moment when HIS MAJESTY entered his box, a man stationed in the Pit, near the Orchestra on the right hand side, suddenly stood up, and discharged a pistol at the Royal Person. His Majesty seemed to us to be alone in the box at the moment, and had advanced about four steps from the door. On the report of the pistol, His Majesty stopped, stood firmly. The house was immediately in an uproar, and the cry of “seize him,” burster from every part of the Theatre. The King, apparently not the least disconcerted, came nearly to the front of the box. The man who committed the crime was seized and conveyed from the Pit. The audience vehemently called out, “shew him!” . In consequence of which loyal clamor Kelly, who, with a multitude of persons belonging to the Theatre, had rushed upon the Stage, came forward and assured them that the culprit was in safe custody. The indignation of the Audience was soothed by this intelligence, and their feelings gave way to loyal rapture, at the happy escape of their revered monarch. “God save the King” was universally demanded. It was sung by all the performers, and encored. The curtain drew up for the commencement of the play; but Bannister, Jun. was not suffered to proceed till something more could be learned respecting the wretch who had made this diabolical attempt. Bannister and Mrs. Jordan both again assured the Audience that the culprit was perfectly secured, and the Play was then suffered to go on without further interruption.
The Duke of York, Lord Salisbury, and several other Noblemen, with the assistance of some Magistrates, entered into an examination of the offender in one of the rooms of the Theatre. It appears the name of the man is Hadfield; that he was a soldier in the British Service in the late Expedition to Holland; and was taken prisoner by the French. He acknowledged that he had loaded the pistol with a brace of slugs, but declared that he did not mean to injure His Majesty. He said that, being tired of his life, and unwilling to destroy himself, he had formed the plan he had adopted, hoping that the Populace would have killed him upon the spot. When he was asked why he loaded the pistol with slugs if he intended no mischief, he could not give any satisfactory answer. He stated his having served under the Duke of York, of whose private virtue and military conduct he spoke in high terms. He was perfectly composed and collected throughout the examination.
The man, as we understand, was afterwards conveyed in a coach to the New Prison in Cold-Bath-Fields. The alarm was soon spread, and the neighborhood of the Theatre was thronged by a multitude, who, if the man had not been well guarded on quitting the Theatre, seemed likely, by the rage that actuated them, to have made him a sacrifice on the spot.
The man, it is said, had quitted the Army, and recently was employed as a Silversmith. He appears to be about forty years of age, and is a remarkably ill-looking man, with a great scar on his face. He is of middle stature.
Several persons attended the examination in the Theatre, and all concurred in their testimony as to the general statement of the circumstances which had occurred.
Her Majesty entered soon after the event had taken place, and appeared to be much agitated, clasping her hands with great emotion. The Princesses were less capable of controlling their feelings, and one of them was with difficulty prevented from fainting in the sight of the Audience.
During the performance of “God save the King” every passage that referred to the safety of His Majesty was received with the Thunder of applause, and shoutings of ”Huzza!” at the end of the Farce, which was The Humorist, “God save the King” was again demanded, and Kelly sung the following additional verse, down to the pawn the momentous incident of the night: “From every latent Foe, From the Assassin's blow, God save the King. O’er him thine arm extend, for Britain's sake defend Our Father, Prince, and Friend, God save the King”.
The stanza gave the audience peculiar pleasure, and was encored by the eager desire of the whole house.
Another Account
Just as His Majesty entered his Box, and was bowing to the Audience with his usual condescension, a person who sat in the second row from the Orchestra, but towards the middle of the Pit, got upon the seat, and leveling a horse-pistol towards the King's Box, fired it. The act was so instantaneous as to prevent all the persons near him from seeing his design in time to defeat it, though we learn that providentially a Gentleman who sat next him, Mr. Holroyd, of Scotland Yard, had the good fortune to raise the arm of the assassin, so as to direct the contents of the pistol towards the roof of the box. The audience remained for a second in agony of suspense. His Majesty showed the most perfect composure, turned his eye towards the man, and continue standing till the Queen entered, who displayed also the most dignified courage. After the first moment of stupor, the persons around him and the musicians from the orchestra seized the man, and hurried him over the Palisades into the musician's room. Mr. Major Wright, a Solicitor of eminence in Wellclose-square, who sat immediately behind him, was the first to secure him. He dropped the pistol; but Mr. Wright found it under the seat. The Audience, as may be conceived, after the first moment of stupor had subsided, first into the most violent emotions. Terror, dismay, and rage remarked on every countenance, except that of His Majesty, who sat with the utmost serenity, while the Queen, was just near enough to hear the report and see the flash, collected confidence from his magnanimity. The Princesses were apprized of the event before they entered the Box - they melted into tears.
Mr. Sheridan, assisted by Mr. Wigstead, the Magistrate, proceeded immediately to examine the man in the room into which he had been conducted, and where he had been searched, to see if he had any other firearms. or papers. He had none. Mr. Tamplin, a trumpeter in the band, who assisted in taking him over the Orchestra, recognize the man to be a Soldier, and pulling open his coat, found that he had on a military waistcoat, with the button of the 15th Light Dragoons. It was an officer's old waistcoat. On being questioned by Mr. Sheridan, he said, “he had no objection to tell who he was. It was not over yet, there was a great deal more and worse to be done. His name was James Hadfield. He had served his time to a working silversmith, but had enlisted into the 15th Light Dragoons, and had fought for his King and Country.” At this time the Prince of Wales and Duke of York entered the room, to be present at the examination. He immediately turned to the Duke, and said ” I know your Royal Highness - God bless you. You are a good fellow. I have served with your Highness, and (pointing to a deep cut over his eye, and another long scar on his cheek) said, I got these, and more than these, in fighting by your side. At Lincelles I was left three hours among the dead in a ditch, and was taken prisoner by the French. I had my arm broken by a shot, and eight sabre wounds in my head; but I recovered, and here I am.” he then gave the following account of himself and his conduct: He said, that having been discharged from the Army on account of his wounds, he had returned to London, and now lived by working at his own trade. You had a good deal of money; he worked for Mr. Solomon Hougham. Being weary of life, he last week bought a pair of pistols from one William Wakelin, a hairdresser and broker, in St. John Street (Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Wigstead immediately sent persons to bring Wakelin and his Master to the Theatre). He told him they were for his young master, who would give him a blunderbuss in exchange. That he had borrowed a crown from his master that morning, with which he had bought some powder, and had gone to the House of Mrs. Mason, in Red Lion St., to have some beer; that he went backwards to the yard, and There he tried his pistols. He felt one of them good for nothing, and left it behind. In his own trade he used lead, and he cast himself two slugs, with which he loaded his pistol, and came to the Theatre.
At this part of the narrative Sir William Addington, the Magistrate, arrived, and took the Chair: he went over the examination of the persons who had secured him, and who had seen the pistols leveled at His Majesty. Sir William said, it was most material to ascertain that fact, whether the pistol was leveled at the sacred Person of His Majesty, or fired at random, as the one case would be High Treason, the other not. He asked Hatfield what had induced him to attempt the life of the best of the Sovereigns. He answered, that he ” had not attempted to kill the King. He had fired his pistol over the Royal Box. He was a good shot as any in England; but he was himself weary of life - he wished for death, but not to die by his own hands. He was desirous to raise an alarm, and wished that the spectators might fall upon him. He hoped that his life was forfeited.” Being asked if he had any accomplices he solemnly declared that he had none, and with great energy took god to witness, and laid his hands on his heart.
From this time he began to show manifest signs of mental derangement. When asked who his father was he said he had been postillion to some Duke; but could not say what Duke. He talked in a mysterious way of dreams, and of a Great Commission he had received in his sleep; that he knew he was to be a martyr, and was to be persecuted like his Great Master, Jesus Christ. He had been persecuted in France; but he had not yet been sufficiently tried. He knew that he was to endure; but he begged Sir William Addington to remember that Jesus Christ had his trial before he was crucified. That many other incoherent things in the same style.
William Wakelin being the person from whom he had bought the pistols, being bought brought to the house, was examined. He said it was true that he had bought a pair of pistols of him, and that he had said they were for his young master, who would give him a blunderbuss for them; but he had not yet to got the blunderbuss. He knew very little of Hadfield, but knew where he worked, and had heard a good character of him, but that the least drink affected his head.
Several persons from the House of Mrs. Mason, his acquaintance, confirmed this fact; and they said they ascribed this to the very severe wounds he had received in the head. The least drink quite deranged him.
Upon this evidence he was committed to Cold Bath Fields for re-examination; and the Royal Highness the Duke of Clarence, Duke of Cumberland, and Mr. Sheridan, conducted him thither. His Majesty's Privy Council however, desiring to examine him forthwith, to discover if he had any accomplices, he was taken to the Duke of Portland's Office, where he underwent another examination. Mr. Major Wright, Mr. Holroyd, Mr. Tamplin, Mr. Calkin, Mr. Parkinson, Mr. Francis Wood, Mr. Lion, and Mr. Dietz, the persons who were instrumental in securing him, and whose evidence is the best material to his directing the pistols towards his Majesty's Box, if not towards his sacred Person, also attended, and were directed to attend again this day at o’clock, when a Council was to be held.
After this the Duke of Clarence, Duke of Cumberland, and Mr. Sheridan, and a number of Officers, went back to the Theatre, and after Their Majesties had withdrawn, the most strict search was made for the slugs. A mark was discovered in the top of the canopy over the Royal Box, and in the orchestra below a flattened and irregular piece of lead was found, supposed to have recoiled from the place where it struck. No other slug or ball was found. It was most providential that at this Theatre the Royal Box is elevated more than 15 feet from the Pit; so that from the place where Hadfield leveled his pistol, he was between 30 and 40 feet distant from his Majesty's Person.
|
 |
ATTEMPT ON THE KING'S LIFE
The examinations on the subject of the atrocious attempt on His Majesty's life are now nearly brought to a close, and they were yesterday sent to the Attorney and Solicitor-General, as materials on which to form the Prosecution, which it's forthwith to take place by Special Commission; and also to prepare a Bill to be brought into Parliament, and not for the extension of the Treason Laws, but to place the same safeguard over His Majesty’s life as over that of his meanest Subject.
The whole of the examinations have been taken by Richard Ford, Esq. not by the Privy Council; and through the whole of the interesting business, he has been most zealously assisted by the Prince of Wales and his three Royal Brothers; some of whom were constantly present, and all displaying the most affectionate duty, and the most anxious interest.
We have avoided entering into all of the loose and vague reports touching the examinations. We can now, however, state the summary of them, and the result, as they have struck those who have most attentively weighed the whole of the evidence on the case, and as they will appear on the trial. Above 40 witnesses and all have been examined. Yesterday a number of persons to whom James Hadfield himself referred for his character, and particularly a companion whom he familiarly called Harry, we're under examination. From these persons, as well as from his second wife, with whom he lives, the uniform account is that, unless at particular times in these always after liquor, he never showed the least symptom of insanity. His wounds, which were dreadful, and which made him for a long time a spectacle of horror and of compassion, made him furious under the least indulgence. Four months ago he had a long and severe fit of insanity. About 3 weeks ago he had another, but which was short and transitory. In both instances they sprung from liquor. Since that time up to the very moment of the horrible attempt, he was calm, composed, and rational. He had made what is called a Saint-Monday of yesterday se’nnight, And then he fell in with a cobbler of the name Truelock, who either is, or effects to be touched with a religious phrenzy. It is clear from all the evidence, that this man filled the brain of Mr. Hadfield with some incoherent and frantic superstitions, which were either artfully designed to lead him to the perpetration of the diabolical crime, or were the effusions of a confirmed lunatic. He told him of a divine Commission which he had to perform for the good of mankind - that he was appointed to purify the earth - that truth he was God, and that he wanted a second God to assist in his work, that he would appoint Hadfield to be his Son. This Truelock, when examined, talked in the same way, and Mr. Ford has not yet been able to ascertain rather his seeming insanity is affected or real. After this interview on Monday the 12th inst. Hadfield appeared to his comrades, and to all about him, to be usually thoughtful, and even gloomy. His attention was distracted, and some mysterious words which fell from him at intervals, then disregarded by those about him, are now remember such as, ” that great changes would soon be brought about: that there was great work to be done.” And on the very day when the accident took place in Hyde Park, he exclaimed, as if brooding over his design, ” They will say it was I who did it.” On the whole of the Thursday he showed no particular signs of derangement; neither where he was shaved, where he bought the gunpowder, not at the public house where he drunk a single pint of beer, did he show any mark of insanity. In the seat which he chose in the pit, it is remarkable, that though at considerable distance from the Royal Box, it was the only point from which you could take a clear aim. From the elevation of the box, if he had gone nearer, he must have lost the view of his object. It is clear that he must have taken his stand at the door of the pit early in the afternoon, to be among the foremost and entering the Theatre, that he might thus chus his seat; and that he took aim and discharged his pistol at the Royal Person, six or seven concurring testimonies served to prove.
|
 |
Obverse:
This example employs the obverse die described by Pollard (1970) as the Type 2 Bust. George III’s draped bust is depicted facing left. A somewhat flowing piece of fabric is presumably wrapped around the King’s shoulders and secured by a brooch with five somewhat irregularly shaped jewels. The edge of the fabric protrudes above the clasp and falls over the front of his left shoulder before disappearing under the truncation. The entire edge of which is frayed. The fabric upon his chest flows down in a series of unevenly distributed waves. His left shoulder protrudes from under the fabric. Three medium-sized dots can be found in the immediate underfold of the shoulder. His hair is tightly pulled into a single thick strand tied behind his head with a ribbon wrapped around the strand and secured by a knot with one bow and a single loose end. The loose end wraps around and under the hair and protrudes over his left shoulder just above the fabric secured by the brooch. Almost immediately below the knot, the hair forms several strands of large curls. One rests on his right shoulder while the others fall behind his back and nearly touch his left shoulder. The lowest curl nearly touches the last letter of the legend. Two rows of tightly looped curls appear just above his ear, the lowest of which conceals all but his earlobe. The engraver's initials, "C · H · K .” appear immediately below and centered under the bust. The obverse legend encircles the entire obverse except for immediately below the bust and is closely in line with the inner rim. It reads “GEORGIUS III · D : G · BRITANNIARUM REX · FIDEI DEF · & C · ”. All of this is contained within a slightly raised inner rim, which is superseded by a substantially wider rim of greater relief.
Reverse:
The legend, "PERSPICIT ET PROTEGIT. " appears at the very top. In the upper center is an outward-looking eye contained with a triangle. The triangle is made of multiple straight lines or rays of varying width that protrude outward in all angles. Several of which divide "ET" from the surrounding letters in the legend. The rays intersect and often penetrate curled clouds of smoke that appear on either side of an open flame, which rests upon an alter at the center of the medal. The front panel is marked with the letters "D. O. " evenly spaced above "M." . The alter rests upon a background of land, with a small tuft of grass appearing in the middle of the alter. The engraver's initial "K" appears on the right side of the foreground. In exergue, the legend "A SICARIO SERVATUS MAI · XV . MDCCC. " is divided into two lines. Like the obverse, all of this is contained within a slightly raised inner rim, superseded by a substantially wider rim of greater relief.
Edge: Plain
Size: 48mm
Notes:
I bought this piece already graded, and the slab looks like it took several world tours. That said, the starches that you see in the picture are on the holder. The medal itself is problem-free and very deserving of the lofty MS-66 BN grade NGC assigned it. Alongside its equally graded counterpart in this collection, there is no doubt that these two are at the very precipice of the best-preserved specimens of the 271 produced (Tungate, 2020).
References:
Pollard, J. G. (1970). Matthew Boulton and Conrad Heinrich Küchler. The Numismatic Chronicle, 10, 259-318.
Tungate, S. (2020) Matthew Boulton and The Soho Mint: copper to customer. Worcestershire: Brewin Books.
|
| Slot: |
1801 Union of Great Britain & Ireland Medal Bronze With Shells - Bust Type 3b |
| Origin/Country: |
GREAT BRITAIN - MEDALS |
| Design Description: |
|
| Item Description: |
BRONZE 1801 G.BRIT Bhm-524 G.BRITAIN & IRELAND UNION |
| Grade: |
NGC MS 64 BN |
| Research: |
View Coin |
Owner Comments
As noted in other areas there are a total of four different obverse types of George III engraved by Küchler, all of which are illustrated in this set. The current medal has bust Type 3b according to Pollard (1970). Brown (1980) classifies this medal as BHM-524 while Eimer (2010) denotes it as E-927 but does not distinguish between the different obverse types beyond a footnote. Tungate (2020) reports that only 316 examples of this medal were struck across the three different obverse types, and four different metals/finishes (i.e., silver, silver gilt, copper, and copper gilt). This medal is one of many in this collection that has retained the original silver-lined brass shells and is graded as MS-64 BN by NGC.
The images are courtesy of NGC’s new PhotoVision Plus service.
Historical Context: Setting aside the feelings of the general populace, The Union of Great Britain and Ireland marked a significant event that presented a multitude of legal and logistical considerations. Throughout the majority of the contemporary newspapers that I read reporting on this issue, the factor that seemed to be reported the most was the title and style of the King. I suppose that makes sense. This is a common theme between the two newspaper clippings I detail below. However, it is also worth considering how changes in the King’s title and style may impact the current money of the realm. Would it still be current tender for all debts, or would the title change necessitate a complete overhaul of the coinage? The contemporary information below addresses this issue and provides some insight into how the government planned to celebrate this momentous occasion. That said, I am not sure their plan involving the Royal Mint ever came to fruition.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chester Courant
Tuesday 09 December 1800
THE UNION.
The King will, On the 1st of January next, being the day on which the Union becomes an operative law, issue his Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, declaring that his Royal Style and Titles shall from thenceforth forever be as follow:
“GEORGIUS TERTIUS DEI GRATIA BRITANNIARUM REX, FIDEI DEFENDOR, ET IN TERRA ECCLESIAE ANGLICANAE ET HIBERNICAE SUPREMUM CAPUT.”
In the Ensigns Armorial of the United Kingdom, the Rose is conjoined with the Thistle and Shamrock, issuing from the same stock, an alternated as is represented therein. The Great Seal of the United Kingdom is to remain as present, with the alteration of his Majesty's Arms as above proposed and this inscription:
“Georgius Tertius Dei Gratia Britanniarum Rex, Fidei Defendor,” &c.
In all the Seals of Office, Stamps, Coins, or Instruments, where His Majesty's present Arms are now used, the Ensigns Armorial of the United Kingdom are in future to be used.
In the Privy Council Seal, the Rose is to be conjoined with the Thistle and Shamrock.
The Union Flag is to be altered, and the cross of Saint George is to be conjoined with the crosses of Saint Andrew and Saint Patrick.
The several ornaments of His Majesty's state, in Parliament and elsewhere, are to be the badges above referred to.
The Master of His Majesty's Mint is to prepare drafts of Gold and Silver Medals, commemorating the union of Great Britain and Ireland.
His Majesty, on the 1st of January next, is to declare the Members of His Most Honourable Privy Council for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; and to nominate and appoint a Standing Committee of the said Council to be a Committee of Intelligence for the opening and considering all advices, As well as foreign as domestic, and to meet where, and as often as they shall see fit; and also to appoint a Committee for all matters relating to Trade and Foreign Plantations; and a Committee to take into consideration the state of the Coins of this Kingdom, and the present establishment and configurations of His Majesty's Mint.
On the 1st of January the flags and banners of the United Kingdom are to be hoisted and displayed on all His Majesty's forts and castles within the United Kingdom, and the islands of Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, Sark and Man; and also on board all His Majesty ships of war then lying in any of the ports or harbours of the said United Kingdom, or the islands aforesaid.
In the New Arms of the United Kingdom, England is quartered: - the holds the first and fourth quarters, Scotland the second, and Ireland the third. In the King's Arms, the Armorial Bearing of Hanover is no longer quarterly, but is to be borne as an Escutcheon of Presence.
And the Badges, the Thistle and Shamrock rise alternately from the same stock as the Rose; to that upon carriages, or wherever the badge is to be used, the Thistle is in one instance to be on the right of the Rose, and the other on the left, thus avoiding all shew of preference.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
By the KING.
A PROCLAMATION,
Declaring His Majesty's Pleasure concerning the Royal
Style and Titles appertaining to the Imperial Crown
of the United Kingdom of Greet Britain and Ireland,
and its Dependencies, and also the Ensigns, Armorial
Flags, arid Banners thereof.
GEORGE R.
WHEREAS by the First Article of the Articles of Union of Great Britain and Ireland, ratified and confirmed by Two Acts of Parliament, the one passed in the Parliament of Great Britain, and the other in the Parliament of Ireland, and respectively intituled, “An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland," it was declared, That the said Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland should, upon this Day, being the First Day of January in the Year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and one, for ever after be united into one Kingdom, by the Name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; and that the Royal Style and Titles appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the said United Kingdom and its Dependencies, and also the Ensigns, Armorial Flags, and Banners thereof, should be such as We, by Our Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of the said United Kingdom, should appoint; We have: thought fit, by and with the Advice of Our Privy Council, to appoint and declare that Our Royal Style and Titles shall henceforth be accepted, taken, and used as the same are set forth in Manner and Form following ; that is to say, the same shall be expressed in the Latin Tongue by these Words:
“GEORGIUS. TERTIUS Dei Gratia Brittanniarum Rex, Fidei Defensor:”
And in the English Tongue, by these Words:
“GEORGE the THIRD by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith.”
And that the Arms or Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom shall be Quarterly; First and Fourth, England; Second, Scotland; Third, Ireland; and it is Our Will and Pleasure that there shall be borne therewith on an Escocheon of Pretence the Arms of Our Dominions in Germany, ensigned with the Electoral Bonnet; and it is Our Wiil and Pleasure that the Standard of the said United Kingdom shall be the same Quarterings as are herein before declared to be the Arms or Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom, with the Escocheon of Pretence thereon herein before described: And that the Union Flag shall be Azure, the Crosses Saltires of St. Andrew and St. Patrick Quarterly per Saltire, counterchanged Argent and Gules; the latter fimbriated of the Second, surmounted by the Cross of St. George of the Third, fimbriated as the Saltire: And Our Will and Pleasure further is, that the Style and Titles aforesaid, and also the Arms or Ensigns Armorial aforesaid, shall be used henceforth, as far as conveniently may be, on all Occasions wherein Our Royal Style and Titles, and Arms or Ensigns Armorial ought to be used. But nevertheless it is Our Will and Pleasure, that all such Gold, Silver, and Copper Monies as, on the Day before this First Day of January One thousand eight hundred and one, were current and lawful Monies of Great Britain, and all such Gold, Silver, and Copper Monies as shall, on or after this Day, be coined by our Authority with the like impressions, until Our Will and Pleasure shall be otherwise declared, shall be deemed and taken to be current and lawful Monies of the said United Kingdom in Great Britain; and that all such Gold, Silver, and Copper Monies as, on the Day before this First Day of January One thousand eight hundred and one, were current and lawful Monies of Ireland, and all such Gold, and Silver, and Copper Monies as shall, on or after this Day, be coined by Our Authority, with the like Impressions, until Our Will and Pleasure shall be otherwise declared, shall be deemed and taken to be current and lawful Monies of the said United Kingdom in Ireland; and all such Monies as shall have been coined for and issued in any of the Dominions of the said United Kingdom, and declared by Our Proclamation to be current and lawful Money of such Dominions, respectively bearing Our Style, or Titles, or Arms, or Ensigns Armorial, or any Part or Parts thereof, and all Monies which shall hereafter be coined and issued according to such Proclamations, shall continue to be lawful and current Money of such Dominions respectively, notwithstanding such Change in Our Style, Titles, and Arms, or Armorial Bearings respectively as aforesaid, until Our Pleasure shall be further declared thereupon. And all and every such Monies as aforesaid shall be received and taken in Payment in Great Britain and Ireland respectively, and in the Dominions thereunto belonging, after the Date of this Our Proclamation, in such Manner and as of the like Value and Denomination as the fame were received and taken before the Date hereof. And it is also Our Will and Pleasure that the several Dies and Marks which have been used to denote the Stamp Duties, and all other Stamps and Marks and Instruments which before the issuing of this Our Proclamation shall have been in actual Use for any public Purpose, and in which Our Royal Style and Titles, or Our Arms or Ensigns Armorial, or any Parts or Part thereof respectively, may be expressed, shall not, by reason of this Our Proclamation or any Thing therein contained, be changed or altered until the same may be conveniently so changed or altered, or until Our Pleasure shall be further declared thereupon; but that all such Dies, Stamps, Marks, and instruments respectively bearing Our Royal Style and Titles, or Arms or Ensigns Armorial used before this First Day of January One thousand eight hundred and one, or any Parts or Part of such Style, Titles, or of such Arms or Ensigns Armorial, shall have the like Force and Effect as the fame had before the said First Day of January instant.
Given at Our Court at St. James's, the First Day of January One thousand eight hundred and one, in the Forty-first Year of Our Reign.
GOD save the KING.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Obverse: George III is depicted facing left, wearing armor that protects his chest, shoulder, and presumably back (i.e., cuirassed). A tightly drawn ribbon covers the King's neck. Protruding out of the top of the armor, just below the ribbon on his neck is a piece of fabric ruffled in large waves, the interior of which is detailed with a random pattern of raised dots. This fabric is encased by a large breastplate, on the front of which appears a man’s face. To the left of the face appears a rope-like ornament that bisects the leftmost side of the breastplate before disappearing below another piece of fabric ruffled in large waves, which are discernably much larger than the previous piece of similar fabric. Presumably, this fabric wraps around the King’s torso and supersedes the breastplate, smaller ruffled fabric, and the ribbon around his neck. At the foremost tip of this fabric appears an oval medallion encased by a series of neatly formed beads. At the center of which is a man on horseback. This medallion is partly incomplete as it gives way to the innermost part of the rim. To the right appears another ornament similar to the rope-like item previously mentioned. This is almost immediately paired with a series of straps that presumably hold the armor together with small dots intended to represent rivets. His left shoulder protrudes out toward the viewer and is contained within the shoulder portion of his armor. His arm is shielded by a piece of cloth. The King’s hair forms three distinct and finely shaped rolls of curls that appear above and on top of his ear. Only the lowermost tip of his earlobe is visible. The remainder of his hair falls behind his head tightly fastened by a ribbon. Of which only one bow and one loose end are visible. A lock of curly hair can be seen on his right shoulder as well as resting on his left shoulder. The rest falls freely behind his torso before concluding in one large curl. The engraver's initials C•H•K appear immediately below the bust. The obverse legend appears above the bust closely in line with the inner rim. It reads “GEORGIUS III · D: G · BRITANNIARUM REX · FID · DEF · &” All of this is contained within a slightly raised inner rim, which is superseded by a substantially wider rim of greater relief.
Reverse: The reverse provides a rare opportunity to see a standing depiction of Britannia by Küchler. In this instance, a crowned Britannia appears on the left facing right. She is in stride with her left leg slightly behind while her right leg is directly underneath her. Her long hair spills out beneath her crown and a single strand flows freely down her shoulder and rests on her chest. She wears a relatively well-fitted robe that tapers at the bottom. Around her shoulders is a cloak adorned with fine details that give the impression that is made of fur. Her left arm is partially down and her hand grasps a caduceus while resting upon a heraldic-colored shield. Her right arm is outstretched and clasps the hand of Hibernia. Hibernia faces left and is similarly crowned with flowing hair. She also wears flowing robes that cling tightly to her form. Around her shoulder appears a richly detailed cloak affixed to her by a simple brooch. Her left arm is bent behind her and a branch with many leaves rests on her wrist presumably clasped in her hand. Partially obscured behind her appears a shield with the quintessential Irish harp that adorns the Irish coinage. Wrapped around the outer edge appears a cornucopia with a pile of coins spilling out. Both figures are standing on a piece of grassy land in the foreground. In the far distance of the background between Britannia and Hibernia appear two ships both flying a Union Jack. The engraver’s signature C . H. Küchler . F.C. appear on the exergue line. In exergue, the legend 1 . JAN . MDCCC1.. appears above a small flowered ornament. The main legend, in a much larger font, appears wrapped around the upper portion of the medal above the main devices. It reads JUNGUNTUR OPES FIRMATUR IMPERIUM.. The entire reverse design is contained within a slightly raised inner rim, which is superseded by a substantially wider rim of greater relief. An interesting cud appears at 7 o’clock.
Edge: Plain
Size: 48mm
Notes: This medal has a few spots but is substantially nicer than most of the other examples that I have examined. I have no explanation for it, but these medals are almost always heavily spotted and often show signs of moderate corrosion and cabinet friction. The current piece is an exception to that general rule, and I wonder what role, if any, the silver-lined brass shells may have played in its preservation. I hope to acquire examples of this medal with the other two bust types, but I fear that it may be some time before an acceptable example appears on the market.
References:
Brown, L. A. (1980). A Catalogue of British Historical Medals: Vol. I The Accession of George III to the Death of William IV 1760-1837. London: Seaby Publications Ltd.
Pollard, J. G. (1970). Matthew Boulton and Conrad Heinrich Küchler. The Numismatic Chronicle, 10, 259-318.
Tungate, S. (2020) Matthew Boulton and The Soho Mint: copper to customer. Worcestershire: Brewin Books.
|
| Slot: |
1802 Great Britain (Eimer-941) Peace of Amiens Medal Bronze - Bust Type 3a
|
| Origin/Country: |
GREAT BRITAIN - MEDALS |
| Design Description: |
|
| Item Description: |
BRONZE 1802 G.BRIT Bhm-535 PEACE OF AMIENS |
| Grade: |
NGC MS 64 BN |
| Research: |
View Coin |
Owner Comments
As I previously noted, collecting the medals of the Soho Mint affords opportunities to explore areas of history that have largely been overshadowed by more prevalent events. The current medal was executed in celebration of the signing of the Peace of Amiens, which temporarily ended French and British hostilities that had rocked the continent over the last decade. Although this was a much-welcomed change of events for both French and British citizens, it was doomed to fail. The initial news was met with enthusiasm, but the long negotiations spoiled the excitement, which might explain why only 204 of these medals were produced despite the widespread public acceptance of the newfound peace (Tungate, 2020). In this brief write-up, I hope to explore the socio-political underpinnings of the treaty, its downfall, and the eventual resumption of war.
This write-up is only intended as a brief introduction to paint the larger picture to place the Peace of Amiens in the historical context of this era. If you wish to learn more or have specific questions not addressed here, I encourage you to pursue the titles listed in the references and interesting links sections. Likewise, only passing mentions will be made in reference to the numerous battles that occurred over the last decade leading up to the peace talks. I encourage you to seek the relevant medals in this collection to learn more about those events, but the reader should be aware that this view is heavily skewed in favor of the British. After all, these medals were produced by a prideful British subject, so any depiction of French prowess is unlikely to be found.
Eggshells – The socio-political landscape of Britain and France
Although fundamentally opposed on a number of fronts, the British and French governments were initially held captive by the power of domestic popular opinion. The socio-political landscape in France was fraught with domestic unrest due to a host of problematic circumstances extenuating from the revolution. Seizing upon an opportunity to quench his ambition for personal power, Bonaparte would go on to establish the First Consul. In theory, the First Consul was to consist of three people, but in practice, Bonaparte was the only one of the three with real power. As a popular military man, he was cognizant of the fact that he had the support of the military, which he used to his advantage to essentially convert France into a military state affording him the opportunity to consolidate power. In part, this was accomplished by conscription law that was drastically unpopular and only fanned the flames of domestic unrest (Grainger, 2004). Bonaparte’s government, even with the backing of the military was still in its infancy, and there is little doubt that the power of public opinion demonstrated during the revolution remained palpable in France. In short, Bonaparte could not afford to alienate public opinion if he wished to retain power. The increase in military power could partly be justified by the ongoing war, but the general public in both France and Britain demanded peace.
In response to the French public desire for peace, Bonaparte initiated a series of diplomatic moves in December of 1799 that, in appearance, indicated that he too desired peace with Britain (Grainger, 2004). In an extreme violation of British Foreign Policy, Bonaparte had addressed George III directly to initiate peace talks. Senior British leadership, namely Pitt and Grenville, took Bonaparte’s blunder as a blatant disregard for British policy, and as such, any talks of peace were essentially dead on arrival. No true progress towards achieving peace would come to fruition so long as Pitt and Grenville still held power. Luckily for Bonaparte, Pitt would resign in February of 1801. Although over-simplified, his resignation was largely driven by his failure to convince King George III to agree with Catholic Emancipation, which was a main tenant of the union between Britain and Ireland that he previously negotiated. As we will soon see, Bonaparte would later use British catholic alienation to further his efforts to destabilize the British government leading up to and during the war following the collapse of peace. Henry Addington would replace Pitt as Prime Minster, and although there was a shift in leadership, a good number of those who once worked under Pitt retained their political power. This “new” government, as it is often referred to by historians, was under immense pressure to pacify public unrest. As such, they had a vested interest in appeasing public demands for peace if it wished to retain power moving forward. After all, dividing focus between an ever-expanding war and quelling domestic unrest made it difficult to secure any real sense of stability. This fact was not lost on Addington and would certainly explain the steadfast dedication to the peace talks despite the uncooperative nature of the French.
The Preliminaries:
Negotiating the preliminary agreement between Britain and France was no easy matter. Despite that these new negotiations were proceeded by five years of scattered discussions about the possibility of peace, this was the first time that terms had been suggested (Grainger, 2004). It is hard to fault either Britain or France for wanting to secure the most favorable terms for their country, which necessitated a strong position during negotiation to achieve. To this end, the negotiation of terms was only pursued earnestly in instances in which one party had a distinct advantage over the other or if there was a perception in the loss of power in the near future. For instance, the French found renewed interest in peace leading up to and shortly following their defeat by the British in Malta. Likewise, the difficulties faced by Austria had direct implications for British national security, prompting the British to reinvigorate talks of peace with France. This pattern of despondence paired with renewed interest at times of crisis would repeat itself through multiple cycles before eventually coming to a head with the failure of the armed neutrality and the mounting domestic pressure for peace.
The entirety of the negotiations between Britain and France were complicated and largely driven by the seemingly unreasonable requests made by the French. I use these terms lightly, as there is little doubt that these demands were directly from Bonaparte with only a slightly measurable degree of outside influence. Lord Hawkesbury, the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, led the charge for the British in 1801 by sending an outline of agreeable terms of peace to the French agent, Louis Guillaume Otto. Of course, neither Hawkesbury nor Otto had the power to settle the matter of peace between them as they both had to report to their superiors. This chain of communication only served to further complicate matters as the subsequent talks that followed were sporadic, often unrelated to one another, and wholly unproductive for long periods of time. This was further compounded by the manner in which the French, and by this I really mean Bonaparte, approached these negotiations. In nearly every instance that I can tell, the terms provided by both parties were often subject to seemingly erratic changes initiated by the French. This reached a head on June 6th of 1801, leading Hawkesbury to propose an equally ludicrous set of terms to the French. Hawkesbury offered two options, restoration of all positions and boundaries as they were in 1792 before the war started or serious consideration of the initial terms he sent in April (Grainger, 2004). Obviously, the French would never agree to the first option, and as such, it was clear that any future talks would have to be grounded in reality by which the French would have to concede in part to the British. From here, Hawkesbury remained steadfast to the original terms and only made concessions for French interests when he perceived good faith from the French in return.
As the fighting progressed during this odd interval of pseudo-peace, the tide of the war continued to shift. France was losing its stronghold in Egypt, and there was no definitive way of defeating the British beyond a direct invasion, which was not in the realm of possibilities. These factors, paired with the growing domestic pressure for peace both in France and Britain no doubt influenced the eventual resumption of progressive negotiations. By this point, the negotiations had been in the public eye for an extended period of time, and failure to reach peace would have been politically devastating to the public opinion of both governments, which was not a blow that either was prepared to endure. To further complicate the matters, the British government had a policy of publishing failed negotiations with foreign powers as a way of influencing transparency but also protecting their government from domestic unrest (Grainger, 2004). Nonetheless, Addington’s critics would have likely painted his government as being addicted to war. To this end, the young British and French governments had little choice but to proceed with negotiations in a manner that allowed both to save face.
News of the preliminary terms agreed upon broke in October of 1801. In general, the news was enthusiastically welcomed with large celebrations across Britain. Storefronts in major cities were illuminated, and large celebratory crowds gathered in London. As noted by Grainger (2004), this London mob turned violent against those who failed to celebrate, often smashing the windows of any establishment that failed to illuminate its storefront. A similar celebration occurred at the Soho Manufactory in Birmingham, when Boulton ordered Murdoch to use gas lighting to illuminate the two buildings conjoined to the main structure of the Soho Manufactory while the decorated façade of the main building was lit by oil lamps (Demidowicz, 2022). The engraving to the left depicts the furnace that would have been used to accomplish this. These celebrations underscore the desire of the British populace for peace and further support the perceived threat to Addington’s government if they had failed to achieve it. Of course, part of the desire for peace stemmed from the high-income tax exerted by Pitt to fund the war, which would soon be repealed during times of peace.
Peace
Cornwallis was appointed as the British Plenipotentiary and traveled to Amiens, where the treaty was signed on March 27th, 1802. At the time, Cornwallis and Hawkesbury expressed privately no confidence in French good faith and were convinced that the peace would be short-lived. It appears this sentiment was strongly shared throughout British society, as no grand celebrations occurred as before when the preliminaries were published. That is not to say that celebrations did not ensue, but they were not nearly as widespread. Perhaps this bleak outlook on the prospect of an eventual resurgence of war was only made worse by the harsh criticisms of the treaty provided by Addington’s political foes, namely Grenville and Windham. In reality, neither had prior experience negotiating terms of peace with the French, as their efforts failed to even agree to the possibility of peace. Nonetheless, there is a reason to suspect their view influenced at least some social circles. Even the King referred to the current state of affairs between Britain and France as an “experimental peace”, which underlines the very temporary standing of its existence (Grainger, 2004). For those who had paid attention, the long negotiations signaled a fundamental mistrust between the British and French governments, which could only serve to unravel the negotiations of the last year. This lackluster response to the official signing was not restricted to British Society. It was even more so apparent within French society, where almost no celebrations had occurred upon the announcement of the preliminaries. The official signing was haphazardly celebrated in Paris by a parade of 14,000 troops, the publishing of the treaty, the firing of guns, and the illumination of government buildings. From contemporary accounts, it appears most wandered about to enjoy the spectacle but did little to celebrate the event that triggered it.
The ephemeral nature of the peace and the dread associated with a resumed war were palpable, but this was in large part due to the lack of trust between the two nations. This mistrust was further instigated by the incomplete nature of treaty terms and the inability of the French government to self-reflect on their actions. Although Grainger (2004) does not directly draw the comparison, it is not hard to imagine that the British efforts to hold France to the terms of the treaty were much like trying to reason with a screaming toddler in a crowded checkout line who refuses to hand over the chocolate firmly in their grip. By most accounts, the British had faithfully executed their duties as outlined in the treaty, but the French were less responsive. They had already demonstrated their keen ability to circumvent the terms of the Treaty of Lunéville, and it was reasonable to conclude they would do the same with the Treaty of Amiens. When the British would confront the French about their numerous violations (e.g., sequestration, the presence of French troops in Holland and Italy, numerous continental advances, etc.), the French would respond with condemnation that the British were also in violation of the treaty. Although technically true, the British violation was not entirely due to their shortcomings. As part of the treaty, the British were to evacuate Malta, but only after a series of complicated and cascading requirements were met that were far from the direct control of the British. From contemporary sources, it appears the British were welcomed by the locals in hopes of fending off another most disagreeable French occupation (Allen, 1994). At first, the British had no means of evacuating Malta while maintaining their obligations under the treaty, but this was a fact that France conveniently ignored.
This pattern of back and forth finger pointing would continue with new complaints from the French to ensure the British were distracted from other French aggressions. For example, Bonaparte seemingly took great personal offense to the numerous anti-French publications throughout Britain. Of course, this was further compounded by the fact that many were controlled by émigrés who escaped revolutionary France. Despite their equal contempt for both British and English politicians, Bonaparte was convinced that they were strictly against him. He would often communicate his displeasure directly and through his agents, if the British would confront the French government about their numerous violations. In doing so, Bonaparte or his agent would make extreme demands that the British press should censor all anti-French (i.e., anything against Bonaparte) sentiments as they had already done domestically. This was a blatant overreach and an attempt to subvert British sovereignty by imposing French law on British subjects. In an unsigned publication in the Moniteur, Bonaparte insinuates that the British are acting in bad faith due to their unwillingness to censor the British press. This only furthered the tension between the two governments by deepening the degree of mistrust. This would eventually fizzle away as other more pressing matters would come to light, such as the French efforts to fan the flames of an Irish insurrection. Although contemporary evidence was scant at the time, we know now that the French government actively encouraged another Irish rebellion in hopes of drawing British forces in response in hopes that it would leave the English shores vulnerable to an invasion. This resulted in the conviction of several Irish conspirators. As Grainger (2004) explains, these plots were not likely to ensue any real impact as a successful Irish insurrection would require a simultaneous and highly coordinated French invasion. Once the war was declared, and the Royal Navy was bolstered, communication was made too difficult, and this plot was no longer a contingency.
As noted by Lokke (1943) the gradual descent back to war was far more complicated than I lay out above. As is always the case in matters of international war and politics, there is more to the story than what is initially perceived. I have decided to forgo discussing those details here as I am not a historian on the matter and doing so would venture far beyond the limited scope of this introductory write-up.
War
By March, war seemed inevitable, and parliament took needed steps to bolster their national security to help fend off a potential French invasion. A large French expeditionary force was stationed in Holland under the guise of being headed to Louisiana, but given the deeply engrained mistrust, the British could not be certain this was true. On March 8th, 1803, Parliament was asked to consider an act to authorize the Royal Navy to bolster its roster by 10,000 seamen. This was approved without hesitation in light of the growing concerns of a French invasion, although Grainger (2004) explains that this might have been a bit exaggerated at the time. Shortly after April 23rd, the British government sent a final ultimatum to the French, insisting that the treaty either be enforced in full by both sides or further negotiations were needed. In typical fashion, the French continued their distraction campaign, and eventually, all efforts of reconciliation were abandoned. Conflict ensued on May 11th, and an official declaration of war was published on May 18th by the British. As noted by Grainger (2004), the British people needed no convincing of the necessity of the war, but a full list of grievances justifying it was published to appease the interests of Austria and Russia. The British were aware that they alone could not defeat the French and therefore actively pursued diplomatic relations with both countries. This work started nearly two years earlier with Russia after the collapse of the armed neutrality. Eventually, this would help establish the Third Coalition which led to victory.
The importance of public opinion on these matters did not alter from the French Revolutionary Wars to the Napoleonic Wars, but it did change. This is especially true in Britain, where the general public no longer viewed the French military through the rose-tinted glasses of revolution. Furthermore, the perception of the war had drastically shifted. Bonaparte was accurately perceived as a major threat, and the possibility of his defeat was further bolstered by the previous victories in Egypt and Copenhagen as well as the rapid victories in the French-held colonial territories after the declaration of war in 1803. Despite the reintroduction of income tax, the war effort favored public opinion, which undoubtedly made the threat of internal instability subside. To this end, the financial restructuring initiated by Addington, paired with the overt actions of the French, accounted for one major piece of the puzzle to British success – a unified public opinion on the war effort. In the end, the Peace of Amines only lasted fourteen months, but the time of peace offered both countries a desperately needed reprieve from war. Unlike the French, during peace, the British took the time to consolidate power and establish a firm financial footing which would prove vital to their eventual success.
Obverse:
George III is depicted facing left wearing armor that protects his chest and back (i.e., cuirassed). His hair is tightly pulled into a single thick strand tied behind his head with a ribbon double wrapped around the strand and secured by a knot with two bows and a single loose end. Almost immediately below the knot, the hair forms several strands of large curls. One rests on his left shoulder while the others fall behind his back. The lowest curl nearly touches the last letter of the legend. A curl is tightly wrapped around his back and protrudes under the bust. Three rows of tightly looped curls appear just above his ear, the lowest of which conceals all but his earlobe. A tightly drawn scarf covers the King's neck and is partially obscured by a series of ruffles from what appears lacey fabric closest to the King’s chest. The lacey fabric is superseded by a thicker fabric that protrudes from his breastplate in large curvy swells. The breastplate is decorated with what appears to be a face in the immediate center. A large curvy ribbon is draped around the King’s shoulders and partially obscures the less intricate design found on the breastplate and the armor wrapped around his left shoulder. Attached to this ribbon is an oval medal with a series of twenty well-formed beads (I assume these are meant to represent gems) containing yet another oval of smaller beads. A depiction of St. George slaying a dragon appears in the center of the medallion. It is worth noting that the bottom portion of the medallion bisects the inner rim of the obverse but does not extend to the edge. His left shoulder protrudes out toward the viewer and is covered by a thick fabric which is superseded by a thinner ruffled fabric and the edge of the armor. Three equally spaced dots appear on the lightly striated truncation of the left shoulder. The engraver signed his work in the exergue between the inner rim and the truncation of the bust. It reads C · H · KÜCHLER . FEC.. The obverse legend is divided by the King’s portrait. The obverse legend appears above the bust closely in line with the inner rim. It reads GEORGIUS III · D : G · on the left, and M · BR · FR · ET H · REX·. The entire obverse design (albeit the portion of the medallion) is contained within a slightly raised inner rim, which is superseded by a substantially wider rim of greater relief. Two small lumps appear on the edge of the medal around 7 o’clock. Although no argument has been made specific to this medal, other Soho Medals with this peculiar lump have been argued to be presentation copies designated for notable individuals. The argument is that the lump helped delineate the ordinary medals from the presentation pieces.
Reverse:
The reverse of this medal depicts the allegorical figure of peace draped in a tightly fitting gown gazing to her left upon an olive branch held high in her left hand. Her left shoulder and breast are exposed. In her right hand, she holds a lit torch which she uses to burn a pile of items designed to symbolize arms. Within this pile, one can clearly discern several flags, swords, trumpets, and a rifle with a fixed bayonet. A plume of smoke exudes from the pile just above the lit torch. On the ground to her left appears an open sack, out of which falls a large pile of coins, fruit, and a caduceus. It is clear from the design that she is standing by the seaside, as the shore is broken with distant waves leading to an open sea. A three-masted ship flying the Union Jack is depicted close to the shore. Two other ships appear in the distance to her left and one in the far distance to her right. The edge of the landscape marked on the right with engraver’s details “C . H . KUCHLER . F”. In exergue appears “PAX UBIQUE M D C C C II.”. The reverse legend “TRIUMPHIS POTIOR.” appears wrapped around the innermost rim just above the allegorical figure of peace. All of this is contained within a slightly raised inner rim, which is superseded by a substantially wider rim of greater relief.
Edge: Plain
Size: 48mm
Notes:
Despite the relatively low mintage of just 204 pieces, examples of this medal come up for sale with some frequency. That said, a considerable number of them could not accurately be described as uncirculated. To further complicate matters, those that are technically uncirculated are often not well preserved. So far, this is the best-preserved specimen I have come across, and in my opinion, is far superior to the medal that once resided in the Watt Jr. Collection. Although I wish it were closer in preservation to the other Soho medals in this collection, it is likely towards the top of conditional rarity. It seems fitting that this medal has been seemingly lost among medal enthusiasts, given the general disposition towards the very event it was designed to depict. It is interesting to note the 1850 sale of the Soho Mint describes this medal as “On The Peace, 1802”, but this does not correspond with the modern titles used by Pollard (1970). It is also curious to note that one pair of dies, a punch of the reverse, and a steel collar for this medal appeared as lot 224 in the sale. That said, there is no telling if this lot ever came up for auction, and if it did, there is no way of ruling out the possibility that Matthew Piers Watt Boulton did not have his agent purchase it for him to retain. I do not know of any restrikes of this medal, but that does not preclude their existence. That said, restrikes would only increase the available supply, which one would assume would also correspond to an increase in well-preserved specimens offered. As previously noted, this does not seem to be the case.
****The holder is very scuffed****
References:
Allen, D. F. (1994) New Light on Malta During the Peace of Amiens, 1801 – 1803. The British Library Journal, 20(2), pp 174-183.
Grainger, J. D. (2004) The Amiens Truce Britain and Bonaparte, 1801-1803. Suffolk: The Boydell Press.
Lokke, C. D. (1943). Secret Negotions to Maintain the Peace of Amiens. The American Historical Review, 49(1), pp 55-64.
Pollard, J. G. (1970). Matthew Boulton and Conrad Heinrich Küchler. The Numismatic Chronicle, 10, 259-318.
Tungate, S. (2020) Matthew Boulton and The Soho Mint: copper to customer. Worcestershire: Brewin Books.
Vice, D. (1995). A fresh insight into Soho Mint restrikes & those responsible for their manufacture. Format Coins, Birmingham, 3-14.
Interesting Links:
https://www.napoleon.org/en/history-of-the-two-empires/articles/peace-of-amiens/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07075332.2021.1972027
|
| Slot: |
1802 Great Britain (Eimer-941) Peace of Amiens Medal Bronze With Shells - Bust Type 3b |
| Origin/Country: |
GREAT BRITAIN - MEDALS |
| Design Description: |
|
| Item Description: |
BRONZE 1802 G.BRIT Bhm-535 PEACE OF AMIENS |
| Grade: |
NGC MS 63 BN |
| Research: |
View Coin |
Owner Comments
As noted by Pollard (1970), there are two distinct obverse busts found on the Preservation of George III medals. The entry immediately before this listing depicts the Type 3a bust, while the current entry depicts the Type 3b bust. I provide a thorough description of the obverse and reverse design of all medals in this set. Any differences between the types should be apparent from those descriptions.
Historical Context:
Sentiment towards the war with France grew uneasy as time progressed, and it became increasingly difficult to sell the idea of prolonging the conflict to the people. The end of the war, even if temporary, marked a significant event at the time. You can find more contextual information within the write-up for the medal that immediately proceeds this entry. The point of the current write-up is to provide context using contemporary publications. To this end, we can find a series of Royal Proclamations published in the London Gazette on May 1st, 1802 (Issue 15476).
________________________________________________________________________________________________
By the King.
A PROCLAMATION.
GEORGE R.
Whereas a Definitive Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Us, the French Republic, His Catholick Majesty, and the Batavian Republick, have been concluded at Amiens, on the 27th day of March last, and the ratifications thereof have been duly exchanged: In Conformity thereunto, We have thought fit hereby to command the same be published throughout Our Dominions: And We do declare to all Our loving Subjects Our Will and Pleasure, that the said Treaty of Peace and Friendship be observed inviolably as well as by Sea as Land, and in all Places whatsoever; strictly charging and commanding all Our Loving Subjects to take Notice hereof, and to conform themselves thereunto accordingly.
Given at Our Court at Windsor, the Twenty-sixth day of April One thousand eight hundred and two, in the Forty-second Year of Our Reign.
GOD save the KING.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
By the King.
A PROCLAMATION.
Declaring the Conclusion of the War.
GEORGE R.
Whereas by the act passed in the Thirty-fourth Year of Our Reign, An Act for the further Encouragement of British Mariners, and for other Purposes therein mentioned, various Provisions are made which are directed to take Effect from and after, the Expiration of Six Months from the Conclusion of the then existing War, To be notified in Manner therein mentioned; And it is thereby further enacted, that, for the Purposes of the said Act, the Conclusion of the said War shall be Holden to be from the time that the same shall be pointed by our Royal Proclamation, or Order in Council, to be published in the London Gazette: And whereas a Definitive Treaty of Peace has been duly ratified between Us, the French Republic, His Catholick Majesty, and the Batavian Republick; We have therefore thought fit, by and with the Advice of Our Privy Council, for the Purposes of the said Act, hereby to notify and declare the Conclusion of the said War, by this Our Royal Proclamation, to be published in the London Gazette; and We do direct the same to be published accordingly.
Given at Our Court at Windsor, the Twenty-sixth day of April One thousand eight hundred and two, in the Forty-second Year of Our Reign.
GOD save the KING.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
By the King.
A PROCLAMATION.
For a Public THANKSGIVING
GEORGE R.
Whereas it has pleased Almighty God, in His great Goodness, to put an End to the late bloody, extended, and expensive War, in which We were engaged; We therefore, adoring the Divine Goodness, and duly considering that the great and publick Blessings of Peace do call for publick and solemn Acknowledgements, have thought fit, by the Advice of Our Privy Council, to issue this Our Royal Proclamation, hereby appointing and commanding, That a General Thanksgiving to Almighty God, for these His Mercies, be observed throughout those Parts of Our United Kingdom called England and Ireland, on Tuesday the First Day of June: next: And for the better and more devout Solemnization of the same, We we have given Directions to the Most Revered the Archbishops, and the Right Reverend the Bishops of England, to compose a Form of Prayer suitable to this Occasion, to be used in all Churches and Chapels, and other Places of publick Worship, and to take Care for the timely dispersing of the same throughout their respective Dioceses: And We do strictly charge and command, That the said Publick Day of Thanksgiving be religiously observed by all Our loving subjects, as they tendered the Favor of the Almighty God, and upon Pain of suffering such Punishment as We may justly inflict upon all such as shall contempt or neglect the same.
Given at Our Court at Windsor, the Twenty-sixth day of April One thousand eight hundred and two, in the Forty-second Year of Our Reign.
GOD save the KING.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Obverse:
George III is depicted facing left, wearing armor that protects his chest, shoulder, and presumably back (i.e., cuirassed). A tightly drawn ribbon covers the King's neck. Protruding out of the top of the armor, just below the ribbon on his neck is a piece of fabric ruffled in large waves, the interior of which is detailed with a random pattern of raised dots. This fabric is encased by a large breastplate, on the front of which appears a man’s face. To the left of the face appears a rope-like ornament that bisects the leftmost side of the breastplate before disappearing below another piece of ruffled in large waves, which are discernably much larger than the previous piece of similar fabric. Presumably, this fabric wraps around the King’s torso and supersedes the breastplate, smaller ruffled fabric, and the ribbon around his neck. At the foremost tip of this fabric appears an oval medallion encased by a series of neatly formed beads. At the center of which is a man on horseback. This medallion is partly incomplete as it gives way to the innermost part of the rim. To the right appears another ornament similar to the rope-like item previously mentioned. This is almost immediately paired with a series of straps that presumably hold the armor together with small dots intended to represent rivets. His left shoulder protrudes out toward the viewer and is contained within the shoulder portion of his armor. His arm is shielded by a piece of cloth. The King’s hair forms three distinct and finely shaped rolls of curls that appear above and on top of his ear. Only the lowermost tip of his earlobe is visible. The remainder of his hair falls behind his head tightly fastened by a ribbon. Of which only one bow and one loose end are viable. A lock of curly hair can be seen on his right shoulder as well as resting on his left shoulder. The rest falls freely behind his torso before concluding in one large curl. The engraver's initials C•H•K appear immediately below the bust. The obverse legend appears above the bust closely in line with the inner rim. It reads “GEORGIUS III · D: G · BRITANNIARUM REX · FID · DEF · &” All of this is contained within a slightly raised inner rim, which is superseded by a substantially wider rim of greater relief.
Reverse:
The reverse of this medal depicts the allegorical figure of peace draped in a tightly fitting gown gazing to her left upon an olive branch held high in her left hand. Her left shoulder and breast are exposed. In her right hand, she holds a lit torch which she uses to burn a pile of items designed to symbolize arms. Within this pile, one can clearly discern several flags, swords, trumpets, and a rifle with a fixed bayonet. A plume of smoke exudes from the pile just above the lit torch. On the ground to her left appears an open sack, out of which falls a large pile of coins, fruit, and a caduceus. It is clear from the design that she is standing by the seaside, as the shore is broken with distant waves leading to an open sea. A three-masted ship flying the Union Jack is depicted close to the shore. Two other ships appear in the distance to her left and one in the far distance to her right. The edge of the landscape marked on the right with engraver’s details “C . H . KUCHLER . F”. In exergue appears “PAX UBIQUE M D C C C II.”. The reverse legend “TRIUMPHIS POTIOR.” appears wrapped around the innermost rim just above the allegorical figure of peace. All of this is contained within a slightly raised inner rim, which is superseded by a substantially wider rim of greater relief.
Edge: Plain
Size: 48mm
Notes:
Despite the relatively low mintage of just 204 pieces, examples of this medal come up for sale with some frequency. That said, a considerable number of them could not accurately be described as uncirculated. To further complicate matters, those that are technically uncirculated are often not well preserved. This example is an exception to the rule, but it is not without its own set of limitations. There are numerous notable die polish lines throughout both sides, but an in-hand inspection makes these less noticeable. So far, this is the best-preserved specimen I have come across, and in my opinion, is far superior to the medal that once resided in the Watt Jr. Collection. Although I wish it were closer in preservation to the other Soho medals in this collection, it is likely towards the top of conditional rarity. It seems fitting that this medal has been seemingly lost among medal enthusiasts, given the general disposition towards the very event it was designed to depict. It is interesting to note the 1850 sale of the Soho Mint describes this medal as “On The Peace, 1802”, but this does not correspond with the modern titles used by Pollard (1970). It is also curious to note that one pair of dies, a punch of the reverse, and a steel collar for this medal appeared as lot 224 in the sale. That said, there is no telling if this lot ever came up for auction, and if it did, there is no way of ruling out the possibility that Matthew Piers Watt Boulton did not have his agent purchase it for him to retain. I do not know of any restrikes of this medal, but that does not preclude their existence. That said, restrikes would only increase the available supply, which one would assume would also correspond to an increase in well-preserved specimens offered. As previously noted, this does not seem to be the case.
References:
Pollard, J. G. (1970). Matthew Boulton and Conrad Heinrich Küchler. The Numismatic Chronicle, 10, 259-318.
Tungate, S. (2020) Matthew Boulton and The Soho Mint: copper to customer. Worcestershire: Brewin Books.
Vice, D. (1995). A fresh insight into Soho Mint restrikes & those responsible for their manufacture. Format Coins, Birmingham, 3-14.
Interesting Links:
https://www.napoleon.org/en/history-of-the-two-empires/articles/peace-of-amiens/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07075332.2021.1972027
|
|