NGC Registry

Collection Manager >

The medals of Soho near Birmingham

Category:  Token & Medals
Owner:  coinsandmedals
Last Modified:  8/3/2024
Set Description


This set is a tribute to my friend, Bill McKivor, who has since passed away. Although we only knew each other for a relatively short time, Bill quickly became one of my favorite people. He is the sole reason I ended up collecting the medals of the Soho Mint, and as such, it seems fitting that his memory lives on in my collection. Bill had an eye for exceptional quality, and although he handled most of the Boulton Family collection, the medals held a special place in his heart. I, too, have developed a keen fondness for the Soho medals, and so far, I have been successful in locating many examples paired with silver-lined brass shells. Several of them once resided in either the Boulton family or the James Watt Jr. collections. This set aims to build a top-notch collection of Soho medals, emphasizing the ones Bill held in such high regard. The pieces that comprise this collection have been carefully selected. When appropriate, I have included the relevant provenance for each piece and the historical significance of the event or person depicted on the medal.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

A tribute to Bill

Bill was a gregarious man with a warm personality, which allowed him to carry on a good conversation on almost any topic with almost any person. He had a way of telling stories that reframed dense history in a way that captured your attention and left you wanting to discover more. There were several instances in which I learned more from Bill than I did in any of my introductory history classes in college. He had a real passion for history which was probably only outshined by his passion for sharing his knowledge with whoever would listen. Bill and I spent hours talking on the phone about almost every topic imaginable, but most of what we discussed concerned the Soho Mint and its owner, Matthew Boulton. Like almost every other topic we discussed, Bill seemed to know things that I had only discovered through reading books from notable authors such as Richard Doty. Little did I know, Bill and Doty were very close friends, and given what I know about Bill and what I have learned about Doty, I would have greatly enjoyed the opportunity to have a conversation with them both. Talk about a power duo of awesomeness! On any note, during our first conversation, Bill detailed his journey of acquiring a significant portion of the coins, tokens, and medals from the Boulton estate. He always used to joke about being a paperboy across the pond buying the collection of a famed industrialist who revolutionized the minting of money. You see, Bill had a long and very successful career selling newspapers in Seattle and seemingly viewed himself as an everyday kind of guy. In reality, Bill was far from an everyday kind of guy. It is very rare to meet someone as genuine, kind, and forthcoming. Upon his retirement, he created a very successful business selling conder tokens, which gave rise to our friendship.

I had visited Bill's website in the past while doing some research on the Soho Mint several years before I contacted him. I remember being so impressed and intimidated by the seemingly endless photos of some of the most spectacular Soho pieces I had ever seen. Eventually, Bill listed a proof 1799 Farthing for sale contained in the original silver-lined brass shells and a provenance back to the Boulton Family. I took this opportunity to reach out and I ended up purchasing the coin from him. At the time, I did not have the funds to cover the entire purchase, but I wanted the coin. I provided numerous references and offered to pay a deposit and set relatively quick terms of payment. After all, I knew I could get the money; I just needed to sell a few extras to do so. Bill responded in his usual enthusiastic and easygoing way, telling me that the coin was mine and not to worry about the details. As I would later learn, Bill was far more concerned about getting the right pieces in the right collector's hands. For him, it wasn't about money. It was about forming connections with people and helping them along with their collecting journeys. In this way, Bill had a significant impact on me.


Bill was the type of guy who exuded knowledge. Like almost every other aspect, Bill was exceedingly generous with the information he had. I learned so much about the Soho Mint, Matthew Boulton, antique cars, tokens, and medals in such a short period of time. In one of our earlier conversations, I learned the exact day, and approximate time the ejecting collar was fully operational at the Soho Mint. A detail that I have yet to stumble upon in any of the numerous publications that I have read so far. It never ceased to amaze me how much Bill knew about seemingly obscure topics, such as the silver-lined brass shells produced at the Soho Mint. I spent months trying to research the topic on the internet with little luck, but within 30 minutes, Bill had provided me with enough contextual information to create a solid foundation for a short article. I hope to submit that article for publication soon, which I plan to dedicate in his honor. While discussing the silver-lined brass shells, Bill shared his passion for the medals produced at the Soho Mint, and this is the slippery slope that eventually led to my wallet becoming a bit thinner. He talked about the historical context of the pieces, and that proved to be my Achilles' heel. We discussed the vast array of art depicted on the Soho medals and the numerous nuances of collecting them. Bill piqued my interest, and that directly led to the construction of this collection. Had it not been for him sharing his passion, I would have almost certainly overlooked the medals and subsequently an essential part of Soho's history. His impact on me was not an isolated event. The most recent edition of the Conder Token Collector's Journal is a tribute to Bill in which numerous members shared their experiences with him, and it is truly amazing to see how many people he impacted from both a personal and numismatic standpoint.

Beyond Bill's willingness, if not insistence upon being helpful, he was a thoughtful and genuine person. This was abundantly clear when we talked about politics, religion, marriage, travel, or just about every other topic that one can think of. He had so many extraordinary stories to share that always seemed to highlight the importance of some life lesson. If I learned nothing else from him, it is always to be kind, and that life is what you make of it. He always encouraged me to grasp opportunities when they present themselves, which is what motivated me to start collecting medals. He piqued my interest, and he loved sharing his passion for them. What better excuse would I have for pursuing so many incredible pieces? Although Bill is no longer with us, his memory will forever live in my collection as I continue to pursue the coins, medals, and tokens produced at the Soho Mint.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

A few notes about this set:

For those unfamiliar with Matthew Boulton and his Soho Mint, I implore you to stop reading here and check out my original custom registry set, which provides the historical context needed to fully appreciate the significance of the pieces contained here. The current set aims to explore the social, economic, and artistic importance of the medals struck at the Soho Mint as it relates to the historical context of their production. I hope that the brief descriptions and detailed pictures will prove enjoyable for those wanting to learn more about the medals struck at the Soho Mint and those wanting to learn more about the events and people they depict. This set aims to include tidbits of historical context that might otherwise be overlooked. For instance, the title of this set is derived from the heading affixed to numerous pieces of contemporary communication between Matthew Robinson Boulton and officials at the U.S. Mint. I find the oddity of being so specific to state "Soho near Birmingham" humorous as most domestic correspondence to and from Boulton is simply denoted as "Soho".

While viewing this set, please keep in mind that several factors limit the breadth and scope of this pursuit. Perhaps the two most limiting factors are time and money in no specific order. I lack a reasonable amount of both. A good deal of time and energy has been devoted to assembling this collection, which has allowed me to include several pieces that once resided in the personal collections of either James Watt Jr. or the Boulton family. All of these pieces were purchased raw and subsequently graded with the appropriate provenance. These pieces are often some of the most well-preserved specimens in my collection and further attest to the care and pride that both families had for the Soho Mint.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

General introduction:

Although I wish I could provide a complete history of the medals produced at the Soho Mint, the fact of the matter is that I am still learning. For now, I plan to explore how the medals broadly fit within the context of the other Soho Mint products and explore how Matthew Boulton and his successors approached the business of striking medals. I can only imagine the knowledge that remains for me to discover. That said, if you have anything related to share, please feel free to reach out on the NGC forums. I love learning new things and making new friends!

What is a "medal"?
According to Frey and Salton (1973), a medal is a piece produced for the sole purpose of commemorating a historical event(s) or an award for personal merit. They are explicit that a medal is not produced to pass as money, but rather an item in which its value is derived from its historical and artistic merits. In this way, medals are a class of their own when compared to either tokens or coins. Given that Matthew Boulton's primary goal for building the Soho Mint was to propagate a coinage reform in his country, it seems odd that he would devote any energy to creating something that would not be a means to that end. This gives rise to a fundamental question – why did the Soho Mint strike medals? It is not a secret that Boulton, at least at first, did not see the value of producing medals. This fact is abundantly clear in his letter to Küchler dated March 13th, 1793, in which Boulton clarifies that he has neither the time nor inclination to oversee "the minutiae of such a minute business as making medals". To this effect, Boulton makes it evident that he views producing medals as a "lesser" task than striking coins, but as we will see, the medals played a vital role in the history of the Soho Mint, and it appears Boulton also realized their utility.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why did the Soho Mint strike medals?

To address this question, we have to revisit the early days of the Soho Mint, which were marred by a seemingly endless array of setbacks and near catastrophes. Boulton would not be granted his first contract to strike regal copper coinage for England until March 3rd, 1797, but in the near-decade leading up to that event, Boulton was in a constant state of preparation that nearly cost him everything on more than one occasion. According to Doty (1998), Before the first Pence was struck on June 19th, 1797, Boulton had already invested well over £11000 of his own money, which according to the Bank of England's inflation calculator, equates to £1,822,880 ($2,357,074) today. That number is a mere drop in the bucket if the work of Cule (1935) is correct, which details debts that well exceeded over £50000. Boulton was strapped for cash. Even though his reputation and financial well-being were precariously balanced upon the tip of a pinhead, Boulton remained steadfast in his dedication to the cause. By all accounts, he was a brilliant man who could transform otherwise perilous situations into grand opportunities. Of course, this is not to say that he did not make a few considerable mistakes along the way. Perhaps the costliest of which, as it relates to the Soho Mint, was the employment of the engraver Jean Pierre Droz. In Boulton's mind, an English coinage contract was all but inevitable, and as such, he needed to be prepared to answer the call at any given minute. This mixture of urgency bordering on panic is blatant in Boulton's communication leading up to the coinage contract in 1797 (Doty, 1998). His anxiety seems reasonable given that he had incurred great expense to build his Mint and the only possibility for him to recoup his money would be the securement of large coinage contracts. His financial difficulties were only one piece of his rather complicated problem. Boulton still needed to perfect his machinery, and even with that done, many more issues would remain.

NEWSPAPER CLIPPING CIRCA 1790
It is easy to get lost in the technical components of the Soho Mint as the process of applying steam power to the minting of coins was truly revolutionary at the time. One might even argue that this component was the most critical part for Boulton to perfect, and to some extent, that is true. However, even with the best technology, Boulton would have little hope of securing a coinage contract if he lacked the subsequent talent needed to engrave dies. Although Boulton had his fair share of technical difficulties, perhaps the next most significant threat to the early success of the Soho Mint was the constant struggle to secure the employment of talented engravers (Doty, 1998; Gould, 1970; Tungate, 2020). Like all other matters related to the early days of the Soho Mint, Boulton's ability to retain engravers teetered between his ability to pay them and what little work he had for them to do. After all, Boulton was strapped for cash, and providing a full salary to an engraver who was otherwise unengaged in work would only further his financial woes. This conflict between Boulton's need to employ talented engravers and the stark reality of his finances became all the more apparent in October of 1789. This is when Jean Pierre Droz reluctantly decided to relocate to Birmingham from Paris to fulfill Boulton's request in May of 1788 (Doty, 1998). Now responsible for Droz's full salary, Boulton found himself in a situation where he finally secured the talent but had nothing for him to work on and thus had no way of recouping his money. Without a large coinage contract in hand, Boulton seized any potentially profitable opportunity to find work for his engravers. Producing medals was one such opportunity. For instance, the medals struck in the early months of April 1789 provided something for the otherwise idle Droz to work on and generated a much-needed stream of revenue for Boulton (Pollard, 1968; Gould, 1970; Doty, 1998) 1.

Producing medals served other purposes beyond the generation of profit and work for engravers. After all, most medal orders were relatively small; thus, fewer dies needed to be engraved (Doty, 1998; Tungate, 2020). These small orders often did not generate enough money to justify the larger expense of developing the Soho Mint, so profit and work for engravers could not have been the only motivating factors. Given that Boulton was pioneering a new era of minting, his employees were understandably very inexperienced. Any work that Boulton could secure would provide valuable hands-on experience that would no doubt translate to innovation. The hope was that this innovation would pave the way for a smoother transition to mass coinage production. In other words, there were a lot of kinks that needed to be worked out, and it would be difficult to identify and subsequently solve those issues without a bit of trial and error. Although this point is well made, it strips the humanity of Boulton's general disposition for his employees and overlooks another likely motivator. From contemporary accounts, even from his rivals, Boulton is regarded as a true gentleman of the enlightenment. His ideas were well ahead of his time, and he adamantly fought on behalf of the common people whenever the opportunity presented itself. One needs to look no further than the Soho Manufactory to see his dedication to the working class. By the time the Soho Mint became more than a fleeting idea, the Soho Manufactory was bustling with activity engaged in any number of Boulton's business ventures (Robinson, 1963; Gould, 1970; Doty, 1998; Tungate, 2020). You see, Boulton was a manufacturer of England's finest luxury items. Among other things, Boulton would produce some of the finest coins, medals, tokens, clocks, and silver household accessories produced during the 18th century (Robinson, 1963; Mason, 2009; Loggie, 2011). These wares were enjoyed by some of the world's most prominent figures, including royal and noble families across the globe.

The sheer magnitude of Boulton's enterprise, paired with the utmost attention to quality, necessitated the employment of hundreds of men, women, and teenagers (Robinson, 1963, Doty, 1998; Tungate, 2020). One can only imagine how busy a typical day must have been for Boulton, given his involvement with even the most minute details of each venture. Despite being so busy, contemporary records indicate that Boulton took a personal interest in the lives of his workers and did what he could to make sure they were provided for. One such account details the general practice of Boulton hiring medical professionals, occasionally at his own expense, to look after his workers (Tungate, 2020). Eventually, Boulton would establish a deeply subsidized insurance program for his employees, which was far from the standard practice at the time. By all accounts, Boulton was a good boss, and this encouraged a lot of goodwill between him and his employees, which often translated to unwavering loyalty. This familiarity between Boulton and his employees often made it difficult for him to dismiss them when it was no longer viable to continue their employment (Doty, 1998). On occasion, the Soho Mint was idle with no large contracts to complete, and by no fault of their own, the workers had nothing to do. In these instances, Boulton went into debt, continuing to pay their salaries. Producing medals provided a source of relief. Although these commissions often did not generate large orders and thus revenue, they did provide much-needed experience, and more importantly, a financial justification for continued employment in times of stagnation.

So far, I have discussed the internal motivating factors for producing medals that primarily focus on Boulton's efforts to protect his employees, but it is crucial not to forget that Boulton was also a shrewd businessman (Doty, 1998; Robinson, 1963). At the time, coin collecting, which by extension the collecting of medals and tokens, was deemed the "hobby of Kings". Only those with sizable allowances would have the means to collect such luxury items, and not surprisingly, those with said funds were likely also to hold power and thus have influence (Gould, 1970, Tungate, 2020). By the time the Soho Mint was producing medals, Boulton had already established a reputation for quality that even King George III had admired. There is little doubt that he capitalized on this reputation to place medals and pattern coins in the collections of those with the most significant influence. His lobbying efforts for the coinage contract involved him gifting countless pattern pieces to influential members of the English Court in hopes of applying pressure on the privy council (Doty, 1998; Tungate, 2020). The medals were often far larger and more impressive than their smaller coinage counterparts and from contemporary records seemed to have made quite the impression. I can only imagine this further fanned the flames of Boulton's efforts to secure a coinage contract. In essence, the medals served as a form of advertisement for the Soho Mint which targeted the very people with the influence capable of swaying the privy council's decision. Producing high-quality medals and pattern coinage also likely resulted in residual effects for his other businesses, which in turn would generate more income for the cash strapped Boulton. To this extent, one cannot hope to fully appreciate the history of the Soho Mint without also considering the role medals played in its success.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Principles of design – "Simplistic Elegance"

Despite Boulton's reservations, the production of medals played an undeniably important role in the early formation of the Soho Mint. At the very least, their production helped to halt its financial collapse, provided work for its employees, and served as a powerful advertisement tool to further Boulton's lobbying efforts. In addition, the medals furthered Boulton's reputation as a man of the enlightenment and an icon of industrial ingenuity. This point is very clear in the high praise afforded to Boulton in contemporary writings. For instance, in 1801, Stebbing Shaw wrote the following about Boulton and the medals he produced at the Soho Mint in The History and Antiquities of Staffordshire:

"Various beautiful medals of our celebrated naval and other officers &c. have likewise been struck here from time to time by Mr. Boulton, for the purpose of employing and encouraging ingenious artists to revive that branch of sculpture, which had been upon the decline in this kingdom since the death of Symons in the reign of Charles II."

Even Boulton would eventually argue for the importance of medallic art in a letter to his lawyer dated September 8th, 1803 when he wrote, "Medalick art is less cultivated & encouraged in England than in any other European Nation; although the most durable record of Facts, & of the taste of times". This suggests that Boulton began to view the production of medals as more than a means to an end. Medals became a form of artistic expression that no doubt proved sufficiently challenging and thus intriguing for the ever innovating Boulton. In part, the design and production of medals were challenging because the stakes were far higher than that of coinage. At first, this might seem counterintuitive as large coinage contracts were the lifeblood of the Soho Mint, but the design and subsequent production of coinage were always somewhat limited by utility. This facet was removed for medals, and unlike the coins, the medals were primarily sought after by the rich and powerful, who often had very strong opinions of design. In numerous instances, a newly released medal by one of Boulton's competitors was harshly and publicly criticized by a person of power and influence (Gould, 1970). These instances could be very detrimental to the maker's reputation, and understandably this is something that Boulton would want to avoid at all costs. Furthermore, the very exclusive nature of medal production afforded greater competition for Boulton as there were already countless talented medalists in operation at the time. Almost no such competition existed for coinage, much less mass-produced coinage. In other words, those who would be interested in his medals would also likely be his most significant critics as they were already accustomed to relatively high-quality work.

The industrial revolution paired with the curtails of the enlightenment propagated several important changes across Europe. England was no exception to that rule, and with the establishment of the Royal Academy in 1768, society began further to appreciate the virtue of art and its practical utility. As noted by Loggie (2011), the appreciation of design and craftsmanship was no longer only enjoyed by the select elite but further propagated into what would be considered the middle-class (Gould, 1970, Tungate, 2020). The industrial revolution stimulated a greater appreciation for design and its practical implication to ordinary things, such as coinage. With design at the forefront of modern society, it was all the more critical that Boulton remain updated on the changing tastes of fashion and public opinion (Robinson, 1963, Tungate, 2020). This is all the more apparent when considering the medals and tokens of the French revolution. English public opinion was at first favorable of the French Revolution. However, as the events unfolded, public opinion changed drastically, and anyone still promoting the ideals of the French Revolution was likely to be harshly dismissed. Boulton had a contract to strike token coinage for the Monneron Brothers in 1791, which depicted several allegorical renditions of liberty in line with the ideals of the French Revolution (Margolis, 1988). In the changing tide of public opinion, these pieces had the potential to damage Boulton's reputation, and his response is apparent in the design and inscriptions of the medals he produced in 1793, depicting notable events of the French revolution (please see the Louis XVI Final Farewell medal for more details). This is only one of many examples in which Boulton's designs were altered to further align with public opinion and the ever-changing tastes of popular society.

Although events that unfolded on the international stage, such as the French revolution, are easily highlighted as influential in design, Boulton's dedication was far more profound. In the years leading up to the construction of the Soho Mint, Boulton became a renowned manufacturer of tasteful items, but in the process, he also became a consumer of similar goods (Robinson, 1963, Loggie, 2011). Boulton often requested that his connections across Europe send him items that were most popular in their region, which in turn kept him up to date on modern tastes (Robinson, 1963). He realized the importance of understanding who was likely to purchase his goods and directly catered to that audience's tastes. Again, the medals depicting the French Revolution are excellent examples of this, as the primary consumer of these pieces were English collectors. Boulton also became an avid consumer of relevant publications and, upon his death, had amassed a rather extensive library on the topics of art and design (Robinson, 1963; Loggie, 2011). There are numerous accounts of him pursuing these publications at length to understand better the nuances of regional differences in taste and design. He was also an avid accumulator of medals as he purchased entire collections of the works of several prominent artists such as Hedlinger and Andrieu (Gould, 1970). The term accumulator is carefully chosen as Boulton made it clear that he was not a collector in a letter dated February 5th, 1803.

"do not want to make a collection for the purposes of the historian or the antiquarian, nor to purchase Farthings at the expence of several Guineas, as I am not seized with the mania of a mere collector or antiquarian"

Although he detested being classified as a collector, as evidenced by the letter quoted above, he managed to amass an extensive collection of medals, tokens, and coins. In addition to these being study tools for his use, there is a good bit of contemporary evidence to suggest that he often loaned these pieces to his engravers to help perfect their craft (Gould, 1970; Pollard 1968; 1970). His sizeable social network also afforded him the opportunity to borrow items for study from some of the finest collections in the world, including those of royal and aristocrat families, which was all the more critical considering his rocky financial standing during the early years of the Soho mint. These practices became so extensive that Boulton essentially set up a museum within his home, where he could be free to study and interact with numerous priceless items at his leisure (Robinson, 1963, Loggie, 2011). Of course, he used this to his advantage when entertaining powerful and influential guests, which only further bolstered his reputation. As I mentioned before, Boulton was a shrewd businessman, and almost everything he did was to better perfect his craft. His dedication to quality and design were no exception.
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE MEDAL
Through his studies, Boulton established a few basic principles of design that he employed throughout all of his business endeavors, including the production of medals. Contemporary society still valued classical art, but modern approaches were just as honored, and often the most popular pieces flirted the line between the two (Robinson, 1963, Loggie, 2011, Tungate, 2020). In general, Boulton aimed to accommodate both facets but did so by designing pieces that were simplistically elegant. His opinion is very well stated in a letter dated May 29th, 1794 to Charles Steven, "whether it be French, Roman, Athenian, Egyptian, Arabask, Etruscan or any other, simplicity of device is the greatest beauty of Money or medals". Boulton never sought to create overly elaborate designs as he thought doing so would detract from the main point of the piece. Gould (1970) argued that Boulton's reliance upon simple allegorical figures was a lesson learned from the art depicted on ancient coinage. Adopting simple yet elegant allegorical figures allowed for their reuse later with slight adjustments, which could reduce the overall cost of producing the dies needed to strike new items. Reusing old designs is well documented in the articles produced at the Soho mint, especially the coinage. Boulton's thoughts on allegorical figures are summarized in his letter to Droz dated December 12th, 1787, "Any allegorical figures should be few and simple and as free as possible from obscurity". This simplicity of design is well demonstrated on the numerous agricultural medals produced at the Soho Mint, including the (1793) Board of Agriculture medal and the 1789 medal commemorating the restoration of the King's health, both of which are depicted within this collection. Of course, customers suggested some designs that did not entirely adhere to the simplistic elegance Boulton strived to achieve. One such example is that of Davisson's Nile Medal. The design was sent to Boulton and the commissioner of the piece, Alexander Davisson, had a considerable say in the ultimate design (Pollard, 1970). In his 1970 publication, Pollard goes into detail about the numerous design changes requested by Davisson. In other instances, the final design of a medal was not unduly influenced by the customer but still violated Boulton's simple but elegant principle. Perhaps the best example of which is the medal commemorating the death of Gustavus III, the King of Sweden. Although the obverse design is in line with most other Soho medals, the reverse is rather intricate.

As the collecting of Soho wares became a fashionable symbol of social status, Boulton did his best to seize the opportunity (Doty, 1998; Tungate, 2020). By 1793 the Soho Mint was selling special proof sets of their products to collectors, including notable people such as King George III, Joseph & Sophia Banks, Richard Chippindall, Samuel Birchall, and Charles Pye, to name a few (Tungate, 2020). The production of these pieces had entered a new era, and Boulton was very keen on its possibilities. The production of these sets allowed Boulton to charge twelve times the normal rate for standard pieces, which generated more profit and required less work to do so. It appears Boulton applied the same logic to medals as he began marketing them in a host of different metals (e.g., gold, silver, copper, bronzed copper, gilt copper, tin, and white metal). Doing so allowed Boulton to appease the tastes of the upper echelons of society while also capturing the business of the middle class. In other words, Boulton was marketing himself as a one-stop-shop for all, which is a lesson he learned from the toy trade over the last three decades (Robinson, 1963). With the increased consumption of his goods, it became even more important that design and fashion remain at the forefront of his endeavors. It was imperative that he get the design of each piece just right, otherwise, he may face almost immediate criticism by the very people he hoped to influence. Hoping to make good impressions, Boulton realized the necessity of quality in terms of design and practical execution. The issue, however, was that Boulton would continue to struggle to secure talented engravers to carry out those designs well into the height of the Soho Mints popularity. Being the ingenious businessman that he was, he soon devised a way to overcome this obstacle while still balancing the demands of his precarious financial situation.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Promoting good practices in the science and art of medal making

From contemporary documents, it is abundantly clear that Boulton realized the importance of design. Robinson (1963) noted that the ability to incorporate tasteful designs without unduly influencing the cost or utility of items was all the rage in society, and Boulton set his sights on achieving this very early on. One would need to look no further than his efforts in the toy trade, where he produced some of the most elegant and yet affordable trinkets at the time (e.g., buttons, buckles, ormolu, etc.). As noted above, the study of art and design propagated well beyond the social elite, and now an entirely new class of connoisseurs found themselves delighting in its consumption. This brought about a change in the conceptualization of design. Consumers began to separate the design into two distinct categories, art, and craftsmanship. As Loggie (2011) argued, art referred to the conception of a basic design while craftsmanship referred to the execution of the design into tangible artifacts. This reconceptualization gave rise to the rampant acceptance of drawing as a critical component essential to design. It allowed for a practical way to train craftsmen to execute designs. Within this social climate, those who supported these efforts were often held in very high esteem.

Boulton was among the many who endeavored to cultivate the arts in England. He undoubtedly did so to build his reputation, but it also stands to reason that doing so was an attempt to solve an issue that plagued the Soho Manufactory, and later the Soho Mint, a lack of talented engravers. All of Boulton's studying on design and the craft of its execution culminated by 1803 with the development of a set of step-wise procedures (Tungate, 2020).

"The first thing to be done is to express a good design in Words; the 2d is to make a good drawing of the Idea; the 3d is to make a correct model in wax w[hich] may be altered to ye taste of the committee; & the 4th is to engrave it in a steel die at Soho & lastly to strike ye medal in gold, silver, or copper in my improved press. "

STAFFORDSHIRE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY TRIAL STRIKE
Boulton’s instructions are drastically simplified to appeal to the ease with which his Soho Mint produced items, but in reality, there were several intermediary steps to take. For instance, once the main design was engraved in steel, the dies would typically be tested through a series of trial strikes. Remnants of these efforts are rare but still exist for collectors to enjoy today. The trial strike of the Staffordshire Agricultural Society medal pictured to the left is an excellent example. In this case, the trial strike included the main design but omitted other important details found on the actual medal (e.g., the laurel wreath is in her hand, the legend, and the engraver's initials). Although the third, fourth, and intermediary steps discussed above seem to have been standard practice at the time, the first and second are worthy of further discussion. The first step dictates the need to express a good design in words before any drawing or modeling begins. This step often seems to have been absent among his contemporaries and is something that Boulton likely drew upon as a way to insert his influence on the design of a medal before any real work began. This makes sense given the relatively high stakes involved, both from the potential of social rejection and the delicate balance of his finances. This extra step also afforded yet another layer of practice to help his designers improve their skills. Making a good drawing of the idea is at the core of the practices instilled very early on at the Soho Manufactory and later at the Soho Mint. As noted by Loggie (2011), drawing was seen as a core component of executing tasteful designs, but unlike creating the actual designs, it was thought that any motivated and reasonably skilled person could be trained in the mechanical art of drawing. The idea being that teaching someone how to draw would translate into better skills at executing the designs provided, and thus completing the circle applying the genius of design with the practical utility of everyday items (Loggie, 2011; Tungate, 2020). Boulton appears to have endorsed this idea early on as he eventually set up an industrial design school at the Soho Manufactory, employing as he described "young countrymen of ability" to draw. These young men were often retained under contract for multiple years with the hope of exploiting their progress in the form of new designs for the numerous wares he produced (Loggie, 2011). From this contemporary document, we learn that it was not uncommon for Boulton to send his best students to events such as operas on his dime in hopes of further cultivating their talents. The goal as described by Boulton was to "establish a school of designers who should give to the Soho Factory an artistic style and finish not obtainable elsewhere". Boulton's vision was simple in nature but difficult to assemble, especially in the early days of the Soho mint when money was scarce.

Boulton's industrial design school was a success by most standards, as some of the most notable die engravers in English history were apprenticed under his direction at one point or another (Tungate, 2020). At least three members of the Wyon family trained at Soho, including Peter, the father of William Wyon, who would go on to engrave the Una Lion design that has been so prevalent in recent auctions. Other notable engravers include John Gregory Handcock, Edward Thomason, and Thomas Halliday, and John Phillps. More specific to the Soho Mint, Boulton had applied the principles of his industrial design school to setup a network of apprenticeships for promising young boys and girls. More often, these apprentices came from low-income backgrounds and Boulton took care to provide them housing, food, and a small stipend for their work at Soho. Doing so was often very costly, but it typically produced into loyal and skilled employees which were highly valued by Boulton. An excellent example of this is John Phillp, who eventually become the assistant designer at the Soho Mint (Tungate, 2013).

Although Boulton was indeed a gifted technical drawer, as evident in his numerous sketches, he was far removed from providing the needed instruction to his students. After all, Boulton was neither an artist nor an engraver. Luckily for him, he had a vast network of very talented artists to assist in his efforts. These individuals would serve as consultants to his students and, on numerous occasions, served as a source of guidance on the coins, tokens, and medals produced at the Soho mint. This was especially true when the subject of the medal was particularity sensitive, as was often the case when depicting a reigning monarch on a medal. For instance, when designing the medal commemorating the marriage of the Prince of Wales, Küchler was instructed to consult none other than the official painter to the prince, Richard Cosway (Pollard, 1970; Tungate, 2020). Another notable consultant that helped Boulton with a number of projects was, Benjamin West, the President of the Royal Academy. These consultants undoubtedly played a large part in helping the Soho Mint create the numerous pieces of medallic art that are still celebrated over two centuries later by modern collectors. Eventually, both now and then, the Soho Mint would become synonymous with high-quality medals of the utmost taste both in terms of execution and design. This reputation is undoubtedly the byproduct of Boulton's efforts to cultivate gifted designers and craftsman at Soho.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Notable engravers

In the process of establishing the Soho mint and building the immaculate reputation that it eventually enjoyed, Matthew Boulton would go on to employ some of the most talented engravers of the era. Although this section is far from exhaustive, the goal is to briefly introduce the engravers who had the most influence on the Soho Mint. To do so, I have compiled a list using the work of Tungate (2020) as a reference to identify the engravers who were most prolific or contextually important. It should be no surprise that Jean-Pierre Droz and Conrad Heinrich Küchler are at the very top of the list. It can often be difficult to fully understand the scope of their influence as, over the years, many pieces were considered but not produced. As such, this section only focuses on the medals that were actually struck the Soho Mint. I will do my best to refrain from discussing any influence upon token or coin designs with the hope of incorporating that information elsewhere at a later date. Some of the information contained here, as it relates to both Droz and Küchler, is repeated in my other registry set titled "What comes next? You've been freed. Do you know how hard it is to lead?", but a good bit of new information is also presented. The information about Rambert Dumarest, Noel-Alexandre Ponthon, and John Phillp is entirely new. Although the medals are rather impressive, I have decided to forgo any discussion of them here to provide more detailed information in the listing for each piece.

Jean-Pierre Droz

As already noted, the early years of the Soho Mint were fraught with difficulties. Beyond the technical constraints, Boulton had a severe issue recruiting talented engravers. At first glance, Droz seemed to have the solution to several of the issues. By most accounts, Droz was a very talented engraver, but he also possessed a solid technical savviness that further impressed Boulton. The two first met in December of 1798 when Boulton, Watt, and Thomas Jefferson visited Droz in Paris to see a demonstration of his latest invention (Pollard, 1968; Doty, 1998). While demonstrating his new technique, Droz argued that he had made significant improvements to the presses and the process of multiplying dies. Boulton being deeply involved with the button trade and his experiences with the Sumatra coinage produced earlier made him keenly aware of the difficulty of producing a sufficient number of dies to complete a large contract. It seems likely that Boulton viewed Droz as a solution to his technical issues (e.g., the multiplication of dies and the improvement of presses) and the issue of not having a reliable and talented engraver in his employ. The production of coins and medals differed from the button trade or even the Sumatra coinage because Boulton found himself without an engraver skilled enough to engrave a head upon a die. Doing so would be vital should he ever hope to secure a regal coinage contract with England.

1789 GEORGE III RESTORED TO HEALTH MEDAL
Boulton, seemingly swept off his feet by the perceived abilities of Droz, offered him a position at the Soho Mint with a generous salary and the option to live rent and tax-free at Soho House (Pollard, 1968). In return, Droz had to produce dies for coins, tokens, and medals as needed and provide modeled designs for his improved coinage press (i.e., the sexpartite collar and the ejecting mechanism). As history would soon reveal, Boulton would ultimately be estranged from Droz, whom he at one point considered a friend. By June of 1790, the relationship between the two had deteriorated to the point that arbitration was required to settle their affairs. This led to a contract between the two signed in November of 1790 (Doty, 1998), which dictated several duties Droz must execute over two years. The new terms required Droz to complete the master dies for the pattern pieces, train workers to engrave the collar pieces, and produce the die-cutting lathe. Not surprisingly, he failed to complete any of these tasks (Pollard, 1968). After arbitration, Droz was eventually dismissed, marking the departure of one of Soho's most prominent villains. At a time so critical for Boulton's finances, the Droz mistake ended up costing him over £3000 with very little to show for it, which according to the Bank of England's inflation calculator equates to £462,560 ($630,936) today.

Although Droz's involvement would continue to be a source of agitation for Boulton for many years, some good did come out of it. Had Boulton secured a coinage contract with the English government at the onset of his involvement with Droz, it would have undoubtedly spelled disaster. As detailed in my other custom set, the Soho Mint was not prepared to strike any large coins with any quantity. The Monneron contract was difficult enough, which would pale in comparison to the giant twopence pieces that would be stuck in 1797. Although nothing more than a coincidence, as neither Boulton nor Droz were able to predict the future, in hindsight, the delays imparted by Droz may have ultimately saved the Soho Mint and Matthew Boulton from complete ruin. Modern researchers can appreciate this fact now, but I am sure Matthew Boulton viewed things through a very different lens. From a practical, contemporary standpoint, Droz produced several dies and subsequent specimens of his pattern halfpenny pieces, which Boulton used as advertisements to further his lobbying efforts (albeit this work hardly justified the expense). Of the five proposed medals, only two were produced, one of which cannot be conclusively determined to have been struck the Soho Mint. The arbitration process had resulted in Droz making copies of the molds produced during his tenure as the Soho Mint for his own use, one of which was the design for the George Agustus Eliott Medal commemorating the defense of Gibraltar. According to Pollard (1968), these medals appear to have been struck between 1816 and 1820, corresponding to a period well after Droz had departed Soho. As such, there is only one medal produced at Soho for which Droz deserves any credit – the 1789 medal produced to mark the King's restoration to health. More information about this medal can be found by viewing the individual item listing within this set.

There is little sense in disputing the artistic merits of Droz. From both contemporary and modern accounts, he is seen as one of the most gifted engravers of his time, but his tenure at the Soho Mint was marred by misfortune. We may never truly know the extent of the issues between Boulton and Droz, but as Pollard (1968) argued, his time at Soho was a dark stain on an otherwise prosperous career. Regardless of the events that transpired, modern collectors have a series of interesting coins, tokens, and at least one medal to pursue, thanks to the relationship between Boulton and Droz.

Rambert Dumarest

Although, in my opinion, the work of Dumarest is on par with that of Droz or Küchler, he has yet to garner the same level of attention and thus not nearly as much information about him is readily available. According to Forrer (1904), he was born in Saint-Êtienne in September of 1760 (it is worth noting that the source reports 1860, which is invariably a typo as he passed away in April of 1806). As a gifted engraver, he quickly found work at the Manufacture d'armes de Saint- Êtienne, engraving sword hilts, among other articles. In desperate need of a talented engraver, Boulton initially offered Dumarest a position at Soho during the arbitration process with Droz. Remember, Boulton was in a constant state of anticipation that a large government coinage contract would be granted. With the removal of Droz, he was left without a single talented engraver. According to Doty (1998), Dumarest did not immediately respond, which was in part a deciding factor that led Boulton to extend a new contract to Droz for an additional two years. Dumarest eventually accepted Boulton's offer and arrived at Soho on August 8th, 1790, which by coincidence was the day marked to celebrate Matthew Robinson Boulton's twenty-first birthday (Margolis, 1988). A complete account of this event is detailed in a newspaper clipping found just below the illustration of Matthew Boulton at the beginning of this set.
1791 JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU
Dumarest was a prolific engraver at the Soho Mint but is only credited with producing four medals during his tenure. Of those four, only two of which can indeed be considered his own, both were struck by order of the Monneron brothers for sale in France. Of course, these two pieces were the medals depicting Marquis de Lafayette and Jean Jacques Rousseau, and both struck in 1792. An example of each is contained within this set that were once part of the Boulton family collection. The Rousseau piece (pictured above) has retained its original silver-lined brass shells. The reverse of the Peace of Amiens and Boulton's Medallic Scale medal are often attributed to him, but it appears some debate remains on the validity of these claims. As such, only two medals can truly be attributed to him without controversy. However, it is worth noting that Noel-Alexandre Ponthon engraved the reverse of both the Lafayette and Rousseau medals. Most of the work completed by Dumarest can be found on the numerous tokens struck at the Soho Mint, such as the infamous Glasgow Halfpenny token depicting Clay, the river god. Despite being a very talented engraver, Dumarest evidently lacked confidence in his ability, which was partially driven by his perfectionist disposition (Doty, 1998). I am sure the chaotic nature of the early days at the Soho Mint did little to calm his already heightened nerves. Dumarest eventually grew tired of England and returned to Paris in the Spring of 1791. Although his tenure at Soho was very short, his employment was rather lucrative for him as he was paid at least £137 for the work he completed (Tungate, 2013). He would go on to be a celebrated craftsman of fine jewelry and won the grand prize in the 1795 medal competition for his depiction of Rousseau on the medal struck at the Soho Mint. His status would be elevated further in 1800 when he was elected a member of the National Institute of Science and the Arts. Although his tenure at the Soho Mint was relatively short, he produced numerous celebrated medals and tokens. One cannot help but wonder what he might have accomplished had he stayed under the employ of Boulton.

Noel-Alexandre Ponthon

With Dumarest growing homesick it became clear that would need to find a replacement and quick. So far, Boulton had already employed two French engravers so it should not be terribly surprising that he would seek a third. Boulton’s Paris agent, Dr. Swediaur, highly recommended and subsequently hired on behalf of Boulton a very talented engraver in his mid-20s named Noel-Alexandre Ponthon (Margolis, 1988). This arrangement was first settled on June 16th, with the intention that Ponthon would begin work at the Soho Mint in July, but he was delayed several weeks and did not arrive in Birmingham until August (Doty). This delayed necessitated the prolonged employment of Dumarest, who by all accounts seems to have been absolutely miserable having to endure the bleak prospects of a life in England. As we know, Dumarest would come out no worse for the ware Ponthon would take over his responsibilities with seamless perfection. His terms of employment provided him with an annual salary of £80 with the expectation that he would engrave dies for coins, tokens, and medals for the Soho Mint. As was often the case, Ponthon also did engraving work others while in Birmingham to further supplement his income. Like his predecessor, Ponthon’s most notable work appears on several very popular coins and tokens. For instance, he engraved the reverse designs for the 1794 Madras coinage, and the 1793 Leeds Halfpenny Token, and the 1794 Daniel Eccleston Halfpenny Token, and reverse of the 1793 Bermuda Penny. As already noted, he engraved the reverse dies for the Rousseau and Lafayette medals struck in 1791, as well as the reverse dies for two Frogmore medals struck in 1795, one celebrating Queen Charlotte’s birthday, and the other denoting the visit of the Prince of Wales to Frogmore. Like his other French counterparts that came before him, Ponthon’s employment at the Soho Mint was relatively short. He would eventually leave the Soho Mint in September of 1795, but luckily for Boulton by this time he had already secured the employment the most prevalent engraver to work at the Soho Mint, Conrad Heinrich Küchler (Doty, 1998).

John Phillp

As one of the more distinguished graduates of Boulton's apprentice program, Phillp would go on to engrave many dies at the Soho Mint. By the midsummer of 1800, his seven-year apprenticeship came to an end, and he quickly found work in London while also continuing to fulfill requests made by Boulton. Having arrived in the early part of 1793, John Phillp's tenure at Soho closely overlapped with that of Conrad Heinrich Küchler (Doty, 1998; Tungate, 2013). It appears the two worked very closely on several projects, one of which indicates that Küchler might not have been particularly fond of Phillp. Nonetheless, Phillp was a talented engraver, and Boulton thought enough of his talents to retain him at Soho as the assistant designer under Küchler. This became particularly useful as Küchler become increasingly busy with the eventual success of the Soho Mint, and as he continued to age and his work speed began to slow. Phillps would go on to take over an increasing number of Küchler's projects.

GOLD WESTMINSTER FIRE OFFICE MEDAL
Learning from his prior mistakes with Droz, a contract was established between Boulton and Phillp. We know that he was compensated £48 annually but often received other payments for extra work that Boulton considered above and beyond his normal obligations (Tungate, 2013). From the 1850 catalog sale of the Soho Mint it is clear that Phillp was considered one of the best engravers employed by Boulton. The front cover of the auction catalog lists for sale a series of dies for both coins and medals that were "most beautifully executed, principally by the celebrated Küchler, and by Droz and Phillp”. His place in Soho history is well ingrained due to his merits as an artist, but unfortunately, his name is also tied to a conspiracy that seems to have developed over a century after his death. Dickinson (1936) suggests without further evidence that Phillp is the illegitimate child of Boulton, which is a rumor that is seemingly still alive today. Doty (1998) noted that there is no evidence, either contemporary or modern, to suggest this is the case. Although the two men do coincidently look similar, that is hardly enough to support the claims made by Dickinson. Furthermore, this claim directly contradicts the profile of Boulton provided by his contemporaries and reiterated by Dickinson. If it were true, Boulton's indiscretion would have undoubtedly been seen as a stain on his impeccable reputation as the "Princely Boulton" so aptly described by Dickinson. As such, it seems highly unlikely that there is any truth to the controversy, but nonetheless, it adds a layer of mystery for those interested. It is also worth noting that his name, although correctly spelled Phillp is erroneously reported as Phillip, Phillips, and Philips throughout several publications. I admit that the spelling was a point of confusion for me as well until I was able to view contemporary documentation. This fact is further complicated by the numerous signatures he used to denote his work, I.P., ? · ?, and PHILLPS are the most notable (Forrer, 1909). During his employment at the Soho Mint, he engraved dies for a total of six medals. The Westminster Fire office, Hafod Friendly Society, and the St. Albans Female Friendly Society medals are completely his original work. He also collaborated with both Küchler and Pidgeon on several medals, tokens, and coins.

Conrad Heinrich Küchler

The majority of the information I will present in this section can be traced back to Pollard (1970). In his article, Pollard reproduced a fair amount of the correspondence between Boulton and Küchler, and it is this material that has proven so invaluable to the topic at hand. Küchler's role in Soho history began in the early part of 1793, and during his 17-year career under the employment of Boulton, he produced a total of 33 medals. In a letter dated March 13th, 1793, Boulton sets the terms of Küchler's employment, which provides a glimpse into how Boulton approached the medal business. In this letter, Boulton gives Küchler the option of being paid per die produced or an even portion of the profit gained from the sale of each medal Küchler engraved. Küchler agreed to the former, and he remained in London for two more years, engraving several dies for Boulton. How Küchler is compensated highlights Boulton's early disregard for producing medals relative to his efforts to gain coinage contracts. Although his offer to Küchler is generous, it pales compared to the concessions Boulton made to bring Droz on board. It nearly seems as if Boulton secured the help of Küchler for no other reason than to have a second skilled engraver should anything happen to Ponthon.

It seems so uncharacteristic of the overly ambitious Matthew Boulton to essentially look down on the opportunity to produce yet another exceptional Soho product, but as modern enthusiasts, we already know why. As a recap, Boulton had endured great expense to build his Mint, pay his employees (think of all the money he spent appeasing Droz), and secure material for an English coinage contract that he was convinced was right around the corner. Boulton felt the financial weight of operating a mint that was yet to produce a coinage contract that allowed him to recoup the money he invested (Selgin, 2003). This could, in part, explain the terms Boulton offered to Küchler. Both options would ensure that Küchler had to produce something to get paid, which is a painful lesson he learned from Droz. The second option would have further reduced Boulton's financial burden by offsetting both men's initial production costs. Either way, the options presented to Küchler were likely due to Boulton's financial hardships at the time. The excerpts from the archived correspondence between Küchler and Boulton provided by Pollard (1970) support this notion. In the summer of 1795, Küchler moved to Birmingham and continued to work for Boulton while still petitioning for the money owed to him. This seems to escalate in a letter by Küchler dated January 21st, 1796, which details his work and the amount he has been paid. On this date, Küchler had completed over £250 worth of work but had barely received over £130 in compensation. The debt was eventually addressed, but it appears this was a reoccurring pattern that eventually changed how Küchler was compensated for his work.
1800 GEORGE III PRESERVED FROM ASSASSINATION

Shortly after, the terms of Küchler's employment were slightly altered in a way that seems to benefit both parties mutually. According to Pollard (1970), the new terms still afforded Küchler payment for each die he engraved, but they also provided a portion of the profits from selling specific medals. These terms, of course, came with some caveats. First, it distinguished between medals that were commissioned to be struck by but not sold by the Soho Mint (i.e., private accounts) and medals that were struck and subsequently sold by the Soho Mint (i.e., joint accounts). Under the new terms, Küchler would be compensated for the dies he produced for both classifications, but he would also be granted a portion of the profits for the latter category. Second, the portion of profits was not guaranteed until the total expense of production was paid for. Under the new terms, Küchler could end up owing Boulton money if the sales for the joint accounts were lackluster. The excerpt provided by Pollard (1970) provides a contemporary example of how this would work. This is an important fact to note because it underscores Boulton's desire to protect himself, the Soho Mint, and Küchler.

Although Boulton was a generous man, he was also in the business to make money (no pun intended), so it makes sense that he would want to protect himself as much as possible. The new terms afforded him to do so but also allowed him to remain generous with Küchler should their work be successful. The new terms suggest that perhaps the business of striking and selling medals was not as lucrative as Boulton would have liked. There is evidence to suggest that this may be the case, as many medals were in surplus at the Soho Mint up until its final demise in 1850. Over 300 medals appeared in the 1850 sale alone2, and at least another couple hundred were sold in 1912 from the Matthew Piers Watt Boulton collection. This, of course, also does not include the numerous pieces that were part of the James Watt Jr. Collection or the Boulton family holdings (independent of the M. P. W. Boulton collection). All of this suggests, generally speaking, that there was no shortage of supply when it came to several of the medals produced. This is even more obvious when considering that some of these medals come up for sale very frequently. For example, the 1793 Execution of Louis XVI "final farewell" medal has had over a dozen auction appearances this year alone. This is notable because it was the first medal that Küchler produced for the Soho Mint (Pollard, 1970). The fact that Küchler renegotiated his terms of employment to a salaried position after a brief leave of absence in 1802 further suggests that the business of producing medals was not the most lucrative. Despite not generating the large sums of money needed, the medals did provide experience for Boulton's workers and, as already discussed, played a pivotal role in the eventual success of the Soho Mint.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Conclusion

The fact that the medals produced at the Soho Mint played an essential part in its history and, to some extent, its success is undeniable. From a practical standpoint, the medals generated much-needed profit for an otherwise cash-strapped operation and provided much-needed experience for the employees of the Soho Mint. In addition, producing medals provided opportunities to further Boulton's efforts to recruit talented engravers and justified the continued employment of skilled laborers at the Soho Mint in times of stagnation. From a social-political standpoint, the medals served as an advertisement that was most likely to be consumed by the very people who had the power and influence to win the favor of the privy council. For example, from contemporary accounts, we know that the medal celebrating the King's recovery engraved by Droz left a lasting impression on those who acquired it, many of which were Lords of the committee on coin. It stands to reason that this strong impression helped keep other competitors at bay, which increased Boulton's chances of securing a contract to strike regal copper coinage. Beyond these factors, I imagine the craftsmanship so boldly displayed on these pieces served to bolster Matthew Boulton's reputation of providing nothing short of the best (Tungate, 2010). Boulton's reputation built over decades in the toy trade seems to have been even further elevated by his development and subsequent devotion to the Soho Mint. In my opinion, this point is best summarized in the September 5th edition of The Penny Magazine published in 1835. One of the main articles details the development of Soho, the area about two miles outside of Birmingham from a hearth of empty land to a bustling industrial center. Only a tiny portion of the article details the Soho Mint, but it provides a very brief holistic view of Matthew Boulton and all of the business endeavors he engaged with. In summary of these facets, the author provided the following as their conclusion:

"It would be doing injustice to this great theatre of practical art, and to the able and large-minded man by whom its glory is owing, if we separately considered the various improvements which have issued from thence, or regarded only their personal effects as to Mr. Boulton and his partners. Soho, although a nominally private concern, has, in point of fact, been an establishment of the very highest national importance; and this not only in its large operation upon the commercial interests of the nation, in extending the power of man, and in enlarging the comforts and conveniences of life, but also in improving, in a degree beyond calculation, the public mind by encouragement it has given to artists of all descriptions, and still more by the healthy rivalry and competition in skill which is kept continually in exercise."

Matthew Boulton, and by extension, the Soho Mint, left a lasting impact that appealed to almost all facets of contemporary society. Forgoing any discussion of the coinage, the production of medals helped facilitate the encouragement of practical art, which was at the height of popular culture at the time. Although not immediately apparent, the societal climate of the time was ripe with a push towards English independence from imports, mainly that of France, which had long been considered the world's design capital (Loggie, 2011). The efforts on behalf of Boulton to encourage better design both at the Soho Mint and the Soho Foundry at large could in some form be considered a patriotic act. No matter how you choose to look at it, the fact that the medals played an integral part in the history of the Soho Mint is undeniable.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Footnotes

1. It is worth noting that medals were not the only items used to keep engravers busy during the early period of the Soho Mint, as several tokens were also struck.

2. Decent quantities of medals were struck just prior to the auction in order to offer mostly complete collections of Soho medals. There is no clear distinction made in the auction catalog between early and late striking (Vice, 1995)

References


Cule, J. E. (1935). The Financial History of Matthew Boulton 1759-1800. (Master's Thesis). Retrieved from University of Birmingham Research Archive.

Doty, R. (1998). The Soho Mint and the Industrialisation of Money. London: National Museum of American History Smithsonian Institution.

Frey A. R., & Salton M. M. (1973). Dictionary of Numismatic Names with Glossary of Numismatic Terms. London: Spink & Sons Ltd. And Organisation of International Numismatists.

Forrer L. (1904) Biographical Dictionary of Medallists (Vol. 1). London: Spink & Sons Ltd.

Forrer L. (1909) Biographical Dictionary of Medallists (Vol. 4). London: Spink & Sons Ltd.

Gould, B (1970). Mottoes and Some Designs for Boulton's Medals. Seaby's Coin & Medal Bulletin, November, 396-402.

Jones, M. (1989). Medals of the French Revolution. The Royal Society of Arts Journal, 137(5398), 640-646.

Robinson, E. (1963). Eighteenth-century commerce and fashion: Matthew Boulton's marketing techniques. The Economic History Review, 16(1), 39-60.

Loggie, V. A. (2011). Soho Depicted: Prints, Drawings and Watercolours of Matthew Boulton, His Manufactory and Estate, 1760-1809 (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I.

Margolis, R. (1988). Matthew Boulton' s French ventures of 1791 and 1792; tokens for the Monneron Frères of Paris and Isle de France. British Numismatic Journal, 58, 102-112.

Mason, S. (2009). Matthew Boulton selling all the world desires. London and New Haven: Yale University Press.

Pollard, J. G. (1970). Matthew Boulton and Conrad Heinrich Küchler. The Numismatic Chronicle, 10, 259-318.

Pollard, J. G. (1968). Matthew Boulton and J.-P. Droz. The Numismatic Chronicle, 8, 241-265.

Tungate, S. (2013). Workers at the Soho Mint (1788-1809). In K. Quickenden, S. Baggott, and M. Dick (Eds.), Matthew Boulton (pp. 179-197). Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Vice, D. (1995). A fresh insight into Soho Mint restrikes & those responsible for their manufacture. Format Coins, Birmingham, 3-14.

Set Goals
This set is a tribute to my friend, Bill McKivor, who recently passed away. Although we only knew each other for a relatively short time, Bill quickly became one of my favorite people. He is the sole reason I ended up collecting the medals of the Soho Mint, and as such, it seems fitting that his memory lives on in my collection. Bill had an eye for exceptional quality, and although he handled most of the Boulton Family collection, the medals held a special place in his heart. I, too, have developed a keen fondness for the Soho medals, and so far, I have been successful in locating many examples paired with silver-lined brass shells. Several of them once resided in either the Boulton family or the James Watt Jr. collections. This set aims to build a top-notch collection of Soho medals, emphasizing the ones Bill held in such high regard. The pieces that comprise this collection have been carefully selected. When appropriate, I have included the relevant provenance for each piece and the historical significance of the event or person depicted on the medal.

As of April of 2024, I have over three dozen additional medals to add to this set. Some are already graded, but the bulk of them are raw. Once I have more time and funds these pieces will be graded and slowly added to the set as I take the time to enjoy their relative history.

Slot Name
Origin/Country
Item Description
Full Grade
Owner Comments
Pics
View Coin 1791 France New Constitution "Serment Du Roi" Medal (Maz-244)- (Lettered Edge) FRANCE - ESSAIS BRONZE 1791-DATED MAZ-244 NEW CONSTITUTION NGC MS 64 BN PL 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 unaltered 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 conjunction 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.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

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 J.ES GME 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 DU 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.
View Coin 1791 France New Constitution "Serment Du Roi" Medal (Maz-248)- (Lettered Edge) FRANCE - MEDALS BRONZE 1791-DATED MAZ-244 NEW CONSTITUTION NGC MS 64 BN The “Serment Du Rois ‘Je Jure’ medals present an interesting point of contention between the established standard reference (i.e., Mazard) and examples that appear on the market. For instance, the entry immediately before this medal is a nearly exact example which is properly attributed as Maz-244. The presence of the engraver's initials “D. F.” on the lowest panel of the column paired with the lettered edge makes the attribution undeniably easy to confirm. Unfortunately, the current piece is not as straightforward. A close examination of the pictures confirms that the engraver’s initials are missing, which would indicate that Maz-248 would be the proper attribution; however, Mazard (1960) notes that Maz-248 is only known with a plain edge. The current piece has the same edge lettering as the Maz-244. Mazard (1960) does not list any other varieties that conform to this combination of characteristics. The lack of the engraver’s initials makes for a clear distinction between varieties, but the discrepancy with the edge lettering leaves much to be desired. To this end, we can only make one of two possible conclusions. Mazrd made an error and Maz-248 is supposed to have a letter edge, or the current example is an entirely different hybrid variety that was not recorded by Mazard (1960). The former seems more plausible, as I have been unable to locate a plain edge example that conforms to the specifications of Maz-248, but have amassed several examples that share the same characteristics of the current piece.

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 unaltered 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 conjunction with the write-ups for other relevant medals in this set. The information below is meant to build upon the information found in the entry immediately before this medal (i.e., the Maz-244 with the lettered edge). ________________________________________________________________________________________________

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. do not 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. It is worth noting that the “1” of the date is almost entirely obliterated by die rust. Only the upper limb is visible.

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 familiar, as it is a loose replication of the words from the King’s letter accepting the Constitution. A large patch of die rust appears to the left of “POUR” in the central reverse legend. The inner ring is incomplete in multiple places – this is likely due to overpolishing of the dies.

Edge: SE. VEND. A. PARIS. CHEZ. MONNERON (PATENTE)

Size: 35mm

Notes: The proper attribution of this medal is further complicated by the fact that the Maz-248 is classified by Mazard (1960) as very rare (R3). Although I have examined dozens of these medals it is possible that a plain edge Maz-248 exists, which would effectively rule out the possibility of a typo in the standard reference. If this is the case, the current medal would be a new previously unrecorded variety that somehow escaped the attention of Mazard. I previously noted, Tungate (2020) records only 612 were struck across all metals and varieties. Examples of Maz-244 are very common and likely make up the vast majority of the 612 purportedly minted. The presence of die rust on the obverse and reverse of the current example is very interesting as it suggests that it may have been struck at a later date after the dies were improperly stored. Oddly, this die rust is not present on the other two examples of this type (i.e., the hybrids between Maz-244 and Maz-248). On any note, these medals provide an intriguing new area of ongoing study.

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.
View Coin 1791 France Marquis De Lafayette Medal Bronze Ex. Boulton (Plain Edge) FRANCE- MEDALS BRONZE 1791-DATED FRANCE MARQUIS DE LAFAYETTE DUMAREST - (35mm) Ex. Boulton NGC MS 63 BN 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/
View Coin 1791 France Marquis De Lafayette Medal Bronze(Lettered Edge) FRENCH NAPOLEONIC MEDALS BRONZE (1791) JULIUS-183 LAFAYETTE NGC MS 63 BN PL 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.
View Coin 1791 France Jean Jacques Rousseau Medal Bronze Ex. Boulton With Shells (Plain Edge) FRENCH NAPOLEONIC MEDALS BRONZE (1791) JULIUS-188 JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU NGC MS 64 BN 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
View Coin 1791 France Jean Jacques Rousseau Medal Bronze (Lettered Edge) FRENCH NAPOLEONIC MEDALS BRONZE (1791) JULIUS-188 JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU NGC MS 65 BN PL 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.

View Coin 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 SWEDEN - MEDALS BRONZE 1792-DATED HILD.-98 ASSASSINATION MEDAL AND SHELL SET NGC MS 66 BN 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
View Coin 1793 France (BHM-483) Louis XVI Final Farewell Medal Bronze With Shells FRENCH NAPOLEONIC MEDALS BRONZE 1793-DATED JULIUS-251 LOUIS XVI MEDAL AND SHELL SET MEDAL #1/3 NGC MS 66 BN 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.
View Coin 1793 Great Britain (Eimer-853) Board Of Agriculture Medal Bronze With Shells and Wrapper Ex. James Watt Jr. Collection GREAT BRITAIN - MEDALS BRONZE 1793 G.BRIT Eimer-853 BOARD OF AGRICULTURE MEDAL #1/3 NGC MS 67 BN 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
View Coin 1798 Great Britain (BHM-447) Davison's Battle of the Nile Medal - Bronzed (Standard Edge) GREAT BRITAIN - MEDALS BRONZE 1798 G.BRIT Bhm-447 BATTLE OF THE NILE NGC MS 63 BN Alexander Davison commissioned Matthew Boulton’s Soho Mint to strike the Battle of the Nile medals as a testament to his deep admiration and respect for Lord Nelson and the sailors he commanded. Despite the significance of this victory and the popularity of this medal (both then and now), it appears that some mystery remains. For instance, the total number struck, and the distribution of the metals used varies between several notable sources. For instance, Pollard (1970) reports a total of 6,730 struck (25 gold; 150 silver; 30 copper gilt; 6000 bronzed copper; 525 copper) while Comfort (2017) reports a total of 7,216. Likewise, there are differences in the reported total cost, but I have confidence in the number Vice (1970) reported, which is £762 and 4 Shillings, which reflects a discount after Davison complained of the cost. In his catalog entry for this medal (BHM-447) Brown (1980) notes that the reverse legend was adopted from the opening line of Nelson’s letter to George III announcing the decisive victory. The amount of information readily available about this piece is not surprising given its popularity, but Sim Comfort (2017) provides an ample amount of background concerning the design and execution of this medal. His book is invaluable to those seriously interested in pursuing the naval medals struck at the Soho Mint. A final note of interest is that the dies were purportedly destroyed; however, it appears at least one hub survived at the Soho Mint, but was not part of the 1850 auction (Vice, 1995).

Historical Context:
The Battle of the Nile was a critically important victory - the details of which were published extensively in almost every contemporary British newspaper. While working through the numerous reports I stumbled upon something in deep contrast to the norm, which I opted to detail below.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kentish Gazette
Tuesday, October 9, 1798


The following is a copy of a letter from the Comptroller-General of the Eastern Army in Egypt, to a friend at Paris, which was intercepted in the vessel which had Buonaparte’s dispatches on board:

FROM E. POUSSIEULQUE, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE EXPENSES OF THE EASTERN ARMY, AND ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL OF FINANCE.

Rosetta, in egypt, 17th Thermidor,
6th Year of the French Republic, or
3d of August, 1798.



“We have just been witnesses, by dear friend, to the naval combat the most bloody and unfortunate that for many ages has taken place. And yet we know not all the circumstances; But those which we are already acquainted with are frightful in the extreme.

The French squadron, consisting of 13 sail of the line, one of which has a three-decker, of 120 guns, and three others of 80, were anchored in line of battle in the Bay of Abouker, or Cunope, the only one there is on all the coast of Egypt. For these eight days past, several ships and frigates belonging to the English, have at different times been in fight, reconnoitring position of our fleet, so that we have been in momentary expectation of being attacked. In a Direct Line from Abouker to Rosetta, the distance is about four leagues and a half; from the height to the latter place our fleet is perfectly seen and distinguished. The 14th of this month, at half past five o’clock in the evening, we heard the firing of cannon: this was the commencement of at the battle. We immediately got upon the terraces, on the top of the highest houses, and on the little eminences, from whence we plainly perceived ten English ships of the line; the others we could not see. The cannonade was very heavy until about a quarter after nine o’clock, when, favored by the night, be perceived an immense light, which announced to us that some ship was on fire. At this time the Thunder of cannon was heard with redoubled fury, and at ten o’clock the ship on fire blew up with the most dreadful explosion, which was heard at Rosetta in the same manner as the explosion of the Grenelle at Paris. When this accident happened, the most profound silence took place for the space of about ten minutes; from the moment of the explosion until our hearing it might take up to two minutes. The firing commenced again, and continued without intermission until three o’clock in the morning: it's seized almost entirely until 5:00, when it commenced again with as great vivacity as ever.

I place myself on a bower, about cannon shot from Rosetta, and which is called Aboul Mandour, from thence I could distinctly see the whole battle. At eight o’clock I perceived a ship on fire, and and about half an hour she blew up similar to the other last night. The other ships moved to greater distance from the shore, and the fire on board her apparently diminished, by which we presume it was entirely extinguished. - During this time the cannonading redoubled. A large ship entirely dismasted; but the two squadrons so mingled among each other, that it was impossible to distinguish French from English, nor on whose side the advantage was.

The firing continued with unabating vivacity until two o’clock midday on the 15th, And at this hour we perceived two sail of the line and two frigates under a press of sail on a wind, standing to the eastward. We perceive that the whole four were under French colors. No other vessel made any movement, and the firing seized entirely. Towards six o’clock in the evening I returned to the tower of Aboul Mandour, to reconnoitre the position of the two fleets. It was the same as two o’clock. The four ships underway were abreast of the mouth of the Nile. We knew not what to think or conjecture. Twenty-four hours passed without any person to give us any details, and in our situation it was impossible to procure any by land on account of the Arabs, who were assembled between Rosetta and Aboukir. There is nothing to be learned by sea, on account of the difficulty of getting out of the opening or branch of the Nile. You may judge of our impatience and perplexity. Nothing could could be augured from the silence; However, we were obliged to pass the whole of the night of the 15th in this and certitude, and at last on the morning of the 16th, a boat which left Alexandria in the night gave us some details, though little tending to our comfort. They told us, that the officers of the French fleet who saved themselves in a boat, arrived at Alexandria, had reported that in the commencement of the battle, Admiral Bruyes had received three severe wounds, first on the head, the second in the body; that notwithstanding he persisted in keeping his station on thearms-chest. and that a fourth took him in the body, and cut him in two; at the same moment a shot took off the Captain of the ship, Caffa Bianca; that at this moment they perceived the ship to be on fire in such a manner as to not be able to extinguish it, and at last that the ship had blown up about ten o’clock at night: they added, that our fleet was totally destroyed and lost, with the exception of four ships escaped. I returned to the town, where I found things absolutely in the same situation as yesterday. They continued so last night and this morning.

For these two days these ships have been perfectly inactive, and seemingly destroyed. This morning news has arrived from Alexandria, which confirms our losses. Rear-Admiral De Cresy is killed; and Vice-Admiral Blanquet Duchaila; five ships have struck their colors. The Tonnant was the last ship in action; Dupertitar, who commanded her, had his two legs carried off by a cannon shot. The ship's escaped are the Gilaume Tell, and the firgates Diane and Justice. They say it was the Artemize that blew up the morning before yesterday; Many things relative to this battle yet to be known. They say that the English Admiral sent a flag of truce to Alexandria, demanding that they should received and take care of the wounded, which amount to 1500. They will send us all our prisoners. As yet I am ignorant of what has been decided on. - I have had, since my arrival here, my portrait, and profile, taken by an able artist, citizen Benay; it is said to be very like, but we have so many English around us, that for fear of its falling into their hands, or going to the bottom of the sea, I dare not send it. I could wish to be the bearer of it myself; be assured, That as soon as I can obtain that permission, which I shall not cease to solicit, I shall take my departure - there is no fortune shall retain me - I shall be contended to arrive with you naked as my hand.

I embrace you, and also my children,

E. POUSSIEULQUE.


________________________________________________________________________________________________

The letter detailed above is devoid of any such notions of pride or admiration. Instead, the overall tone is of shock and horror paired with an unusual amount of detail given to the gruesome nature of the injuries sustained. Of course, the information above was gleaned from what was intended as private correspondence and was written by a French Official whose government just sustained a substantial defeat. In stark contrast, The British contemporary reports of this battle are typically packed with prideful statements of admiration. I have opted to forgo extensively reproducing any of those here for the sake of brevity, but the excerpt below is particularly germane.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Calcutta Gazette
Thursday, January 9, 1800


NELSONIAN MEDALLION
___

DESCRIPTION


OF the Metal struck by ALEXANDER DAVISON, Esq. as a Tribute of his Respect for Lord Nelson, and the OFFICERS and MEN who served in the Fleet under His Lordship’s Command on the First of August, 1798.

OBVERSE

Represents the allegorical Figure HOPE, with the Emblem proper, standing on a rugged Rock, with an Olive Branch in Right Hand, and supporting, by her Left Arm, the Profile of LORD NELSON, on a Medallion, to which she is pointing with her Forefinger. – HOPE is crowned with Oak and Laurel, and the Motto to the Medallion is “EUROPE’S HOPE AND BRITAIN’S GLORY.” – These Words express the real feelings of the surrounding Nations, and Boast of this happy island.

THE LEGEND

THE REAR ADMIRAL LORD NELSON OF THE NILE.”

THE REVERSE

Represents the French Fleet at Anchor in the Bay of Aboukir, and the British Fleet advancing to the Attack – The fortified islands in the Enemy’s Van – The Four Frigates that were moored within the Line to cover their Flank – and the Gun-Boats near the islands – The Setting Sun – The Coast of Egypt – The Mouth of the Nile – and the Castle of Aboukir.

THE LEGEND

ALMIGHTY GOD HAS BLESSED HIS MAJESTY’S ARMS.

Beneath the View,

VICTORY OF THE NILE,
AUGUST 1, 1798.


Mr. Davison, the gentleman who struck this beautiful Medal, is, we understand, appointed by Lord Nelson, and the Officers under his Lordship's command, the sole Agent for the sale of the French ships of war taken at the memorable action that was fought in the Bay of Aboukir, on the first of August, 1798.

The manner in which Mr. Davison has expressed to Lord Nelson, and to the Officers and Men under his Lordship's command, his respect for the confidence they have placed in him, as well as his admiration of the unparalleled glory that this incomparable victory has added to our national character an honor, is not only perfectly novel, but highly praiseworthy and commendable.

The design is elegant, appropriate, and expressives and attaches much merit to the person who conceived it. And however much allegory may be objected to by Medalists, we cannot but express our decided approbation of it in this instance, and we have every reason to think that Lord Nelson and all his Officers and Men will be highly pleased and fully gratified, at the method Mr. Davison has taken to show his respect for their confidence, and his admiration of the most reply indent and decisive victory that ever was obtained.

The dye has been engraved, and the Medal struck, under the direction of Mr. Boulton, of Soho, near Birmingham, to whom, as well as to the Artist he has employed on this occasion, much credit is due. All that we shall add upon this pleasing subject is, that we trust those who have not been so fortunate as to obtain the possession of a Medal, we'll be highly gratified with the impression and description we have here given of it. The noble Admiral, and all of the Officers and Men who served in the fleet under his Lordship's command, are each of them to be presented with a Medal. Those destined for the Admiral and Captains are of gold. Those for the Lieutenants and Officers who rank with them, are of silver. Those for the Warrant and inferior Officers, are of copper gilt - and those for the men are of copper bronzed. [Brit. Crit. Fe. 1799.]
________________________________________________________________________________________________


Obverse: The obverse depicts a female figure meant as an allegorical figure of Hope or Peace. The contemporary references indicate that she represents Hope, so I will adhere to that in the following description. Hope is depicted standing on a rocky shore, gazing to her right in the distance. Her hair is adorned with a laurel crown and a series of delicate curls flow down on either side of her neck. She wears a loose-fitting robe that is fastened by a clasp on her left shoulder. The left side of the robe has fallen and rests upon her left right arm, which exposes her left breast. Her right arm is extended and slightly downward. She clasps an olive branch in her right hand. Her left arm is extended and rests on the upper part of a large medallion depicting Lord Nelson. Her left hand is positioned just behind his head as if she is supporting him. The legend EUROPE’S HOPE AND BRITAIN’S GLORY. appears close to the inner rim of the medallion. Hope and the medallion she holds supersedes the deception of a large ship anchor. The rocky shore in the foreground has many ragged edges and hints of grass growing from the cracks. The engraver’s initials C.H.K. appear at the bottom. A rough sea is depicted in the background against the horizon, which is incepted by a roped border. The obverse legend REAR-ADMIRAL LORD NELSON OF THE NILE. appears between the rope border and the inner rim of the medal. The entire design is confined within a raised outer rim.

Reverse: The reverse depicts the British fleet engaging the French. I forgo any detailed description here, as it would be redundant. Not to mention, this depiction is not entirely accurate. It is interesting to note that the engraver took care to distinguish between the French and English by the flags they presented. The sea appears rough with a series of crested waves in the foreground crashing against the Castle of Aboukir. In the background against the horizon appears the shoreline intersected by a radiant sun. The mouth of the Nile River bisects the shoreline just ahead of four frigates. The entire scene is sharply divided by a moderately thick border, which provides an exergue. Within this border appears M.B. SOHO to the left, and C . H. KÜCHLER . FEC. to the right. Immediately below in exergue appears VICTORY OF THE NILE AUGUST 1. 1798. in two lines. The reverse design is superseded at roughly four and eight o’clock by a roped border. The reverse legend ALMIGHTY GOD HAS BLESSED HIS MAJESTY’S ARMS. appears between the rope border and the inner rim of the medal. The entire design is confined within a raised outer rim.

Edge: FROM ALEXR. DAVISON, ESQR. ST. JAMES’ SQUARE = A TRIBUTE OF REGARD

Size: 48 mm

Notes:
As noted by Brown (1980) and Eimer (2010) the bronzed examples of this medal are relatively common. That said, this does not imply that they are always nicely preserved. It took me some time to locate a decent example and I happened to stumble upon this one for an extraordinarily good price. The original holder had a huge gouge across the obverse of the medal, but NGC had no issues replacing the holder. While they had it, I opted to take advantage of their PhotoVision service. Eventually, I would like to find an upgrade to this example, but that will be no easy task. The current medal is currently tied with one other for the coveted “top pop” status at NGC, which essentially eliminates the possibility of obtaining a better example that is already encapsulated. So far, I have been deeply unimpressed with the raw examples I have seen. These medals tend to be marred with deep scratches, distracting hairlines, rim dents, and evidence of past cleaning efforts.

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.

Comfort, S. (2017). Matthew Boulton’s Naval Medals. London: Sim Comfort Associates.

Eimer, C. (2010). British Commemorative Medals and Their Values. London: Spink & Son Ltd.

Pollard, J. G. (1970). Matthew Boulton and Conrad Heinrich Küchler. The Numismatic Chronicle, 10, 259-318.

Vice, D. (1995). A fresh insight into Soho Mint restrikes & those responsible for their manufacture. Format Coins, Birmingham, 3-14.
View Coin 1798 British Victories of 1798 Medal Gilt - Bust Type 3a GREAT BRITAIN - MEDALS BRONZE 1798 G.BRIT Bhm-458 VICTORIES OF THE YEAR GILT NGC MS 63 PL 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.
View Coin 1800 Staffordshire Agricultural Society Medal – Unfinished Pattern – Ex. Boulton Estate GREAT BRITAIN - MEDALS WATT (C1800) GB BOULTON & STAFFORDSHIRE AGRI. SOC. AE, 48mm,46.3g, SOHO MINT NGC MEDAL PF 63 BN 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.
View Coin 1800 Great Britain (BHM-483) Failed Assassination Medal Bronze With Shells - Type 1 Bust GREAT BRITAIN - MEDALS BRONZE 1800 G.BRIT Bhm-483 FAILED ASSASSINATION MEDAL AND SHELL SET NGC MS 66 BN 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/
View Coin 1800 Great Britain (BHM-483) Failed Assassination Medal Bronze With Shells - Type 2 Bust GREAT BRITAIN - MEDALS BRONZE 1800 G.BRIT Bhm-483 FAILED ASSASSINATION GEORGE III NGC MS 66 BN 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.
View Coin 1801 Union of Great Britain & Ireland Medal Bronze With Shells - Bust Type 3b GREAT BRITAIN - MEDALS BRONZE 1801 G.BRIT Bhm-524 G.BRITAIN & IRELAND UNION NGC MS 64 BN 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 (see the contemporary political caricature above), 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.
View Coin 1802 Great Britain (Eimer-941) Peace of Amiens Medal Bronze - Bust Type 3a GREAT BRITAIN - MEDALS BRONZE 1802 G.BRIT Bhm-535 PEACE OF AMIENS NGC MS 64 BN 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
View Coin 1802 Great Britain (Eimer-941) Peace of Amiens Medal Bronze With Shells - Bust Type 3b GREAT BRITAIN - MEDALS BRONZE 1802 G.BRIT Bhm-535 PEACE OF AMIENS NGC MS 63 BN 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
View Coin 1803 Great Britain (BHM-553) National Edition of Shakespeare's Works Medal Silver With Shells Ex. McKivor GREAT BRITAIN - MEDALS SILVER 1803 G.BRIT Bhm-553 SHAKESPEARE'S WORKS MEDAL AND SHELL SET NGC MS 62
FRONTISPIECE of BOYDELL'S EDITIONS
The Boydell Shakespeare medal is so named because of the gentleman who commissioned its production, Alderman John Boydell. Saving any historical tidbits for the section below, it is worth mentioning that this medal is a notable exception to those typically struck at the Soho Mint. The design directly violates the guidance Boulton provided to Droz in a letter fifteen years earlier. In his letter dated December of 1787, Boulton instructs Droz that "Any allegorical figures should be few and simple and as free as possible from obscurity". This guiding principle was closely adhered to at the Soho Mint well after Droz departed, yet this medal clearly violates this. The obverse design depicts two allegorical figures, which without additional context would likely be easy to identify, but the depiction of Shakespeare absent the inscription on the reverse would prove far more obscure. As it turns out, the obverse was closely modeled after the sculpture created by Thomas Banks in 1789 at the direction of Boydell (Pollard, 1970), which explains why Boulton's general design principles were seemingly disregarded. This is one of a handful of collaborative pieces between Küchler and Phillps, the obverse being engraved by the former and the reverse by the latter. According to Pollard (1970), the dies for the medal would be completed by the summer of 1802, but Boydell would not issue the medals until 1805, which he would later blame on the Soho Mint. It is worth noting that nearly all of these medals were struck in silver, with only a handful of gold specimens, one of which was presented to King George III. Additionally, it appears that several were likely struck in copper at a later date under the careful supervision of James Watt Jr. The presence of these "late Soho" pieces is interesting given that Boulton refused a request made by his friend, Ambrose Weston, to purchase an additional copy of the medal. In the excerpt provided by Pollard (1970), Boulton is recorded to have said the following in his response –

"… I shall charge the die to the Alderman, I cannot honorably strike one medal more from it than the number he think proper to order; but I suppose he could have no objection to obliging any of his subscribers with duplicates or more upon their paying for them…".

Perhaps Watt Jr. felt justified in producing the copper versions, given that the venture giving rise to their production had since been relinquished by Boydell. On any note, Tungate (2020) reports that 654 were struck in 1804 and 1805, with an additional 100 examples being struck in 1807. Regardless of when they were struck, all examples are dated 1803 and adhere to the standard specifications agreed upon by Boulton and Boydell. According to Vice (1995), the dies for this medal were held for Matthew Pier Watt Boulton when deciding how to dismantle the Soho Mint in 1850. From his records, it appears that one punch and two dies were reserved for him and were never included in the original auction catalog. Although their existence is possible, restrikes in the typical sense (i.e., medals struck after the demise of the Soho Mint) are not known to me.

Historical Context:

John Boydell sought to apply art to commerce in a way that would subsequently appeal to the nationalistic sensitives of the era while also generating a handsome profit for himself. As already mentioned in the introduction to this set, the appreciation of art and design had gradually transformed from an activity restricted to the elite to something predominantly consumed by the rising middle class. From a business perspective, a larger base of consumers paired with the tastes of popular society provided an environment ripe for opportunity. The encouragement of the arts was seen as a noble pursuit, and patrons of any level were often held in high esteem. This fact was likely not lost on Boydell, but he and his partners took it one step further. According to Friedman (1973), historical painting was held in the highest regard by both society and the Royal Academy, but it had been in decline for some time as contemporary artists could generate far more income for themselves by focusing on portraits and landscapes. This translated into a sense of national embarrassment as foreign artists were all too willing to fill the gap, which directly inflamed English societal efforts to gain independence from foreign artists and establish themselves as a beacon of art among their European counterparts. Of chief concern was England's ability to compete with the finest French artists, a point that was only further heightened by the continual wars within Europe. In part, this movement prompted the widespread proliferation of the most notable English artists across many domains, William Shakespeare being no exception. The consumption of Shakespearian productions was all the rage in the 18th and 19th centuries, which is evident in the sheer amount of controversy surrounding his work. I discovered on such fascinating story about a series of forged letters and unpublished plays while researching a new addition to my wife’s collection of Shakespeare books. Written by George Chalmers and published in 1797, the book entitled "An Apology for The Believers in the Shakespeare Papers" deals a devastating blow to the credibility of the forged documents. The copy in our library was presented to Sir Stephen Cottrell and inscribed by the author. Although this is a very interesting story on its own, it is tangent to the current topic, so I digress. On any note, contemporary society placed a high value on art, most notably that of historical painting, and that paired with the prolific consumption of all things, Shakespeare created the perfect opportunity for Boydell.

Being the opportunistic businessman that he was, Boydell embarked upon the construction of a gallery depicting scenes from the most famous Shakespeare plays. In doing so, he could bolster his reputation as a patron of the arts while also triggering a sense of national pride on behalf of his customers by devoting his efforts to reinvigorate the practice of historical art. As argued by Friedman (1973), Boydell had the perfect trifecta of momentum that almost all but guaranteed the early success of his Shakespeare Gallery. The general idea was easy enough to envision. Boydell would commission some of the most renowned and up-and-coming artists to paint scenes from Shakespeare's numerous works. These paintings would then be displayed in a dedicated gallery, which patrons could view upon paying an entrance fee of one shilling. The admission cost was low relative to that of the Royal Society and further catered to the needs of all patrons (Friedman, 1973). The Shakespeare Gallery was opened at Pall Mall in 1789. At its opening ceremony, the gallery contained a mere thirty-four paintings. By 1805 that number had grown to 167 unique works of art (Friedman, 1973). A buzz of excitement throughout London marked the early days of the Shakespeare Gallery at Pall Mall, and guests from across the continent soon came to marvel at the breadth of the talent on display. By all accounts, the gallery was a great success.

BOYDELLS'S SHAKESPEARE GALLERY


To offset the high initial costs, Boydell and his partners devised a plan to produce prints of these paintings and sell them on a subscription basis. Those interested were given the option of either purchasing the larger format prints or the same images in a smaller format. The former would cost the subscriber 2 Guineas initially, with another Guinea due upon delivery. The latter would only cost 1 Guinea upfront, with another due upon delivery. In both instances, the initial subscription cost only afforded the subscriber one volume of prints of the nine that were proposed. Although the business idea was simple enough, in theory, the practical execution of the plan was far more complicated.

One of the primary issues faced by Boydell and his partners was the rampant abandonment on behalf of their subscribers. The initial subscription fees were far from sufficient to offset the high costs of commissioning the artists. Without collecting the other half of the payment upon delivery and the initial fees for future subscriptions, the financial situation of the venture quickly became bleak. It appears several court proceedings were registered on behalf of Boydell to collect the money owed by his subscribers, the most notable of which was the case against Drummond, which resulted in Boydell's defeat (Friedman, 1973). The documents binding the patrons to their dues were far too disorganized and ambiguous, making them all but indefensible in court. From all contemporary documents that I have viewed, paired with the work of many others such as Freidman (1973), it appears the quality of the prints were far inferior to the expectations of the subscribers. This issue was further compounded when Boydell and his partners decided to alter the terms of the subscription in 1792. Before the changes, the prints were the same between the large and small format subscriptions, but the new approach altered this to give rise to two distinctly different versions. This new approach was wildly unpopular. Subsequently, the already dwindling number of subscribers was further reduced to nearly one-third of what it had initially been (Friedman, 1973). To reverse this seemingly evitable ruin of their business venture, they hatched the idea to issue medals to their loyal subscribers, but only to those who subscribed to the large format. As already noted in the introduction of this set, collecting medals and being a patron of the arts was all the fashion in contemporary society. More specifically, collecting Soho Mint products was a particularly tasteful pursuit. I imagine Boydell could think of few better ways to reinvigorate his subscribers than by commissioning a medal to be struck at the Soho Mint and exclusively available only to his current subscribers.

Although the exclusivity of the medals paired with their production at the Soho Mint was a stroke of marketing genius, it proved too little too late. The subscriptions were the lifeblood of the Shakespeare Gallery, and their plummeting numbers paired with the international events that unfolded in this era eventually led to its demise. By December of 1803, Boydell had petitioned and successfully negotiated a special act of parliament granting him a lottery. In justifying his request, he argued the "unhappy revolution" (i.e., the French Revolution) destroyed any potential profit from the continent and that his fervor for supporting the artistic independence of England had made him blind to reality (Friedman, 1973). In other words, he had overestimated the profit to be made by foreign visitors, and his desire to build the Shakespeare Gallery fueled his decision to invest any profit into further commissions without setting money aside for himself. Luckily for the nearly bankrupt Boydell, the lottery was a great success. According to Freidman (1973), 22,000 tickets were sold, raising a sum of £45,000. The Shakespeare Gallery was dismantled upon the execution of the lottery held in late January of 1805. The paintings were given to the lottery winners, and unfortunately, it appears many of them have since disappeared. Although the Shakespeare Gallery met a painful end, it has captured the attention of countless modern scholars. Thanks to their efforts, we can now enjoy a virtual tour of what the Shakespeare Gallery likely looked like (see the interesting links section below for more information).

Shakespeare's National Works Medal


Obverse:

The obverse design of this medal is rather striking. It depicts Shakespeare looking to the distance while resting upon a rock wearing a buttoned tunic with a decorated collar. His right arm is stiff against the rock, holding his weight up, and his right arm rests on the shoulder of the allegorical figure "Genius of Painting". His right leg is outstretched while his left leg is bent and partially obscured by his left leg. The rock rests upon a rectangular pedestal. Upon which is engraved in four lines, "HE WAS A MAN | TAKE HIM FOR ALL IN ALL | I SHALL NOT LOOK | UPON HIS LIKE AGAIN". The Dramatic Muse appears at the left of the rock with her gaze set on Shakespeare. A theatrical mask adorns her hair, which seems to be tied in a close-fitting knot. Her left arm is outreached, holding a laurel wreath. A four-stringed Greek lyre rests between her chest and her left arm. Her right arm is outstretched with her hand open toward Shakespeare. A loose scarf runs from her left shoulder meets her figure at her lower back, flowing freely in front of her before lopping back behind her. She wears a clinging dress with her right should exposed. Her left foot is back with her toes resting on the foreground. Her right foot is slightly forward and flat, bearing her weight. Her dress is long and freely flows to the floor in the space between her feet. On the right, the Genius of Painting is depicted looking to the right. Her right arm is outstretched with an open hand pointing to Shakespeare. Her left hand is down and bent in front of her holding a paint palette with several noticeable globs of paint. Her left shoulder and both breasts are exposed, but her dress is draped over and pinned by her right arm. The dress extends to the floor, but her outward extended left leg is exposed from the knee down. Her right leg is bent behind her and rests on her toes. Her dress piles behind her and to the left of her right foot. This entire design seemingly rests upon a stage detailed with vertical hatch markings. A small area devoid of detail occurs between two raised lines. Immediately below, a larger void area occurs in the shape of a semicircular protractor. The outer portion of this shape is blank, with the engraving "M·B. Soho” occurring on the top left and "C·H·KUCHLER. F. " occurs at the right. The usually hollow portion of the protractor shape is adorned with the same vertical hatch markings described earlier. All of this is contained within a very thin raised circular line and a relatively thick beveled rim.

Reverse:

A scroll appears at the top under a tipped over four-string Greek Lyre pierced by a laurel branch. Several raised lines radiate from this design. The legend "THIS | MEDAL | REPRESENTING SHAKSPEARE BETWEEN | THE DRAMATICK MUSE AND THE GENUIS OF PAINTING | IS RESPECTFULLY PRESENTED TO | THE PERSON| WHOSE NAME IT BEARS | IN GRATEFUL COMMEMORATION OF THE GENEROUS SUPPORT | GIVEN BY THE SUBSCRIBERS | TO THE GREAT NATIONAL EDITION OF THAT | IMMORTAL POET | BY | I. I. & J. N. BOYDELL. | AND | G. & W. NICOL. | 1803. ". All of this is contained within a very thin raised circular line and a relatively thick beveled rim. The reverse has some pleasant pastel toning.

Edge:

This example has a plain edge, but often these are encountered with an engraved edge with the recipient's name (i.e., the subscriber). Boydell wanted these medals to be large, but he was also concerned with the cost. The edge engraving required a decent thickness, which translated to an increase in the cost.

Size: 48mm

Notes:

This particular example has retained its original shells and was purchased from my good friend William (Bill) McKivor in 2020 before he passed away. This medal has a special place within this collection, as it brings back fond memories of our conversation. Bill and I were discussing ways to intrigue my better half in my numismatic pursuits. In passing, I mentioned that she greatly enjoys Shakespeare. Over the years, I made it a tradition to pick up antique copies of his works whenever I traveled without her to academic conferences. Her small but growing (albeit not lately due to the pandemic) collection of leather-bound books on the subject were a point of exception to her immunity from the collecting bug. Bill and I laughed while determining if it truly counted as I was the only one adding to the collection. As our conversations often did, that turned into us discussing the Soho Mint. At the time, I had just started exploring the Soho Mint medals, and I had no idea that it existed. Bill joked that perhaps this would be a shiny piece of metal that my wife and I could mutually enjoy, given the topic. I was happy to report to Bill that my wife had given the nod of approval and seemed to enjoy looking at the medal. I suppose I lost her in the details when I started to explain why it came about, but it was interesting to see her attention captured by it. Bill also seemed to get a chuckle out of this, suggesting a Shakespeare collection of tokens and medals. Of course, in his usual way, he was forthcoming with what he knew and named off a dozen or so pieces that could be included in the proposed set. As I said in the introduction, Bill could carry on a good conversation about almost any topic. Beyond the fond memories, the piece is one of my favorites because of its impressive presentation made possible by the simple yet elegant design and the relatively large size. To date, it is also the only silver medal in this collection. For those interested in pursuing Soho Medals, I recommend trying to find an example of this type. It appears these medals come up for sale rather often but frequently have not retained their original shells.

References:

Friedman, W. H. (1973). Some Commercial Aspects of the Boydell Shakespeare Gallery. Journal of the Warburg and Courtland Institutes, 36, 396-401.

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.

Interesting links:

https://www.bl.uk/shakespeare/articles/john-boydells-shakespeare-gallery-1789-1805

http://www.whatjanesaw.org/1796/rooms.php?location=NRNE#wjs

View Coin 1717 (1811) Great Britain (MI-437-38V) Westminster Fire Office Medal struck in Bronze With Shells and Wrapper Ex. James Watt Jr. Collection GREAT BRITAIN - ILLUSTR. BRONZE G.BRIT Mi-437-38v WESTMINSTER FIRE OFFICE MEDAL #1/3 NGC MS 66 BN



So far, most of the medals I have presented have been the work of one of Soho's most prolific engravers, Conrad Heinrich Küchler. Luckily, a lot of the original correspondence relating to those pieces has been detailed in numerous publications and online databases, which has served to further my investigation. The same cannot be said for this medal, as it was engraved by a less well-known yet still influential Soho engraver, John Phillp. Given the lack of digitalized contemporary documents and nearly no mention of the piece in published works, I decided to focus my efforts on a different tool, auction catalogs. Scouring auction archives and dealer inventories that I have at my disposal led to an interesting discovery. Across these sources, no less than three different engravers were credited for the obverse and reverse dies! The gentleman I purchased the medal from indicated that it was the work of G.F. Pidgeon, but a well-respected auction house suggested Lewis Pingo. Yet, another stated the engraver was I. P. with no further elaboration. It appears, however, that all but perhaps the last, which is due entirely to lack of elaboration, is incorrect. Tungate (2020) details the chronological order of the numerous coins, tokens, and medals struck at the Soho Mint. She often reports known mintages and engravers. In this instance, she credits John Phillips for the Westminster Fire Office piece, but she classifies it as a token and notes that the piece is dated 1803 but was struck in 1811. I find this somewhat odd, as the piece does not imply any exchange of goods or services upon surrender, suggesting it is not a token but, in fact, a medal. Furthermore, the current piece and all of those I have since examined are not dated 1803. Nonetheless, I gave her suggestion that John Phillip engraved the die full consideration, as I did with all the others. The piece is signed "I. P. " on both sides, which I soon discovered was, in fact, the initials used by John Phillp to mark his work. This is evident when examining other pieces engraved by him and produced at the Soho mint. With that mystery solved, one is only left to ponder the date provided for their manufacture, 1811. This point is significant as it relates to the silver-lined brass shells, but I will save that tidbit of information for the "notes" section below.

Historical Context:

This medal was purchased well before my intent to create this set, but the simplicity of its design paired with the silver-lined-brass shells, original wrapper, and the provenance linking it to the James Watt Jr. Collection made this piece irresistible. I had no idea what the Westminster Fire Office was, much less why they commissioned medals to be struck the Soho Mint. As with every other piece in this collection, I sought to understand its history and why it came into existence. A quick internet search was all but a flop, but it did lead me to an interesting book published in 1952 by E. A. Davies, which detailed the formation of the Westminster Fire Office. Most of the information obtained and subsequently shared here originated from this book. I aim only to hit the highlights, but copies of the book can occasionally be found online if you find yourself intrigued.

Founded in 1717, the Westminster Fire Office is one of the oldest and most distinguished English intuitions that offered fire insurance to building owners. As Davies (1952) argues, the Great Fire of London in 1666 brought about a wave of destruction that left countless people with virtually nothing. The wounds inflicted by this horrible event were still felt some 50 years later, and the current system to provide aid was insufficient. At the time, the King would authorize small amounts of aid, deemed "King's Briefs", which were under the control of local clergy and parish councils. The process was slow and rarely approved, making this antiquated system all but useless. To address the growing issue, several organizations came about in the 1680s that essentially offered insurance to those in need who could afford the initial costs.

Our story begins with the Hand-in-Hand Office, which held its first meeting at Tom's Coffee House on November 12th, 1696 (Davies, 1952). Members operated the Hand-in-Hand Office for the sole purpose of protecting themselves from undue damage in the event of a catastrophic fire. The office was founded by roughly a hundred members from both Westminster and the City of London. The general membership appointed directors for two-year terms, and although they ran most of the day-to-day operations, their power was always in check by larger group membership which held a meeting twice a year. By January of 1699, Tom's Coffee House, located in Westminster, became the Hand-in-Hand Office's official headquarters, and all general meetings were initially held there until 1701 (Davies, 1952). As membership continued to increase, the original location was not deemed appropriate, and a larger venue in Westminster was adopted for a short period. Unappeased by the move, those who resided in London pushed for the meetings to be held in the city, but this would exclude those who resided in Westminster. A compromise was reached, allowing the general meetings to occur in London from Christmas to Midsummer and Westminster for the remaining portion of the year. This did little to appease the members from the city, and eventually, a new office was established in London. This would prove to be the demise of the importance of the Westminster office, and it was effectively closed by February of 1714. The new office would serve as the official meeting location. This placed a significant burden on those from Westminster, resulting in their loss of influence as they could not attend as many meetings. Seemingly betrayed, several members of the Hand-in-Hand Office set to correct the issue and met to establish the Westminster Fire Office at Tom's Coffee House in 1717.
ORIGINAL POLICY CONTRACT FROM 1806


The founders wasted no time establishing the new organization, and by June of 1717, they were soliciting subscribers. The members agreed that the Westminster Fire Office would come to exist if they could raise enough subscriptions to seed the company with no less than £2000, which they had little trouble securing (Davies, 1952). Several documents were drafted detailing the general structure, policies, services offered, and all other inner workings of the Westminster Fire Office. As detailed in those documents, insurance policies were only to cover buildings, not their contents. Furthermore, homes made of timber were twice as expensive to insure relative to those made of stone or brick. Coverage was offered in seven-year terms, at a rate of 12 Shillings per £100 of building value, as assessed by the appointed surveyor. Those seeking membership were required to pay their dues upfront, which consisted of the above-mentioned cost dependent upon the building's value, a small few for the Office badge affixed to their building, and the necessary processing fees imparted by the government. Once paid, they were required to sign a Deed of Covenant that bound them to their membership. The Westminster Fire Office was designed to split any financial loss due to fire damage across members. This was done by reducing the dividend afforded to members at the end of their seven-year contract. To this extent, a membership could have little direct risk to the individual but came with a great deal of protection. These terms seem to have been very agreeable as, by the end of June, there were roughly 150 subscribers paying dues totaling £2,860 (Davies, 1952). The founders once again met at Tom's Coffee House on July 30th, 1717, to draft the Deed of Settlement to officially establish the Westminster Fire Office.

The first general meeting of the newly established Westminster Fire Office took place just three weeks later. During this meeting, the first directors and "inferior officers" were appointed, and it was established that general meetings should occur in April and October of each year. The directors, however, were expected to meet weekly and perform a host of additional duties with an annual salary. These coveted positions often went to men of significant influence and wealth, which was likely for the best as the exceedingly meager salary was unlikely to attract anyone else. Directors could serve a maximum of two consecutive years, and new directors were appointed in the general meetings held in October of each year, during which no more than four were eligible for reelection. Upon serving, they were not eligible to run again until two years had passed. This process would be closely adhered to for nearly two hundred years. It interesting to note that a directorship was a position of honor, with little compensation and an enormous responsibility. For instance, directors were required to assess any fire damage done to insured buildings, no less than three were required to inspect a building requiring more than £1000 in coverage (this required a vote at the general meetings), and they were required to be present at all fires to direct the fire brigade. All of this, of course, is on top of the administrative duties of their office but afforded them no additional pay. In other words, being a director required a lot of dedication but offered little in return beyond prestige.

The one duty that stuck out in my mind required that directors be present at every fire within the area, even if the Westminster Fire Office did not insure the building in distress. This might seem odd at first, but at the time, no public fire department existed in the area. Instead, fire brigades were established by the different Fire Offices and were conducted entirely by each respective organization (Davies, 1952). When a fire broke out, the brigades from all companies were dispatched, and they often worked together to put out fires. This practice ensured that damage was kept to a minimum and further secured the safety of the other uninflected buildings insured. Although some of these organizations were driven by pure profit, they all provided a much-needed public service. Serving on one of these brigades as a waterman or foreman also afforded many advantages. Perhaps the greatest of which was being immune to forced military service (i.e., press-gangs), granted by the Act of 1707 (Davies, 1952). Each organization was required to register the members with the Office of Admiralty, and this, paired with their distinctive uniforms and office badge, would render them immune to press-gangs.

The Westminster Fire Office adopted its badge on September 3rd, 1717. The design by Roger Askew, one of the early directors, was relatively simple. The portcullis was adopted from the coat of arms of the City of Westminster, while the feathers were a tribute to the Prince of Whales (i.e., King George II). Davies (1952) notes that the soon-to-be King expressed great support for the Westminster Fire Office and even insured six of his properties within the first year of their establishment. Proud of the newly established office badge, members ensured it was used at nearly every possibility. Large cast lead renditions were made and numbered to denote the houses under the protection of the office, but perhaps the essential function it served was to distinguish the members of the company's fire brigade. Although the names of the waterman were registered with the Office of Admiralty, the badge served as an immediate symbol to denote their immunity to forced conscription. Furthermore, the badge allowed the waterman to identify the director on the scene charged with commanding them. As time went on and the success of the Westminster Fire Office afforded several expansions of the Fire Brigade, directors were no longer required to be on the scene of every fire. Nonetheless, the organization steeped in tradition continued to issue badges to directors. By the early nineteenth century, the Westminster Fire Office started issuing gold medals to directors as a token of appreciation for the level of dedication required to perform the duties of their position, especially in consideration of their minimal compensation.

In the end, the Westminster Fire Office was exceptionally successful, and by 1757 they secured over 20,000 policies totaling more than £7,000,000 worth of insured property (Davies, 1952). This is even more impressive when one considers the limited scope of their operation at the time. As the organization continued to grow, there was an obvious need to make a few changes to the original charter. These changes were voted upon within the general meetings and, if adopted, were put in place somewhat informally. It wouldn't be until 1805 that the Deed of Settlement was amended to formalize previous changes, allow for the appointment of up to 24 directors, and extended the range of eligibility to all of England, Scotland, and Wales (Davies, 1952). As time went on and social services become more centralized, the Westminster Fire Office found themselves no longer in need of their fire brigade. After over 115 years of dedicated service, the Westminster Fire Office Brigade was dissolved in 1833. The changes enacted in 1805 eventually gave rise to field offices across England, Scotland, and Wales. For instance, A Westminster Fire Office branch was operating in Birmingham by 1886 (Davies, 1952). Eventually, the smaller organizations such as the Hand-in-Hand Society and the Westminster Fire Office found themselves outmatched in a world full of corporate conglomerates and were subsequently absorbed by the latter. In the case of the Westminster Fire Office, they were offered a generous buyout by the Alliance Insurance Company Limited. Although many longstanding members objected on the grounds of tradition, they gave in to reason, and the Westminster Fire Office was incorporated on March 12th, 1906 (Davies, 1952). Part of the terms put forth allowed the Westminster Fire Office to continue operations much like before, but under the constitution drafted by its new parent company. It appears that the organization was still running at the time of publication, as a list of directors for the year 1952 is provided early on in the book. The Author, A. E. Davies, is listed as the Manager and Secretary.
WESTMINSTER FIRE OFFICE MEDAL


Obverse:

The Westminster Fire Office was steeped in tradition. In fact, tradition was the only reason why these medals were commissioned. As such, it seems fitting to adhere to the general practice of using their badge on nearly all things officially associated with them. The obverse of this medal depicts the portcullis in the center, with sharply pointed spearheads on the ends. In keeping with the simple but elegant design style of the Soho Mint, the engraver John Phillips delicately balanced the need for simplicity with perhaps unnecessary detail. For instance, individual rivets are incorporated in the design of the portcullis at every naturally occurring joint. On either side, the portcullis is attached to a draw chain intersected by a mount with additional excess chain falling freely to either the outer side. As noted in the introduction, the portcullis was adopted from the arms of the City of Westminster. Immediately above and centered is an ornate crown with three large feathers protruding from the center. The feathers were supposedly a nod to the would-be King George II, who expressed interest in promoting the newly formed Westminster Fire Office. The lower pointed tips of the portcullis rest upon a platform with the word "ESTABLISHED" inscribed at the center. The date "MDCCXVII" appears below and supersedes the engraver's initials "I P.". The obverse legend appears at the inner portion of the innermost rim and is dived by the primary device, with "WESTMINSTER" appearing on the left and "FIRE OFFICE" on the right. The slightly raised inner rim that contains the legend is restricted within a wider rim of greater relief.

Reverse:

An oak wreath is depicted on the reverse consisting of two oak branches tied in the middle by a ribbon with a single loop and two loose ends. The loose end on the left drops down and is wrapped around the end of the right branch, while the right loose end flows down and then behind the end of the left branch. The engraver's initials "I · P . " appear below between the two loose ends. Fifteen oak leaves and eighteen acorns (two of which are incomplete) appear on the left branch, while sixteen leaves and seventeen acorns (two of which are incomplete) appear on the right branch. Although most of the leaves are detailed enough to include the veins, several appear devoid of detail, suggesting the die was lapped. The second cluster of leaves from the bottom on the left is an excellent example of this. The center of the medal is left intentionally blank to allow the name of the recipient to be engraved. This particular medal is not engraved, which supports the idea that it was never meant to be issued. 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: 40mm

Notes:

Researching this medal provided some beneficial information pertaining to the Silver-lined brass shells produced at the Soho Mint. Initially, it was thought the death medals issued by Matthew Robinson Boulton in memory of his father in 1819 were the first recorded pieces with the shells. I recently discovered a Westminster Fire Office Medal, struck in gold and issued to Henry Robins Esquire, who served as a director in 1816 and 1817. This particular medal is described as retaining the original red leather case of issue and the fitted copper shells. This medal was likely produced well before 1819 and therefore brings to question the time frame initially applied to the silver-lined brass shells. Of course, there is no way of directly proving this without examining either a receipt of the order placed by the Westminster Fire Office or the Soho archives in Birmingham. Both are not available online, and I doubt I will have the time and funds needed to cross the pond to investigate the issue within the foreseeable future.

Another interesting point that should be made details the fate of the dies used to strike these medals once the Soho Mint was dismantled and sold at auction in 1850. Vice (1995) mentions that several dies used to strike medals were returned to the original entity that commissioned their production. In this case, it appears that one pair of dies for the Westminster Fire Office Medal were returned to them. I have yet to find any source that details what happened to the dies after that point. It is, however, worth noting that the current specimen is struck in copper and bronzed. To the best of my knowledge, no other bronzed specimen exists.

Given that this piece is seemingly unique in that regard, I assume this was likely 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 that was missing from his collection of Soho Mint wares. Given that this medal was not struck in gold, it seems unlikely that it was ever meant to be issued, suggesting that it might have been a one-off to fill a hole in the otherwise remarkable collection of James Watt Jr, who was the Mint Director at the time. Morton and Eden auctioned off this piece and the rest of the Watt Jr. Collection in November 2002. It is recorded in their catalog as lot number 265 and realized a whopping £225. If only I had a time machine! In full transparency, a bronze example of a slightly different version of the Westminster Fire Office Medal resides in the British Museum (MG.1321); however, this piece at best seems to be derivative of the piece struck at the Soho Mint. I have included the link to this piece in the "interesting links" section.

This medal is graded MS-66 BN by NGC.

References:

Davies, E. A. (1952). An Account of the Formation and Early Years of the Westminster Fire Office. Glasgow: Robert MacLehose & Co. Ltd.

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://coins.ha.com/itm/great-britain/world-coins/great-britain-westminster-fire-office-gold-proof-medal-1717-1817-pr63andnbsp-deep-cameo-pcgs-/a/3051-30817.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_MG-1321
View Coin 1811 (1822) Great Britain (MI-437-38V) Westminster Fire Office Medal struck in Gold Great Britain GREAT BRITAIN - ILLUSTR. GOLD 1822 G.BRIT MI-437-38 WESTMINSTER FIRE OFFICE (37.23g) CHARLES FINCH NGC MS 63 DPL





I never thought my Soho Mint obsession would take me down the path of buying a piece struck in gold, but here we are. As noted in the write-up for the previous medal, these were mainly issued in gold. Those who refer to Token Book 3 for additional information should note that the author mistakenly batched this piece in a single group with other medals issued before and after the ones struck by dies engraved at the Soho Mint. Off-metal strikes of this medal, particularly those in copper are rarely encountered. The silver strikings are rare, but more frequently encountered than their copper counterparts. As you can see, these medals were designed so that the recipient’s name could be engraved on the reverse, but multiple unengraved examples indicate that this was not always done.

Historical Context:

The entry immediately before the current medal briefly introduces the history of the Westminster Fire Office. I encourage readers to stop here and review that introduction before reading the dramatic story found below. Despite my best efforts, I could find no confirmed mention of the named recipient in contemporary publications. It also appears that the Westminster Fire Office did not regularly publish the names of the newly elected directors. Nonetheless, I did stumble upon a series of interesting and dramatic reports about a massive fire that was extinguished in part due to the efforts of the Westminster Fire Office. I have decided to tell that story here to further convince readers of the critical role companies such as the Westminster Fire Office played in securing the safety of so many densely populated communities.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

ORACLE AND THE DAILY ADVERTISER
Saturday, December 3 1803


DREADFUL FIRE

IN FRITH-STREET, SOHO!


Yesterday morning, a little after two o’clock, a most alarming fire broke out in the workshop of Messrs Jackson and Moser, Furnishing Iron-mongers, In the rear of Mr. Moser, sen’s house, No. 47, Frith-street. It was very providentially discovered and sufficient time to alarm those who were in bed, and save a considerable part of the effects, by Michael Davis, a Welch boy, an apprentice of Mr. Moser, who slept in the shop, and was awoke by the sensation of being suffocated by the smoke. He was so confounded for some time that he was quite unable to speak, or tell what was the matter, when he went to alarm the family: they were, however, all soon up.

At this time, about half past two, the shop and warehouse began to blaze very rapidly, particularly when the doors were opened, and the air admitted. The alarm was instantly given in the streets the rattles were sprung, the watchmen assembled, and all the neighbors rose to render their assistance; some went for engines, others to acquaint the different Volunteers who were to guard at their respective armouries. The flames began to ascend, and in a very short time communicated to the adjoining houses. All was bustle, noise, and confusion - drums beating, engines running; men, women, and children, half naked in the streets, which were strewed with all kinds of furniture.

The Royal Westminster Volunteers were almost instantaneously on the spot. They were soon joined by the Saint James's Volunteers, who formed themselves into small parties, and took their stations at the end of the different streets, to prevent depredation, and hinder any idle spectators from passing; whilst others, with laudable alacrity, rendered every assistance in their power, by removing the furniture into the street, and the opposite houses, which were left open for their reception.

At about three o’clock the site that presented itself was truly awful no less than ten houses in that street being all at once in flames, without the smallest possible chance to save one; and the flames spreading still farther, and threatening destruction to Dean-street which runs in a parallel line with Frith-street, in rear of the flames. At this time the streets were crowded with the engines belonging to the different Fire Offices, besides several private engines, the whole of which were rendered useless for nearly three hours and a half before there could be any water procured, excepting what was carried in buckets from the opposite houses. The loss sustained as yet incalculable. The following are the houses which suffered most, viz: -

Mr. Moser, senior, No. 47, in ruins.
Mr. Moser, junior, No. 46, ditto.
Mr. Lucas, Master Taylor, No. 45, ditto.
Jameson and Willis, Coachmaker, No. 44, ditto.
Hemmings and Westwood, Furniture Warehouse, No. 43, ditto.
The Academy, No. 42., ditto.
Mr. Hogarth, Attorney, No. 40, ditto.
Mr. John Hort, No. 40, ditto.
----, ----, No. 40, ditto.

This was the extent of the Fire on that side of Mr. Moser's house, which reached nearly as far as Queen-street; On the other side towards Compton-street, Robert Russell's, Esq. being No. 48, was burnt to the ground, making nine excellent houses in Frith-street, while the back part of every house which was opposite in Dean-street suffered considerably, something entirely burnt down, others gutted; several houses escaped with a trifling injury. What seemed remarkably strange was, that the House of Mr. Reid, being the corner of Frith-street, and Compton street, escaped uninjured, though there were nine houses burnt in Frith-street, and the two adjoining houses in Compton-street, one being a poatoe warehouse, and the other a picture frame maker’s, beside the back premises belonging to Mr. Reid and Mr. Ram, the upholsterer, also Mr. Bond’s back premises, and several others in the rear, which, owing to the confusion, and no liberty being allowed to pass the streets yesterday, it was impossible to learn.

About four o’clock in the morning, the spectacle became truly tremendous. No water could be procured. Detachments from the following Volunteer Corps arrived and rendered their assistance - the St. Giles’s, and St. Georges Bloomsbury; the St. Mary-le-Bone, And the loyal Britons. They formed additional guards at every past for vents depredation, whilst others were busily employed in piling up furniture in the streets. There were beds, tables, chairs, drawers, &c. piled promiscuously, and, from the windows, they were throwing them into the street.

At this time the whole side of that beautiful St. from the corner of Queen-street, was in a conflagration; at six o’clock the entire of the inside was burnt out, and then the walls began to fall in. At day light the fire was extinguished, and the picture was truly deplorable - Furniture of all kinds promiscuously heaped together, whilst the streets were filled with different other articles snatched from destruction - the feathers flying about and gave it the appearance of a snowy morning, while the Volunteers and firemen were above their shoes and water.

At seven o’clock, the St. James’s Volunteers, with their great coats on, and fixed bayonets, came and relieved the Royal Westminster in Frith-street, by the falling of the front walls, after the fire was over: - a fireman of the name of Crowder, when the wall was giving way, and endeavored to withdraw, but was prevented from getting far enough back, owing to an engine behind him; he was struck across both his thighs by some of the falling materials, so that both were broke by the violence of the blow; he was taken in the state to St. George's hospital. There were several reports of accidents, one of which was, that there was one of Mr. Moser's apprentices parished; another, that one of the royal Westminster Volunteers was killed; a third, that two other men lost their lives in rescuing the property from the flames; all which, on the strictest inquiring, we are happy to state, are totally void of truth.

At nine o’clock, the engines seized playing, the whole being then only a heap of smoking rubbish. The Volunteers kept on guard the whole of yesterday. The concourse of spectators from all parts of the town was very great; none, however, were permitted to go through these streets.

Among those whose vigilance we noticed were, Mr. Macklin, linen draper, Compton-street; Colonel Robertson, and Major Allen; as well as Lieutenant Harper, Rogers, and Beckett, &c. At ten o’clock last night, several Firemen attended, and some of the Saint James’s Volunteers, but there was no apprehension of farther danger.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

ORACLE AND THE DAILY ADVERTISER
Monday, December 5 1803


THE LATE FIRE IN FRITH-STREET, SOHO.


On Friday night about ten o’clock, after the fire in Frith-street was over, the Royal Westminster Volunteers kept guard, assisted by the firemen, to prevent plunder; one of the front walls of the ruins suddenly gave way, and fell with a dreadful crash into Frith-street; some women who were looking at the windows of the opposite house gave a scream, an insisted that they saw a man buried in the ruins; there were so positive in their assertions, that the firemen were busily employed the chief part of the night with pickaxes, spades, and shovels, and removing the rubbish that they could not perceive that any such accident had happened; on Saturday morning the search was renewed, and we are happy to find that it originated only in their distracted imaginations. The devastation which presented itself to the eye in the morning was truly shocking to any person of feeling. The remains of ten fine houses and Frith-street in one heap of smoking ruins, besides two others in the like situation in Compton-street. The streets filled with engines and carts, the ladder to assist in removing the remainder of what effects had been saved. There were heaps of rubbish and burnt timber strewed on the streets, which row above shoe deep in water. The smoke was still issuing from the ruins here and there stood a stack of chimneys, Or a party wall, which threatened immediate destruction and greatly endangered the idle spectators, who were collected to gaze and gape at the melancholy scene.

Several walls and chimneys have been pulled down; The fronts of all the opposite houses suffered very considerably: all the pains of glass being broke, the sashes, and doors singed, and all the paint blistered off. There was little damage to stains by any other of the houses beyond what we noticed in our first account.

One fact, however, may be worthy of remark, but the fire happened on the anniversary of Mr. Hogard's wedding day, which he always celebrates with much festivity, and which, very unfortunately for himself and his neighbors, has been constantly marked with some serious misfortune. On this anniversary last week his house and property were destroyed by fire; and that day twelvemonth he had his leg broken by falling down the cellar.

Among those who suffered most, were Messrs Hemmings and Westwood, having the chief part of their property, which consisted of rich furniture of all kinds, together with the whole of their extensive warehouse, that reached from Frith-street across almost into Dean-street, consumed.

We are very happy to learn that there were no lives lost, nor any accident happened, but what we mentioned with regard to Crowder, a fireman belonging to the Hand in Hand Office, who had both his legs broken, (not his thighs as was stated). He now lies at the Middlesex Hospital; his legs were both set; and it is expected he will recover the use of them.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

ORACLE AND THE DAILY ADVERTISER
Saturday, December 10 1803


WESTMINSTER FIRE-OFFICE, BEDFORD-STREET.


AT a BOARD of DIRECTORS, held at this Office on the 8th December, 1803.

Resolved unanimously, That the Thanks of this Office be given to the GENTLEMEN of the different VOLUNTEER CORPS who attended at the dreadful FIRE in FRITH-STREET, on FRIDAY MORNING LAST, for the alacrity with which they came forward, and for their exemplary conduct while on duty.

By Order,
G. H. Browne, Sec.

________________________________________________________________________________________________



Obverse:
The obverse of this medal depicts the portcullis in the center, with sharply pointed spearheads on the ends. Individual rivets are incorporated in the design of the portcullis at every naturally occurring joint. On either side, the portcullis is attached to a draw chain intersected by a mount with additional excess chain falling freely to either the outer side. Immediately above and centered is an ornate crown with three large feathers protruding from the center. The lower pointed tips of the portcullis rest upon a platform with the word "ESTABLISHED" inscribed at the center. The date "MDCCXVII" appears below and supersedes the engraver's initials "I P.". The obverse legend appears at the inner portion of the innermost rim and is dived by the primary device, with "WESTMINSTER" appearing on the left and "FIRE OFFICE" on the right. The slightly raised inner rim that contains the legend is restricted within a wider rim of greater relief.

Reverse:
An oak wreath is depicted on the reverse consisting of two oak branches tied in the middle by a ribbon with a single loop and two loose ends. The loose end on the left drops down and is wrapped around the end of the right branch, while the right loose end flows down and then behind the end of the left branch. The engraver's initials "I · P . " appear below between the two loose ends. Fifteen oak leaves and eighteen acorns (two of which are incomplete) appear on the left branch, while sixteen leaves and seventeen acorns (two of which are incomplete) appear on the right branch. The center of the medal is left intentionally blank to allow the name of the recipient to be engraved. This medal engraved in four lines, Charles Finch Esqr. Director 1821 & 1822. 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: 40mm

Purity: 0.750 (per XRF)

Weight 37.23g

Notes: I do my best to photograph every piece in my collection, but I was completely unprepared to take images of this medal. My feeble attempt appears immediately before the obverse description, while NGC’s PhotoVision images serve as the main illustration. Perhaps viewers can gather some idea of what this piece actually looks like in hand by comparing the two sets of images.

View Coin 1805 Boulton's Trafalgar Medal (Fleet) - White Metal GREAT BRITAIN - MEDALS WM 1805 G.BRIT. BHM-584 BATTLE OF TRAGALGAR NGC MEDAL MS 62 This entry marks a somewhat awkward time, as I have far superior examples of this medal struck in copper and white metal. Unfortunately, both are raw and therefore cannot be included in this set. Nonetheless, this piece deserved to be added. In his book, Sim Comfort (2017) distinguishes between two categories of the original strikes of this medal. On the one hand, we have the fleet medals to consider. This refers to the medals that were presented to the actual sailors who survived the skirmish. The excerpt below details how these medals were distributed differently between the ranks. On the other hand, presentation medals were distributed to notable figures who were not directly involved in the battle (e.g., the King). The current medal is an example of what Sim would classify as a fleet medal (i.e., it would have been given to a sailor). The bulk of these medals were struck in white metal and issued to the non-officers. It is rumored that the sailors hurled the medal into the harbor after discovering that the medal awarded to them was struck in white metal instead of silver. It appears there may be some truth to this rumor, as the bulk of the white metal pieces are often in terrible condition. However, the nature of white metal is confounding to this assumption as it is very susceptible to environmental degradation. Nonetheless, it can be slightly challenging to find a well-preserved example of this medal struck in white metal.

This medal is highly reflective, which makes it make it even more difficult to image through the NGC holder. The images above do this medal no justice.

Historical Context: I have opted to forgo any discussion of the actual medal here in hopes of presenting that information in the write-up for the bronzed copper example (a presentation piece). The entry for that medal will appear immediately before this entry once it is ready. Instead, I plan to share excerpts from contemporary newspapers detailing the sentiment of the British victory, the loss of Lord Nelson, and the bout of confusion (likely intentional on behalf of the French) that followed the conflict's conclusion. Brief details of Boulton’s medal can be found in both reports, but more information can be found in the former.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Saint James's Chronicle
Saturday 21 December 1805


Queen Anne had one of her Coins (the half-crown, if we remember right) struck with the letter V. In honor of the taking of Vigo. Why should not Government give orders for some of our current coins to be stamped with an N. or a T. (Trafalgar) in honor of the late glorious victory? This, if stamped upon coins of the smallest denominations, would serve to perpetuate the memory of Nelson more effectually than any other method, and would be attended with no extraordinary expence.

Mr. Boulton, the scientific and venerable proprietor of Soho, whose public exertions have so uniformly been distinguished by a patriotism the best directed, has solicited the permission of Government, that he may be allowed to strike a Medal, at his own expence, in commemoration of the brilliant Victory off Cape Trafalgar, and to present one to every seamen who served that day on board the British Fleet. The permission was immediately granted, with the warmest approbation of so laudable a design. The dye is nearly completed, and in a few weeks the Medals we'll be sent down to the several ports, to be distributed among the sailors by his Majesty's Commissioners.

The Victory, with the body of Lord Nelson, has come round to Sheerness. The body is appointed to be brought up the river in the Victory’s barge; all the ships of war, as it passes, to fire minute guns, and to have their colors half masked high. The time during which it is to lie in state in the Painted Hall of Greenwich Hospital is not yet fixed.

Early yesterday morning the coffin made out of the main mast of the French ship, L’Orient, was removed from Mr. Peddieson’s, in Brewer-street, Should be conveyed to Chatham, from whence it will be sent to the Nore, to receive the remains of Lord Nelson, which will be soldered up in that coffin on board the Victory, and then be removed by her barge to Greenwich Hospital.

A number of additional ornaments are ordered for Lord Nelson's coffin. Trophies of war, and the most elegant and appropriate devices are to be engraved upon them.

Near 100 carpenters are now daily employed in erecting stages, galleries, &c. in the interior of St. Pauls’s, preparatory to the funeral of the lamented Nelson. On Wednesday last, His Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland visited St. Paul’s, And spent some time in inspecting these preparations.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Aberdeen Press and Journal
Wednesday 01 January 1806

THE LATE LORD NELSON.


At eleven o’clock on Monday morning, the Commissioner’s yacht, with the remains of the lamented Lord Nelson on board, passed Gravesend. Minute guns were fired as she passed. – About two o’clock, she reached Erith. The body was to be landed, by torchlight, and deposited in the Recorder’s Chamber, and Greenwich Hospital, until the time fixed for its lying in state.

The body is placed in the coffin made of the wreck of the L’Orient, which is put into one made of Elm, then into a leaden one, and soldered up, and the whole placed in another large coffin of Elm. The coffin was enveloped in the colours of the Victory. As soon as it was landed, it was carried by sailors, part of the valiant crew of the Victory, to the Painted Hall, from whence, we understand, it was to have been removed, in the course of the evening to the Record Chamber, in the Hospital, and where it is to continue until the preparations for its lying in state shall be completed.

An Official Letter has been written to Sir Isaac Heard, by command of the Prince of Wales, informing him, as Garter Principal King at Arms, that is the intention of His Royal Highness to walk in the procession, at the funeral of Lord Nelson, or to attend it conformably to any other regulation that may be adopted by his Majesty's Ministers on that melancholy occasion.

It is finally determined on, that the Admiral of the Fleet, Sir Peter Parker, Bart. shall officiate as Chief Mourner at the funeral of Lord Nelson. Besides the several Admirals who are to follow the corpse, all the Captains who have arrived in England, and had commands on the glorious 21st Have October, with various others, and a great concourse of Lieutenants, will attend. The body will be conveyed from Greenwich hospital to Whitehall, in the twelve-oared barge belonging to the Admiralty, which has been covered with black cloth for the solemn occasion.

At the Funeral of Lord Nelson the whole of the morning service will take place prior to the burial service. The table that now extends from the top of the Dome in St. Paul's, is intended to hang all the colours of the different powers taken by the gallant Lord. At the top will be displayed the English flag of the Victory, which on a signal being given, will be lowered into the grave with the remains of the ever to be lamented noble tar.

Mr. Boulton, Of Birmingham, has, with the permission of Government, struck a medal at his own expence in commemoration of Lord Nelson's last victory, one of which he presents to every seaman who served that day in the fleet.

A noble instance of affection an honest feeling, and tribute which would exalt the character of the late Lord Nelson beyond what common acknowledgement could do, was lately evidenced on board the Brilliant frigate. During her last cruise she fell in with several vessels which acquainted her with the defeat of the combined fleet, but one in particular made known the death of Lord Nelson. A concern the most general and sincere pervaded the ship's company. While it was yet a subject of conversation, a boatswain’s mate, who was then doing boatswain’s duty, was ordered to pipe all bands to quarters; he did not do it readily, and Lieutenant upon duty went to inquire the cause, with orders to pipe instantly. The honest fellow, after several attempts began to sob bitterly, and said, “Damme me, if I can do it; Poor dear fellow, that I have been in many a hard day with, and to lose him now. I wouldn't have cared had it been my old father, mother, brothers or sisters if there were fifty of them, but can't think of parting with poor Nelson,” - and he went below immediately. His honest sensibility did not escape the notice of Captain Berry, who, with the feelings of a gallant officer, paid the deference to his affection for his Commanders, and requited him of several considerations of his regard.

SHIP NEWS

The Madrid Gazette of the 16th ult. Contains the following modest account of the loss sustained by the British fleet and the battle of Trafalgar: -
Britannia, 110 guns; Royal Sovereign, 100; Prince of Wales, 98; Neptune, 98 sunk. – Donegal, 80, castaway on the coast of Africa. – Tigre, 80, sunk off St Mary. Defence, 74, burnt by the English after the battle, While sinking. – Minotaur, 74, run ashore near Gibraltar. Collossus, 74, castaway near St Lucar, and burnt by the English, to prevent her falling into the hands of the Spaniards!

General Junot carried to Bonaparte the news of the destruction of his fleet off Trafalgar. - the news was whispered abroad, and two officers who had been the channel of its circulation were immediately thrown into irons.

Lieut. Garraty saw a printed Bulletin, which was circulated in France soon after the glorious battle of Trafalgar; in which it was stated, that the English were defeated, and had lost 14 ships! Nor did Lieutenant Garraty know the contrary till he landed at Falmouth.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Obverse: The obverse depicts Lord Nelson facing left. His hair is largely unkept but is pulled together in a single strand behind his back with a ribbon tied into a bow with two loops and one loose end. He is wearing a traditional British Naval uniform befitting his rank with a high collar. His left shoulder protrudes out toward the viewer. It is mostly covered by an intricately detailed epaulet with corded edges. Two stars appear on the upper board, which are affixed by a button. A large star-shaped medal appears on his left breast. Excluding a bundle of cloth protruding from under his shirt, the viewer is only able to see Lord Nelson’s outer coat. The outer collar of this coat comes to a sharp angle with what I assume is adorned by gold bullion. The two upper buttonholes are traced towards the center of his chest by the same material. The engraver took care to engrave an accurate deception of the contemporary naval button. A ribbon appears to flow out from the collar of his outer coat with a Naval Gold Medal attached. Another medal, which I am unsure of, appears immediately below the bust. The engraver's initials C H K are contained within the truncation. The legend HORATIO VISCOUNT NELSON. K • B • DUKE OF BRONTE. & appear above the bust wrapped closely around the inner rim.

Reverse: The reverse depicts an epic naval battle scene. A line of ships can be seen traveling from the left side of the medal, while another double-row line of ships appears from the right. These two lines seem to converge, but most of the detail is obscured by a large cloud of smoke. Another line of ships can be seen, also coming from the left, in the distance. A few masts are discernable among the smoke. The battle scene is sharply cut by an exergue line. The letter K appears at the farthest left point of this line. Below, appears the legend ”TRAFALGAR OCTr. 21. 1805.”. A ribbon with curled ends appears immediately above the battle scene, which contains the legend ”ENGLAND EXPECTS EVERY MAN WILL DO HIS DUTY”. This entire design is contained within a think inner ring which is superseded by a slightly wider outer rim.

Edge: TO THE HEROES OF TRAFALGAR FROM M: BOULTON:

Size: 48mm

Notes: The bulk of the medals in this collection are either at or very near the top of the conditional spectrum. This medal is a notable exception, but it nonetheless is a relatively nice example. It was a general practice for these medals, as well as the other naval medals struck by Boulton, to be housed in lunettes. I wonder if this might account for the survival of this example. This medal is cataloged as BHM-458 (Brown, 1980) and Eimer-960 (Eimer, 2010).


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.

Comfort, S. (2017). Matthew Boulton’s Naval Medals. London: Sim Comfort Associates.

Eimer, C. (2010). British Commemorative Medals and Their Values. London: Spink & Son Ltd.

View Coin 1830 Soho Mint royal Visit - Duchess of Kent - Silver Medal - Ex. James Watt Jr. - with Silvered-Tin Shells GREAT BRITAIN - MEDALS SILVER 1830 G.BRIT Bhm-1436 SOHO MINT ROYAL VISIT Ex: James Watt Jr. Coll. NGC PF 66 ULTRA CAMEO At this point in my collecting journey, I have handled enough pieces to be a bit desensitized to the invariable high quality associated with the Watt Jr. Collection. That said, this piece is a notable exception. It is impeccably preserved and very deserving of the PF-66 Ultra Cameo designation, but that is only further complemented by the seeming rarity of this piece. Brown (2007) only lists this medal as being struck in copper and classifies it as Very Rare. The only auction record I can find for a copper example is from a 2000 DNW auction, that also included the medal struck for Victoria, both in a fitted case with a provenance to the King Farouk Collection. It sold for a mortifyingly trivial amount even by contemporary standards. The example illustrated in this set is struck in silver, but we know that it also exists in gold. As we will learn in the historical context section, the gold version can be safely ignored as it will never be offered to the public. So far, I have only been able to track down one other example struck in silver. To my knowledge, this second example has not reappeared on the market since it was sold in the auction of the Murdoch Collection in March of 1904 (Lot 457; Plate IV). Although I cannot prove non-existence, it seems unlikely that any other silver versions of this medal were struck.

The example in this set is from the James Watt Jr. Collection and has retained the original silver-lined tin shells. Yes, you read that correctly. The shells are not brass as one would typically expect. I have only seen a handful of these tin shells. I find it interesting that they were used to protect a silver medal. I can’t but wonder if there is a specific reason for this – yet another fun project to pursue! Sadly, this medal was separated from the oddly inscribed wrapper that appeared in the 2002 auction. Despite numerous efforts, it has not been located. This medal appeared as a single item lot (277) and was described as “Visit of the Duchess of Kent to Soho, 6 August 1830, silver medal, obv., legend and date, rev., Britannia, from the same die as the last (B.H.M. 1436, not listed in silver), brilliant mint state, in [silvered tin] shells and wrapper, extremely rare”. It soared past the £400-600 estimate and hammered for £1600.

Historical Context:

So far, this set has primarily presented medals that were struck before Matthew Boulton’s death; however, to tell the entire story one must also take the opportunity to enjoy those pieces that carried on his legacy. In this case, the medal depicted celebrates a highly notable event – a royal visit from the English royalty! I can only assume that Boulton would have been filled with pride, especially given that a similar medal was set to be struck upon George III’s proposed visit in 1805 (Pollard, 1970).

Victoria was just 11 years old when she visited Birmingham with her mother, the Duchess of Kent, in August of 1830. Geroge IV had recently died, and the young princess was heiress presumptive. Her visit to Birmingham was a well-celebrated event, and we are very fortunate to have an account published in Aris’s Birmingham Gazette. I will reproduce the entirety of the entry but pause to highlight a section of considerable relevance to the current medal.

Aris’s Birmingham Gazette, August of 1830


“Their Royal Highnesses attended by Lady C Jenkinson, the Baroness Lehzen, Sir John Conroy, and suite, reached Dee's Royal Hotel about six o’clock on Wednesday evening (August 4), and were received by the gentlemen in attendance, who had been joined by Theodore Price, Esq., and by Mr. and Mrs. Dee. The apartments prepared for their Royal Highnesses were most elegantly and tastefully fitted up; preparations were making for brilliantly illuminating the front of the hotel; and every arrangement was effected to insure the convenience and comfort of the Royal party. An immense number of persons had assembled about the hotel, and the entrance hall was lined on both sides by respectable inhabitants, who waited to greet their Royal Highnesses on their entrance. Without they were hailed with loud acclamation, and within by the most respectful and cordial welcome. The Duchess received these attentions in the most graceful and condescending manner, and the youthful Princess was regarded by all with the deepest feelings of interest. The deputation had an interview with, and were introduced to the Duchess, and their congratulations and tender of services were freely and frankly accepted. The offer of the immediate attendance of military guard of honour was made to the Duchess, which she without hesitation declined. The Duchess and the Princess showed themselves afterwards at a front window of the hotel, and were loudly cheered the populace. Previously to dining, and after dinner, their Royal Highnesses again showed themselves, and were most enthusiastically greeted.

Agreeably to appointment, the deputation waited upon their Royal Highnesses on the following morning, and precisely at nine o’clock they proceeded to inspect the various establishments recommended to their notice. The carriage containing the Duchess and the Princess, Sir John Conroy, and the ladies in waiting, was preceded by three carriages in which were the gentlemen of the deputation, and the civil authorities in attendance, Messrs. Fairfax and Harley. In the course of the day the Royal party visited and minutely inspected the process of rolling metals at the rolling mill in Cambridge Street; the button manufactory of Messrs. Turner and Sons in Snow Hill; the papier maché manufactory of Messrs. Jennens and Bettridge; Mr. Thomason's manufactory and show rooms; Messrs. Bacchus and Green's glass manufactory, and the Britannia Nail Manufactory; at all of which their Royal Highnesses paid the greatest attention to the various objects of interest submitted to them, and in several instances were pleased to accept specimens of manufacture completed in their presence […].

On Friday morning the Royal party, attended as before, visited the rooms of the Society of Arts, where they were received by several of the members of the committee. […]. The Royal party next proceeded to the News Room, which they inspected, and on leaving entered their names in the register. They afterwards visited Rollason and Son's glass and china rooms, in Steelhouse Lane, with which they appeared much gratified.”


The next several sections are of particular interest and should be noted separately from the above text.

”The gentlemen of Birmingham now took their leave, the Duchess of Kent reiterating the expression of her grateful sense of their attention to the Princess and herself; and Mr. Watt, at the desire of her Royal Highness, previously communicated to him, undertook, in the absence of Mr. Boulton, to conduct the illustrious visitors to the great establishments of Soho, and Soho Foundry, commencing with the latter. They took the Dudley Road, to afford an opportunity of giving their Royal Highnesses, from Lee Bridge, a view of part of the improvements that have recently been carried into effect on the Birmingham Canal, and which in point of grandeur and utility surpass every similar work of modern times. The gates of the Soho Foundry, which a sense of national policy more perhaps than private convenience, keeps shut against the public, were thrown open, and their Royal Highnesses were shown the principal operations of the smithery, boiler making, casting of brass and iron, boring mills, turning and fitting departments, employed in making steam engines. The Duchess was pleased to express her sense of the benefit which had resulted to the country from the improvements in that machine, and her feeling of respect for the memory of their author, the late Mr. Watt. His son took the opportunity of introducing to their Royal Highnesses two of the few remaining disciples and assistants of his father, the venerable Mr. Murdock himself the inventor of the gas light and of other useful arts, and Mr. Peter Ewart, now of Manchester.

The party then proceeded to Soho, where Mr. Watt, in showing their Royal Highnesses the exterior of the elegant building which forms the front of the manufactory, explained that it was founded about seventy years ago by the late Mr. Boulton, and was the first and for many years the sole large manufactory in Britain being the parent of those vast establishments which have since overspread the kingdom. He apologised for the unavoidable absence of Mr. Boulton, and stated that he was commissioned by him to express his great regret and to act in his place. They were then taken to the manufactory of plated ware, where the gentry of the neighbourhood, who had attended to pay their respects, were introduced. The manufactory of steel goods was next shewn, and afterwards the Mint, where enough of machinery still remained to enable Mr. Watt to explain the different processes of coining. When they reached the press-room, a blank of gold was shown to the Princess, which being placed in the press, she assisted in striking a medal commemorative of her visit to Soho, having a beautiful figure of Britannia upon one side, and on the other this inscription: “Victoria, Magnæ Spes Altera Britanniæ. Soho, 6 Aug. 1830.”. The Duchess then assisted at the striking of another gold medal, having the same figure of Britannia, with the inscription: “Victoria Maria Louisa, Felix tu quoque Mater! Soho, 6 Aug. 1830.”. These, being put into handsome cases, were presented to their Royal Highnesses by Mr. Watt, in the name of Mr. Boulton, explaining that the modern improved machinery for coining had been brought to perfection by the late Mr. Boulton upon the spot where they then stood, and that all the machinery of the Royal Mint at the Tower, of those of Russia, Denmark, and many others had been there manufactured. After inspecting the rolling mill and a few of the subordinate parts of the Soho manufactory, the Royal party did Mr. Watt the honour to partake of a collation at Aston Hall, and having viewed the gallery and apartments of that ancient baronial mansion they took their departure for Malvern Wells at three o’clock.

We cannot conclude this article without remarking that the urbanity and good sense of her Royal Highness the Duchess, and the pleasing, unaffected manners and intelligence of the young Princess, have most agreeably impressed all those who had access to them; and we think the country may look forward with hope and pride to the development of the disposition and talents of this scion of the Royal House of Brunswick under such a guide and protectress.”


The previously noted sections above are fascinating and provide a good deal of important information. Interestingly, Matthew Robinson Boulton, Matthew Boulton’s son, is absent. In his place, James Watt Jr. has the privilege of escorting the Princess and Duchess. We also learn that the two versions of the Royal Visit to Soho medals were struck in gold and were done so with the assistance of the person commemorated by the medal. That is an insanely cool piece of information. In this moment, James Watt Jr. tactfully displays the ease with which these machines can be operated while simultaneously honoring the legacy of Matthew Boulton.

It is not surprising to me that Brown (2007) would not list the gold versions in his entry for this medal. After all, those two medals are likely unique and will never be offered for public consumption. However, it is odd that he would not list this medal struck in silver. That said, his work spanned thousands of medals and some omissions are expected.

We know from the account above that Watt Jr. was present when the gold medals were produced. This information paired with the common knowledge that Watt Jr. would often use retouched dies to fill vacant spots in his collection, makes it more than plausible that he may have personally struck the two silver versions shortly after the royal visit. Perhaps the second silver medal was intended for Boulton, but ultimately found its way to the Murdoch Collection. Those details are likely lost to history, but it is a fun point to ponder. As noted in Peck (1970), the reverse design is from the die of P-1328. The use of this die further illustrates the extended life of Soho dies and attests to the fact they were still in use, albeit in a greatly reduced capacity, well after the death of King George III and Matthew Boulton.


Obverse: Notably, the obverse design only includes a simple inscription that reads: VICTORIA MARIA LOUISA. FELIX TU QUOQUE MATER! SOHO. 6 AUG. 1830 in six lines contained within a toothed border and a thin outer rim. In this case, there was likely insufficient time to prepare a bust for either the Princess or the Duchess for this medal. Nonetheless, the simplistic nature of the obverse makes a bold statement about the importance of the event commemorated while also retaining on the reverse Küchler’s depiction of Britannia that is quintessential to the English coinage struck at the Soho Mint.

Reverse: Brittania is facing left wearing a close-fitting drapery sitting on a rock surrounded by waves. Her right arm is extended, and her hand holds an olive branch with 11 leaves and three berries. All the leaves are attached to the twig. Her left arm is down with a trident clasped in her hand, of which the middle prong bisects the second limb of the 2nd “N” in Britannia. An oval shield that adorns the crosses of St. George and St. Andrew (heraldically colored) is to her left side. Peck (1970) notes that the space between the shield and her hand is slightly larger and that two horizontal lines appear under her left hand. These appear to be a continuation of her gown. To the right of the shield is a banner with the Soho mint mark which reads “SOHO”. To the left of the shield is the letter K. A 3-masted warship appears in the sea in front of her. Peck (1970) notes that the ship does not have gunports and that the flag at the stern is striated. The sea is not curved like that of the 1799 halfpennies but is instead straight, leaving a clear exergue. The legend which is contained within a thin outer rim and a toothed border is as follows: BRITANNIA (even spacing).

Edge: Plain

Size: 34mm

Notes: I first stumbled upon this piece when I was still in graduate school. At the time, the asking price was well above my annual numismatic budget. Although I could not afford it, I loved the medal. Window shopping is free, so I opted to bookmark the listing and admire it from afar. You can imagine my despair when I realized that it had sold. The stark reality set in – this was an extraordinarily rare medal with an impeccable provenance. The likelihood of it resurfacing soon seemed bleak at best. It is oddly serendipitous that I would unknowingly become friends with the gentleman who purchased it all those years ago. As our friendship grew and our collecting journeys became more entwined, my friend generously offered to sell it to me. The serendipity does not end there, but I will reserve further discussion of the subject for an upcoming project focusing on the Tokens of the Soho Mint. Although my affection for copper is unabated, I admit that Britannia’s rendering in silver is rather appealing.

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.

Peck, C. W. (1964). English Copper, Tin, and Bronze Coins in the British Museum 1558-1958. London: The trustees of the British Museum.

Pollard, J. G. (1970). Matthew Boulton and Conrad Heinrich Küchler. The Numismatic Chronicle, 10, 259-318.
View Coin 1835 Great Britain (BHM-1685; Eimer-1282) The Marquis of Camden Installed as Chancellor of Cambridge University – Bronzed Copper - with Titled Case GREAT BRITAIN - MEDALS BRONZE 1835 G.BRIT Bhm-1685 MARQUIS OF CAMDEN CAMBRIDGE CHANCELLOR NGC MS 65 BN These medals are not particularly rare, but finding an example with the original box is no easy task. Sadly, the box was damaged in transit and the lid is no longer attached to the base. Nonetheless, it makes for an impressive display. As readers may know, the Soho Mint shut its doors for good in 1850. There were not many medals struck at the Soho Mint after the death of Matthew Boulton in 1809 and the number of speculative pieces continued to decline sharply after the death of the Küchler. The current medal is an odd curiosity in this context. James Peters, a Jeweler, commissioned the Soho Mint to strike these medals to commemorate the Marquis of Camden’s installation as Chancellor of Cambridge University. As it turns out, this is just one medal in a series sold by Peters. To my knowledge, this is the only one struck at the Soho Mint. He advertised his medals in the Cambridge Chronicle and Journal on July 3rd, 1835. It reads (with minor formatting edits):
________________________________________________________________________________________________

CAMBRIDGE
INSTALLATION MEDALS.

UNDER THE PATRONAGE OF THE
Most Noble the CHANCELLOR.

JAMES PETERS, JEWELLER, St. Mary’s Street,
most respectfully announces that he has just completed
A MEDAL
To Commemorate the INSTALLATION of the
MARQUIS CAMDEN
As Chancellor of this University.
Executed in the most beautiful style, by the first Artist at the Soho.


On the obverse is a correct LIKENESS taken from Life by his Lordship’s permission, within the following inscription:
“Joan: Jeffreys: March: Camden: Nobilis: Acad: Cantab: Cancell: 1835.”

The reverse has a Perspective View of the Interior of the Senate-House, shewing correctly the whole of that splendid Room, and the motto:
“Deum Timeto: Regem Honorato: Virtutem Colito: Disciplinis Bonis Operam Dato.”
.
Prices of Silver in Case £.1 s.1 d.0
Prices of Bronzed in Case £.0 s.10 d.6
Prices of White Metal in Case £.0 s.5 d.0

J. P. has also received a splendid assortment of descriptions of

JEWELLERY,

Suitable for the present occasion, of the newest and most fashionable articles.
Cambridge, July 2, 1835

________________________________________________________________________________________________

We learn a few important tidbits of information regarding this medal from the above. First, we learn that the medal was undeniably struck at the Soho Mint. Second, we learn that the Marquis of Camden sat for the capture of his likeness. Third, we learn that these medals were struck in silver, bronzed copper, and white metal. The ad states that the medal was engraved by first Artist at the Soho, but does not explicitly state who. This leaves a bit of mystery as the medal is not signed by the engraver. Nonetheless, we comfortably rule out Droz for obvious reasons. Of course, Droz was also technically not the first engraver concerned with the medals struck at the Soho Mint. This will be a topic of discussion for the write-up of the 'Otaheite' medal (i.e., the Resolution and Adventure Medal). The ad also implies that these medals were only sold with a case, which is odd given how hard it is to find an example that has retained the original titled case. It does not appear that many of these cases have survived, so I opted to provide a picture for those interested to the right. Beyond this information, I think it is incredibly cool to find a nearly two-century-old advertisement for a Soho medal!

Historical Context: The Marquis of Camden of elected and installed as the Chancellor of Cambridge on July 4th of 1835. The prestige of both the man and the institution that he was elected to represent all but ensured a wealth of publications that we now can peruse. In this case, The Blackburn Standard published a highly detailed account of the event in their July 15th paper. It reads:
________________________________________________________________________________________________

INSTALLATION OF THE MARQUIS OF CAMDEN
AS CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CAMBRIDGE


The festivities connected with this event, which have been so long and so earnestly anticipated, commenced on Saturday last. On that day the Messiah was performed in St. Mary’s. The performance, however, appeared to come rather heavily off, and in spite of the intrinsic excellence of the music, the interest of the audience evidently flagged before the conclusion of the entertainment. The company was not yet sufficiently numerous in the town to afford a very brilliant audience, and the only persons of distinction noticed as present on the occasion were the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and Sir C. Wetherall.

In the evening the Marquis of Camden arrived in the town. He was received in form by the Vice Chancellor and Heads of Houses, and afterwards dined in private with the Vice Chancellor.

On the following day the Chancellor, according to immemorial usage, proceeded to the Church of Great St. Mary to hear divine service. The Vice-Chancellor walked on the left of the Noble Marquis, and the Duke of Northumberland, as High Steward, on his right. They were followed by Noblemen and Gentlemen, each wearing the dress to which his collegiate rank, in either of the Universities, entitled him. Among them were the Marquis of Downshire, the Earl of Devon, Lord Brownlow, Lord Canterbury, Lord Brecknock, Lord Farnborough, Chief Justice Tyndal, the recorder of London, Sir H. Hardinge, Sir R. Inglis, and Mr. Goulburn. These were succeeded by a considerable number of Doctors, both of Law and Divinity, Heads of Houses, Fellows, Proctors and Tutors. In the afternoon. The Noble Marquis again proceeded to church, attended as in the morning. The promenade in the evening closed the ceremonies of Sunday.

Soon after eight the Chancellor, and his academical robes of ceremony, made his appearance, and, in a slow pace, proceeded from Trinity, along the majestic line of buildings in Trinity-street, Senate House Hill. Prince George of Cambridge walked on the left of the Noble Marquis. He was unattended upon his occasion by any other person of rank. The illustrious Prince, from his unassuming and gentle deportment, seemed to have won completely the goodwill of the spectators, many of whom expressed their opinions in strong, though often homely, sincerity of language. Having passed very slowly along Senate-House hill, the Marquis entered King’s, at the principal gate, and walked in the rear of the line of Colleges between that and Trinity. There were a few constables in attendance to keep the footway clear, and to prevent inconvenient crowding, but throughout the whole of his progress there was not the slightest tendency to riot or disorder of any kind.

On Monday morning a breakfast was given by the Master of Sidney to about 500 persons, and various other entertainments of a similar description, but on a less extensive scale, ushered in the day. The attention of the public, however, was directed to the entry of the Duke of Wellington, who was to come from the seat of Earl Delawarr, and who consented to a sort of triumphal escort, planned in his honor by the yeomanry and farmers of the neighborhood. According, numerous parties of horsemen extremely well mounted began to assemble in Trumpington (two miles from Cambridge), between eight and nine o’clock, and by half-past nine o’clock 400 or 500 were collected to welcome the noble duke on his arrival. Among this body were many gentlemen farmers of considerable property. A number of carriages, gigs, and vehicles of various kinds, contributed to swell the cavalcade. The horsemen had decorated themselves and their steeds with branches of laurel, and the company in carriage bore similar tokens of triumph and welcome. Some barouches which brought out young men from Cambridge, were ornamented with bouquets of flowers. The villagers turned out in mass to see the show and make holiday. About half-past nine it was announced that his grace was at hand, and shortly afterwards he drove up in an open carriage and four, which came by a crossroad into the London road at Trumpington; He was accompanied by the Earl and Countess Delawarr. The reception which the noble Duke met with was of the most cordial description, and only to be exceeded in enthusiasm by the welcome that awaited him at the Senate-house. The farmers cheered to the top of their voices, and waved their Laurel boughs, and the Duke acknowledged the welcome in a way that showed he was fully sensible of its heartiness and value. At the same instant, with his usual decision and power of arrangement, he pointed out the course proper to be taken, in order to avoid confusion in the procession. The horseman, whose numbers were increasing every moment, preceded, and the carriage is followed in the line. As the procession advanced, its members swelled, and by the time it had approached within half a mile of Cambridge there were several thousand people on horseback, in carriages, and on foot in the noble duke’s train. The enthusiasm of the people increased with their numbers, and when the noble Duke arrived opposite Addenbrooke’s hospital, they insisted upon taking the horses from his carriage, and drawing him into Cambridge in triumph. Flags were displayed from many of the houses, and every door and window from basement to roof was thronged with spectators. Some climbed upon the roofs, and the college along the line of the procession contained their full complement of gazers. Dr. Barnes, the venerable master of Peterhouse, appeared to view the spectacle with a great deal of interest. Gentlemen waved their hats and ladies their handkerchiefs, the one clash shouting and the other smiling with all their might. The whole thing wore the air of triumph.

” they had climbed up the walls and battlements, to towers and windows – yea, to chimney tops,”

to welcome the Duke; and such was the zeal and enthusiasm of the people that –

” you would have thought the very windows spake, so many greedy looks of old and young their casements darted their desiring eyes upon his visage.”

A band proceeded the cottage, but its notes were frequently drowned amidst the noisy congratulations that resounded in all directions. The Senate-house now became the center of attention. It was filled up with more attention to convenience than ornament, and adapted to the combination of perhaps 1,800 individuals. At the upper end was raised a platform, on which was placed the throne for the new Chancellor, which was handsomely covered with Crimson velvet, and over It was suspended the Marquis arms, richly emblazoned on crimson silk. A few minutes after 10 o’clock the ladies were admitted to the seats reserved for their accommodation, and at about 20 minutes after that hour the impatience of the under graduates was no longer to be restrained, and they were admitted to the galleries, which were filled in an instantaneous rush. The theater was now crowded in every part but the raised platform, and presented a very gay and interesting spectacle. No sooner, however, were the young men fairly settled then they commenced the customary demonstrations of feeling towards the various personages connected with the proceedings or public characters in general. The first and foremost did they raise a tremendous shout for the “Chancellor”. The Chancellor having been duly honored, the “King” produce loud and deafening cheers from all parts of the Senate-house; and the name of the “Queen” elicited still louder plaudits. “The Duke of Wellington” was received, in his absence, with overwhelming applause, which shook the building to its center, so loud and hearty was the cheering. “Prince George of Cambridge,” was repeatedly called out, and each time the call was followed by the loudest demonstrations of regard.” The University of Oxford,” “The Princess Victoria,” “The Ladies,” “Sir Robert Peel,” “The House of Peers,” “The Vice-Chancellor,” “The Duke of Northumberland,” “Church and State,” “Mr. Goulburn,” and “the late Ministry,” we're all, and particularly the ladies in Sir Robert Peele, loudly cheered. By this time it drew near 11 o’clock, and the men having cheered themselves hoarse waited for breath and the arrival of the Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor was warmly greeted on his arrival as was also Prince George of Cambridge, who was dressed in a Hanoverian uniform, with a star on his left breast. Somewhere about 12 o’clock the splendid cortege entered the building, and the bedels leading the way before the Chancellor, who wore the collar, riband, and George of the Garter, the more distinctive mark of the order being buckled of course round his left leg. He wore a black velvet cap, with a very large and heavy gold tassel dangling from it, and a black velvet robe, most magnificently trimmed with very deep bars of gold lace on the collar, down the sides, and round the edge of his train, which was borne up by a gentleman who followed. Has he advanced up the center of the area, followed by all those distinguished persons whose names we shall have occasion to mention presently, a most appealing shout of welcome and congratulation burst from all the gownsmen, and the cheers continued to long after he had taken his stand in front of the chair set for him, and his train had been carefully thrown by the trainbearer over the back of it. At last the sound seized, but in a moment the thunder of the human voice again shook the edifice and a manner almost unexampled, for the name of the Duke of Wellington was no sooner heard, than every tongue paid its vociferous but cordial tribute to the hero of Waterloo; the ladies of course are expected, who, however, displayed their enthusiasm in the waving of handkerchiefs and scarves, which they kept up as long as the cheering lasted, full five minutes. The Duke never looked better. He was dressed much as usual, except with the addition of a small star. The enthusiasm of the tenants of the galleries was, however, by no means exhausted; and the cheers of gratulation, and the hiss of scorn, each for its appropriate rallying word, was not spared. “The ladies” - )cheers)- “again” – (cheers), - and “one cheer more.” – (cheers.) – “The Bishop of Exeter.” – (Great cheering.) – “The King” – (Applause.) – “The Queen” – (Vehement cheering.) – “Prince George.” – (Great applause) – “The High Steward.” – (Cheers.) – “Church and State.” – (Loud cheers.) – “The Duchess of Northumberland.” – (Cheering.) - “The University member, Goulburn, and Law.” – (Great cheering) – “The three Universities.” (Cheers; some called out, “No, no, the two Universities.”) – “The Bishops.” – (Very loud cheering) – “The Bishops again.” (Cheering repeated.) – “One cheer more.” – “Sir Robert Peel.” – (Enthusiastic and long continued cheering) – This call was repeatedly made and was constantly responded to in the same manner. “His Majesty’s Minsters.” – (Deep groans and hisses.) - “His Majesty’s late Minsters.” – (Very loud cheering.) – “Lord Morpeth.” – (similarly complimented.) – “Lord Melborne escaped with a smaller portion of disapprobation, but was still soundly hissed. “Lord Brougham.” – (Great Hissing) – “Three groans for O’Connell” – “Three cheers for order” – (much laughter), - “Sir James Graham” – (Cheers.) – “Lord Lyndhurst” – (much applause), - “Lord Abinger” – (Cheers) – “Sir Edward Sugden” – (very great cheering) – “Lord Canterbury” – (enthusiastic cheering) – “Sir Charles Wetherell” – (great cheering), - “Lord Eldon” (Loud and continued applause.) – When tranquility was restored the congregation proceeded to the ceremony of granting honorary degrees to the several aspirants to that honor, but they had only got through one when it came to the turn of the Duke of Wellington to have the grace proposed for his degree. As soon as he advanced so take the customary oaths and subscribe his name and the University books, a loud shout similar to that which had saluted him after his entrance, and as long sustained, greeted him; and when he retired among the circle of doctors, her voice calling out “three cheers for Dr. Wellington” contributed not a little to the amusement of the audience. When these proceedings were over the public orator, the Rev. Mr. Tatham, after bowing to the Chancellor, proceeded to present to him seriatim the subjoined list of noblemen and gentlemen who were admitted to the honorary degree of Doctor of Civil Law on this occasion: -

Prince Pozzo di Borgo, Duke of Grafton, Marquis of Bute, Marquis of Downshire, Marquis of Exeter, Marquis of Northampton, Marquis of Douro, Earl of Hardwicke, Earl Amherst, Earl Brownlow, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Abinger, Lord Teignmouth, Lord Lisle and Dudley, Lord Castlereagh, Lord Camden, Lord Burlington, Lord A. Fitzclarence, Lord Clive, Lord Prudhoe, Sir E. Sugden, Sir J. Graham, Sir N. Tindal, Sir J. Parke, Mr. Baron Graham, Hon. R. Clive, Hon. G. R. Trevor.

The following were admitted doctors, ad eundem: - the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Duke of Wellington, the Bishop of Exeter, the Bishop of Llandaff.

The following received degrees of A.M. : - Lord Boscawen, ad eundem; Ho. W. W. Forrester, Hon. H. Manners Sutton; Sir Francis Chantrey, Sir G. Rose, Sir P. Malcolm, Sir E. Kerrison, Sir C. Wetherill.

Messrs. Goulburn and Howes declaimed, and we're presented with medals by the Chancellor. The Duke of Cumberland, and the Marquis of Londonderry, who were not present at the commencement of the proceedings, arrived in the Senate shortly before their termination at five o’clock. The Duke of Cumberland was received with hearty applause.

In the evening, after the ceremonies of the Senate-house were closed, the Chancellor, with the High Steward, Heads of Houses and distinguished visitors, dined with the Vice Chancellor at Jesus College. There being no hall in the house nearly large enough to accommodate the guests, a temporary dining room was constructed, by means of an awning, sufficiently large to cover and completely one of the small quadrangles. The entertainment was of the most splendid description, and arrangements were made for the accommodation of a large number of spectators.

On the same evening was held a concert in the Senate House, at which the attendance was quite as numerous as at any of the preceding assemblies. By some singularity and judicious arrangement one entrance only was left accessible, and the greatest inconvenience, not unmingled with danger, was the consequence. Grisi, in Dall asilo della pace, and the polacca from Puritani, Caradori Allen, in Jack o’ Hazeldean, and Grisi and Lablache, in the buffo duet Guardate che figura, were the stars of the evening. Each of these pieces received that enthusiastic applause to which the well known merits of the respective artists are so much entitled.

On Tuesday the doors of the Senate House were opened precisely at 10 o’clock. The only mark of popular feeling that was displayed before the arrival of the Chancellor was on the entrance of the Prince George of Cambridge, who was the first of the distinguished visitors to make his appearance, and who was received with cheers. At half-past eleven the Chancellor entered, followed by the Dukes of Cumberland, Wellington, Northumberland, Grafton, Prince Pozzo di Borgo, and most of the other distinguished guests before enumerated. The appearance of the Chancellor and his company was hailed with vociferous and prolonged applause. Then commenced volleys of cheers and hisses, such as those of the preceding day. When order was restored, Dr. Turton, Regius Professor of Divinity, went through the form of conferring a degree of doctor in divinity on Dr. Bowes; three degress in civil law were conferred by Dr. Geldart, Regius Professor of Civil Law, and four degrees of doctor and medicine by Dr. Haviland, Regius Professor of Physic. The ladies were greatly amused by the ceremonies of the ring and the salutation which took place in conferring those degrees.

In consequence of the overcrowded state of the area, several ladies and some gentlemen fainted, and were carried out. The prize poems were then recited, and the prizes awarded. The first was by Mr. Whitehead of St. John's, and was on the death of the Duke of Gloucester. Mr. Jacob Ind. Smith, of Trinity, then recited the Greek Sapphic ode on Delos, and Mr. Drury, a prize owed in Latin Alcaics on Belisarius. The same gentleman gave a Greek and Latin epigram, both of which were extremely clever. The recitations were concluded by translation in Greek Iambics from act 2, scene 2, of the third part of Shakespeare's King Henry VI, by Mr. Kennedy, of St. John's college, who is the 4th brother in the same family that has received this prize.

The installation ode was written by the Reverend C. Wordsworth, fellow of Trinity College. The music was composed by T. A. Walmisley, Mus. Bac., organist of Trinity and Saint John’s. The performance of this ode was received with enthusiastic applause, and at its termination “God save the King” what sung, Caradori singing the first stanza, Sapio the second, and Sapio and Stockhausen the third, the audience joining loudly in the chorus. The Chancellor then departed amid loud cheers and the company dispersed as quickly as they could.

In the evening, the preceding strictly connected with the installation terminated by a grand concert in the Senate House. The audience, however, was but thin, and a general air of languor and exhaustion appeared to pervade the company, which was not dissipated till a late hour in the evening. Rubini, Caradori, and Stockhausen, exerted themselves with their usual success, and Machin obtained an enthusiastic encore.

Wednesday

In the morning, a grand selection of sacred music was performed in Saint Mary's church, and long before the concert began the church was crowded throughout a very fashionable audience. The Coronation Anthem opened the performances. Selections from Whitfields oratorio of the Crucifixion, from Beethoven's Mount of Olives, and from Spohr’s Last Judgment, formed the principal part of the entertainment. Nothing, however, of the day excited so much astonishment and admiration as Harper's wonderful performance on the trumpet.

After the conclusion of the concert, the chancellor, accompanied by the Duke of Wellington and other distinguished auditors, proceeded from great St. Mary's Church to the Pit Press, of which the noble Marquis (Camden) may be considered the founder. For some time past active exertions have been made at the Pit Press, under the superintendence of Mr. J. W. Parker, of London, to prepare a new and unique edition of the Bible, of which a splendid copy, printed upon vellum with red borders, is to be presented to His Majesty. The first sheets of this extraordinary production were ready to be struck off; and as the illustrious visitors felt a very strong curiosity upon the subject, they requested Mr. Parker to allow them to go into the printing room. Mr. Parker, of course, felt great pleasure in complying with their request, and, pointing out the way, was followed by the whole party, together with a large bevy of ladies. After a curious and minute examination of the mysteries of the place some of the illustrious and noble visitors thought they should like to take a printing themselves. It was thought that nothing could be more worthy of the trial of their skill then the copy of the Bible intended for His Majesty. They were, therefore, conducted to the several presses, in the first sheets of this splendid work were struck off by the hands of the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, the Lord High Steward, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Duke of Cumberland, Prince George of Cambridge, the Duke of Wellington, and the Earl of Hardwicke. When the sheets were taken from the press they were shown to Mr. Parker, who pronounced the workmanship excellent. With this compliment the illustrious party retired, seemingly charmed with the exertion they had made.

In the course of the morning a deputation of farmers and agriculturalists from the neighbourhood waited on his grace the Duke of Wellington with an address, which we subjoin. Of the parties to the address we can only say, that we firmly believe that a more numerous, intelligent, and respectable body of the classes to whom they belong, never united on any similar occasion.

TO HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON

We, a deputation from the members of the Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely Farmers’ Association, and others, who had the gratification of escorting your Grace into Cambridge on Monday, now seek the permission to offer to your Grace our hearty congratulations on your Grace’s arrival in this town, to say how proud we feel in seeing your Grace here, and to express our most sincere hope that your Grace’s life may be prolonged many years, to excite the admission and gratitude of every Englishman.
Boss with us avail ourselves the opportunity afforded us by paying our unanimous respects to your Grace, we hope that we may be permitted to allude for a moment to our condition as farmers. The whole of our rent, tithes, and taxes are now paid out of our fast diminishing capitals, instead of out of the profits which such capitals and our own industry ought to return; the government takes no notice of our petitions, and unless the Conservative aristocracy of the Kingdom, of which we look upon your Grace as the leader, espouse or cause, we shall be he retrievability ruined.

With a view to explain our situation we humbly take the liberty to present to your Grace a copy of a letter from Mr. Bernard, of King's College, addressed to the editor of the Agricultural Magazine, which appears to us of the utmost importance. That letter we firmly believe clearly shows the true cause of the distress in which we are involved.

We do not now venture to ask your Grace's opinion of that letter. We wish you to enjoy the festivities of the university undisturbed so long as you remain amongst us; but we do entertain a hope that when your Grace shall have returned to London, Mr. Bernard's letter will have the honor of your Grace’s perusal, And that we may have the satisfaction of finding that its views, as to the cause of our sufferings, meet your Grace’s approbation.

We cannot conclude the short address without again expressing our fervent hope for the prolonged life and continued happiness of your Grace.”

The Noble Duke received the deputation in the most cordial manner, and in reference to the address, and the compliment paid him by the farmers on this occasion, as well as upon his entrance into the town, spoke to the following effect: -

“Gentlemen, - when on my entrance into the town I was unexpectedly met by numerous body of the farmers in Yeomanry area of the county, I was much gratified indeed by the display of friendly disposition towards myself, but this additional manifestation of your good wishes does indeed surprise and gratify me. With regard to the distress existing amongst those engaged in agriculture, And prevalent indeed amongst other interests of his Majesty's dominions, I sincerely deplore it. The interest of agriculture is that upon which the happiness of this country and that of every other mainly depends; and you may rely upon it for that if Mr. Bernard's letter, alluded to in your address (to which I will pay every attention to), suggests anything practicable, or if anything occurs to myself which I think will promote the prosperity of agriculture, I shall exert myself for that purpose to the utmost of my ability.

Gentlemen, - I again repeat to you the sense I have of the cordial good feeling towards me, manifested by you in escorting me into Cambridge, and not less am I obliged by the address which you have now presented to me, and from which I offer you my very sincere acknowledgments.”

The Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, and the distinguished visitors, went in the evening to dine with the Master and Fellows at St. John's College. The festivity was prepared under the large tent erected for the purpose already mentioned.


The multi-day celebration was tiring to read about, so I imagine the exhaustion noted by the author at the event was palpable. Nonetheless, we can say with utmost confidence that the installation of the new Chancellor was well received. It is interesting to note the petition delivered to the Duke of Wellington on behalf of the local farmers. Agricultural societies played a large role in British domestic prosperity for decades prior. Of course, this position was not recognized without the concerted effort of those involved. As is usually the case, those in power seemed to have discovered ways to exploit this group in the hope of stuffing their pockets. It would be interesting to see if the Duke of Wellington took any action on the issue or if he too was deaf to the pleas of the agriculturalists.

Obverse: The draped bust of the Marquis of Camden is depicted facing left. Unlike most contemporary depictions of people of notoriety, the top of his head is bare (i.e., he is bald). It appears that some hair remains at the back of his head and appears relatively thick. In keeping with contemporary fashion, he has a sideburn that extends half-past his cheek, but it is neatly trimmed so that the jawline is completely bare. His bust is tightly wrapped with a cloak with raised collars. The engraver took care to include minor details that suggest the cloak was made of some type of fur. The cloak is suspended by a brooch on his chest, which consists of a single large circle flanked by a halo of smaller circles. The outer edges of the cloak are decorated with vertical facets. A ribbon with two bows and two loose ends appears on his left shoulder. An ornate chain with two alternating main designs rests around his shoulders and droops toward the center of his chest. A badge can be partially seen affixed to his left breast. The date 1835 appears immediately below the bust. The obverse legend reads: JOAN : JEFFREYS MARCH : CAMDEN : NOBILISS : ACAD : CANTAB : CANCELL : , or, John Jeffreys, Marquis of Camden, Chancellor of the most noble University of Cambridge 1835. The entire design is contained within an inner recessed thin circle, which is further contained within a larger outer rim.

Reverse: The reverse design has too many nuanced details to describe, but I will do my best to provide something beyond the general description provided by standard references (e.g., Interior view of the Senate House at the University of Cambridge). In the foreground of the main device appear four well-formed pillars in the classic design, with two on either side close to one another. The middle is intentionally left open. It is in this space that we see the tiled floors that give way to the central stage. A total of five people in academic robes are depicted at varying distances from the viewer. Statues displayed on pedestals can be seen on either side of the hallway. The vaulted room affords enough space for an upper gallery with large windows and an ornate guardrail. The ceiling is coffered with ornate designs within each subsection, which vary in size and design. Although the main device is allowed to fill the entire space between the vertical rims, it is sharply cut a straight line at the top and bottom to create exergues. A winged female figure flying left appears at the top “exergue”. Her right arm is extended downward holding a laurel wreath. Her left arm is closer to her chest and holds what appears to be a palm branch. The reverse legend is contained within the bottom exergue. It reads: DEUM TIMETO : REGEM HONORATO : VIRTUTEM COLITO : DISCIPLINE BONIS OPERAM DATO.. I believe this translates to Fear God, honour the King, practise virtue, pay attention to good studies. The entire design is contained within an inner recessed thin circle, which is further contained within a larger outer rim.

Edge: Plain

Size: 44mm

Notes: I have always been enticed by the architectural medals of this period, but I have remained disciplined as they were not struck at the Soho Mint. This medal is the only exception, and it allows me to enjoy the spectacular reverse design guilt free. The perceived depth is amazing and there is no shortage of detail even in the most minute portions of the design. Although I have not been able to identify the engraver with certainty, I can say with confidence that they were incredibly talented.
This medal is cataloged by Brown (1980) as BHM-1685, and is rated as normal rarity (i.e., “an average number of specimens struck and fairly frequently encountered”) across the three metals it is recorded to have been struck in (e.g., silver, bronzed copper, and white metal). Eimer (2010) records this medal as E-1282 and illustrates a silver example on plate 139.

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.

Eimer, C. (2010). British Commemorative Medals and Their Values. London: Spink & Son Ltd.

To follow or send a message to this user,
please log in