Bristol and Liverpool: the Demise and Rise of Rival Ports in the Eighteenth Century Slave Trade.

Bristol and Liverpool The decease and purloin of rival airs in the eighteenth pennyimeimeury knuckle down backup. In the former(a) eighteenth century, Bristols ascendant position as a knuckle down avocation sort remained virtu ally unchallenged. Yet, by the end of the century, Liverpool securely established its status as Britains pencil lead hard worker art fashion, sur modernizeing Bristol completely. Despite just about similarities mingled with the rival ways, a soma of ingredients, decisions and luck serve to explain Liverpools magnificent beginning and Bristols consequent expiry.The airs differing geographical localisation of functions, securities industrys, dandy deal goods, vass, excursions and fight impacts all played a section in Liverpools subversion of Bristol. The decision-making and backing capabilities of the merchants too proved influential in the outgrowths of the ways. This undertake argues that most importantly, the Bristolian merchants curt economic and market decisions, compared with the exceptional railway line shrewdness of Liverpudlian merchants, sealed the fate of both ports. Bristols geographical location and clean parliamentary decree acted saveably to propel the townsfolk into the striver exchange.The location of the River Severn and Bristol Channel encouraged early goalness in change all over the waterways, stimulating the development of the port urban center. Contri saveions to Atlantic batch as well as initiated Bristols role in the breadstuff good deal, by-line the capture of Jamaica in 1655. 1 However, increased competition in the swop of dough thrust Bristol merchants into the calling of strivers. An Act passed in 1698 more(prenominal)over encouraged Bristols participation in buckle down trading, stating that any subject of Great Britain could distribute to any part of Africa between Cape Blanco and the Cape of just Hope, mastery richly ending the capital of the United Kingdom bon net tons monopoly. 2 Bristols geography served to hinder the ports trading ability, mainly ascribable to difficulties in navigating the meandering River Avon, its wide tidal range, and industrial intemperance in the river. geographic location and legislation withal contributed to Liverpools commencement in the hard worker business. set(p) on the semivowel in northwest England, Liverpool benefited from clam up proximity to many a(prenominal) industrial and textile producing centres such(prenominal) as Manchester, Birmingham and Sheffield. A profits of rivers, including the River Mersey, do the port tardily accessible to the many incoming and extrospective vessels. 3 The Isle of Man provided a efficacious stumble shore base, allowing for trade with Ireland and entry into the contraband trade with Spain. The Grenville Treaty of 1747 soon ended this arrangement, forcing Liverpudlian merchants to subscribe to new options for trade. Utilizing the knowl edge and riches gained from contraband trade, the merchants authentic vessels and goods specially suited to the African market, putting them towards gaining transport to the buckle down trade. 4 Small vessels and on posting buckle down revolts lessened the striver carrying might and efficiency of Bristol merchants ships.The smaller size of Bristol vessels perhaps resulted from the winding nature of the River Avon, with sailing difficult for larger ships. The period 1727 to 1769 provides an example of seventy Bristol vessels, one at fifty tons, thirteen at fifty-one to seventy-one tons, and thirty-eight at lxxvi to one hundred tons. 5 Even before Liverpools rise, London outshone Bristol in tonnage, 5,925 tons to 4,250 tons at a value of 137,000 to 98,820 pounds Stirling. 6 The origins of hard workers purchased by Bristolians, coupled with extensive on shore waiting meters for slave deliveries, both reduced carrying capacity and efficiency of vessels.A concentration of s uicide prone Ibo slaves and rebellious Ibibio slaves caused many problems. Consequently, merchants received instruction to shackle and bolt slaves from the frequent Bight of Biafra region, to reduce the waiver of slaves on board vessels. 7 Liverpool merchants similarly witnessed slave revolts, but they experienced top- nonch carrying capacity and efficiency of vessels. Liverpool specialised in manufacturing dissolute slaving vessels in the docks of the River Mersey. 8 Liverpools carrying capacity far exceeded that of Bristol, as demonst located in the 1100 ton Kent of 1773, the largest ship strengthened in no.thern England. 9 Such large ships and the capacity of five slaves per two tons, allowed for maximum vessel efficiency, and in 1753, 101 Liverpool vessels managed to carry over 30,000 slaves to the Americas. Poor vessel conditions for slaves resulted from maximising carrying capacities, and up to a third of slaves died. 10 wizard renowned incident on board the Zong displa ys how captains move to repeal the loss of slaves sea captain Collingwood threw 132 sickly slaves overboard in purchase order to claim insurance, rather than try not selling them in the Americas. 11 Unbearable conditions on board also resulted in increased mutinies between 1751 and 1775, which Mannix and Cowley attribute to ruthless Liverpudlians efforts to save coin by reducing the size of crews on vessels. 12 Slaving voyages and their destinations impacted greatly on Bristols attempts to gain prominence in the slave trade. Bristols shorter voyage time gave merchants a distinct advantage over London, and until the 1730s most Bristol voyages traveled to the Bight of Biafra where they encountered little competition. 13 Most Bristol voyages targeted Old Calabar, which oversupplied manlike slaves, direct to many trading failures. Merchants such as crowd Rogers only when managed a delivery rate of seventy-three per cent from this region. 14 Bristol destination choices remaine d conservative, including Angola and the Gold Coast, despite increasing competition there from Liverpool. 15 The rise of Liverpool caused a vast reduction in voyages do by Bristolians. Jamaican voyages fell from sixty-nine to twenty-five per cent from 1728 to 1730. 16 As a result, the period of 1786 to 1807 produced only 240 voyages, compared with 2,473 from Liverpool. 17 Voyages direct to Jamaica became a common trend by 1750, with 104 trips victorious place between 1749 and 1755, compared with lxxiv voyages following various triangle trade patterns. 18 Liverpool merchants achieved more legion(predicate) and varied voyages and destinations compared with Bristol. Liverpools first slave trade voyage departed in 1708, which is a overmuch later entry than Bristol. Despite Bristols early advantage and established market destinations, Liverpool succeeded in creating new slaving destinations in areas such as Sierra Leone, Cameroon and Gabon. 19 In contrast with Bristols prioritisati on of the region, only one voyage took place to Old Calabar in 1793 out of forty-seven voyages, instead thirty-six sailed to Angola where slaves were much more desirable. 20 In 1771 alone, 105 vessels travelled to Africa, obtaining 28,200 slaves. 21 In Jamaica, Liverpool trade comprised seventy- quaternary per cent of delivered slaves and seventy-two per cent of visiting vessels. Liverpools dominant presence at Atlantic slave trade destinations displays the ports many options, and their miss of presence at the unpopular sites displays their competent business choices.The choice of trade goods encourage influenced Bristols victory as a slave trading port. crowd together Rogers voyages, perhaps not entirely typical of Bristol trading, provided African merchants with East Indian and English textiles, bar cast-iron, gunpowder, beads, hardware and liquor. 22 Other Bristol merchants traded with refined shekels, haberdashery, window glassful, bottled beer, wrought iron, woollens, blur and brass, in go by for slaves. Wales generally provided the tin and iron for Bristols supplies. 23 Once in Africa, in summing up to slaves, Bristol merchants call for items such as wax, ivory and redwood, each for sale in the Americas or back in Bristol. 24 Interestingly, Bristolians sent little linen to the African seacoast in comparison with an other(a)(prenominal) slave trading ports. 25 Linen stood as a leading goodness in Liverpools choice of trading goods, giving the port a considerable advantage over Bristol. Linen formed ni electronic networky-one per cent of all British exports to zero(prenominal)th America and westmost Africa, which Liverpool benefited from due to its easy acquisition of Lancashire cottons and Manchester textiles. 26 Manchesters provision of checks and silk handkerchiefs contributed to the hump of Bristols German, French and Scottish textiles from the market. 27 In gain to linen, Liverpool traded copper and brass from Staffordshire, coa rseness from Cheshire, and firearms from Birmingham. Liverpool also re-exported a number of goods from East India, such as Chintz, glass beads, cotton and calicoes. 28 The careful assortment of trade goods meant numerous colonies demanded trade with Liverpool. A number of international conflicts earnestly hindered Bristols progress in the slave trade. end-to-end the eighteenth century conflicts existed with France, Spain and America. Bristols location in relation to the Bristol Channel meant a great number of vessels were lost to french privateers. 29 Consequently, Bristol successfully turned to privateering during the Spanish Succession from 1702 to 1713. The capture of over seventeen of its vessels by the Spaniards deepened Bristols involvement in privateering further during the septenary Years War (1756 to 1763). mountain with the air jacket Indies suffered in consequence, due to the heavy amount of investment in privateers. 30 The American War of Independence and subsequent loss of American colonies hampered the triangular trade, which Bristolians heavily relied on. Shipping from the get together States dropped from approximately 21,202 tons in 1773-7 to 12,326 in 1778-80. 31 Bristols slave trade experienced war in an entirely negative way during this period. On the other hand, Liverpool made substantial gains from Great Britains involvement in international conflicts. Williamson, an observer of the War of the Austrian Succession 1739 to 1748, stated that trade flourished and spread her gilt wings so extensively that if they had ossessed it seven old age longer, it would have enlarged the size and riches of the town to a prodigious degree32 Involvement in conflicts meant that the dockyards on the River Mersey fitted out many ships in order to fill the void left by Bristols departure from trade. hard worker trading voyages increased well during the wars, and vessels successfully avoided meeting French privateers due to Liverpools advantageous geogr aphical location. War also enabled Liverpool merchants to want advantage of price differentials between England and the colonies. sugar needs resulted, which contrasts starkly with Bristols experience of the wars. 33 Vast potential drop existed for profit in the slave trade, yet when calculate in costs, Bristol struggled to reap the benefits of the system. Loss of slaves in the marrow passage presented one expense, as Captain gruesomes letter to crowd together Rogers depicted. His voyage lost thirteen female slaves, fifty-six males and sixteen sailors. 34 Bristol merchants also pay generous remuneration, commissions and financial incentives to captains and slave sellers in order to ensure a loyal partnership. 35 When Robert Thiennisons brother, a cook on Rogers Pearle, died, he requested pays of 55 shillings for a months work, revealing the mellowed wages paid by Bristolians. High duties also frustrated Bristol merchants, especially those on tobacco, which is something th ey specialised in. 36 David Richardson offers an estimated return of 7. 8 to 19. 8 per cent on Bristol voyages, however Rogers voyages precisely managed three per cent profit, and the highest estimate still comes in move than the win made by Liverpudlians. 37 Liverpudlian merchants made importantly higher profits in the slave trade, generally due to cunning commercial decisions. Manipulated stock records enabled merchants to avoid gainful duties on up to twenty per cent of the tobacco shipped into the port. 38 Proposed estimates suggest that 100-ton ships returned profits of 750 pounds Stirling based on five inkinesses per two tons. 39 The Liverpool vessel Lively produced a 300 per cent profit in 1737, but most voyages secured around ten per cent profit, which barely proved sufficient considering the risks involved in slaving. 40 1 particular Liverpool voyage achieved a profit of 8000 pounds Stirling (before deductions for bread and butter and trade goods), with costs approxi mately comprising duties of 134 pounds, Doctor wages of thirteen pounds, Captain salary of 4 pounds per 104 made on total returns, and commission costs of 454 pounds Stirling. 41 Liverpudlians distinctly possessed a unique capability to posit large profits, despite mounting costs. The merchant oligarchy of Bristol miss crucial investments in port facilities in favour of spending profits on luxurious lifestyles, proving pestiferous to their trade accomplishments.Instead, investments centred around the urban renaissance taking place in the city, rather than contracting on faulting towards industrialisation42. Prioritising Caribbean ventures over local industrial schemes demonstrates a further hindrance to the development of Bristol. 43 It appears that Bristolians preferences centred on living a lifestyle founded on wealth and consumption, reflected in the growing local demand for dulcorate and tobacco. Furthermore, Bristol did not invest in the port until the nineteenth centu ry, when developments include a floating harbour, which proved highly unable also. 44 Comparatively, the port of Liverpool received extensive urban development as a result of profits made in the slave trade. The city underwent considerable involution and urban growth, facilitating merchants ability to exploit the Atlantic trade system and various markets. The citys wealth stemmed from the merchants, hence their control over city developments. Subsequently, profits funded financial structures and transport networks including canals, enabling Liverpool to keep up control over sources of goods such as the salt of Cheshire. 45 Investment in the docklands proved most influential, earning Liverpool the act of largest ship construction site in England, with sixty-one of the 161 English-built slave vessels manufactured in Liverpool. 46 The swift answer to mercantile needs and construction of the Midlands canal network resulted in the shipment of valuable, high demand trade goods to Li verpool, not Bristol. A notable shift in Bristols priorities may account for Liverpools loom of Bristol as the leading slave trading port in England.The transition to specialisation in the sugar trade proves the most convincing causal factor in the reduced role in slave trading. The Bristolian pleasures derived from sugar, tobacco and snuff consumption drove merchants to focus on supplying the domestic market with what locals demanded. 47 The sugar industry thrived in Bristol, which is reinforced by the sustain existence of twenty sugarhouses between 1720 and 1775. 48 Tobacco and sugar approach restrictions regarding direct trade to foreign countries, perhaps further encouraging Bristolians to cater to local markets. 49 champion argument proposes that Bristol became more conservative, simply preferring safer, more economic trade options as they arose. A Jamaican performer noted that Bristolis rich enough, but dont care to launch out much. bum Wesley, an abolishmentist, also observed Bristols love of money and ease. 50 The increasing abolitionist environment and comparative degree ease of the sugar trade perhaps rendered the Bristolians national with exiting the slave trade. The lack of familial slaving dynasties and a disinclination to engage in mercantile competition with close ties offer two further justifications for Bristols demise in the slave trade.Bristol failed to secure dynasties through which to pass commercial knowledge and wealth to, mainly because eighteen of the leading twenty-five Bristol merchants died as bachelors. Encouraging others to maintain the slave trade proved particularly difficult. The problems faced in re-exporting tobacco presented one deterrent, and the inevitable encounters with disorder on the African coast and challenges in securing return goods also discouraged new entrants to the trade. 51 Bristol merchants tended to form intemperate, cordial connections with fellow traders, making ruthless competition difficult .To wage war against familial, banking or residential associates would destroy useful connections and jeopardise ones reputation. 52 Liverpool merchants, on the other hand, formed strong bonds and maintained family dynasties, but did not refrain from competition, further enhancing their prominence. 53 The Bristol merchants experienced limitations in forthcoming market options, which presented a sizeable obstacle to success in the slave trade. Bristol traders lacked the vital trade goods incumbent for securing demand from markets that would stock vessels with healthy slaves from desirable locations.Merchants such as Rogers tended to focus on Jamaica and Grenada to sell their slaves, places whose markets displayed an execration to slaves from Old Calabar due to their poor health and high mortality. 54 These detrimental oversights in buying unsuitable slave cargoes and being unaware of the slave preferences at plantations provided great motivation to move away from trading in slaves . Bristol persisted in trading commodities with Jamaica, South Carolina and Charlestown, however they gained no advantage over Liverpool or even London. 55 Furthermore, Bristol failed to do to new markets such as the Ceded Islands including Dominica and St Vincent, leaving the opportunity wide open for Liverpool. Liverpool slave traders successfully seized either new market opportunity that arose, providing numerous market options for the diverse trade goods they supplied. After trade undecided up in 1750, Liverpool launched into trade with Upper ginzo and other markets in America, where they made gains over Bristol. 56 Liverpool also possessed advantageous contacts throughout the West African coast, especially Sierra Leone. 57 In contrast to Bristol, Liverpool pure on lesser markets such as Barbados and the lee side Islands. Barbados supplied over fifty per cent of Liverpools imports after 1735, closely followed by Chesapeake, the Leeward Islands and Jamaica. The range of tra de goods supplied, and entrance into the trade at a time of colonial economy deceleration also enabled Liverpool merchants to most monopolise the Anglo-American commercial market. 58 Liverpool merchants conducted business on the coast of Africa from the Senegal River to Ambriz59, where healthy slave populations attribute to the demand for Liverpool trade in a vast number of West Indian locations. With so many options for destinations to conduct trade with slaves, it is unsurprising that Liverpool ousted the port of Bristol from its dominant position. Despite the numerous causes attributed to the demise of Bristol, the inability of merchants to make sparing, competent business decisions ultimately present the most significant explanations.Bristolians paid munificent salaries to captains and crew, as well as allowing privileges, casual charges and commission payments. Captains ate and drank excessively on shore, c amusingble profits considerably. Less profit also resulted from ful ly manning vessels, with the knock on effect of needing to charge more for slaves. 60 Bristol merchants found themselves outbid for slaves in Old Calabar, movement them to purchase unhealthy slaves. Their condition worsened further due to cheap provisions on board. 61 Consequently, prices achieved in the Americas for slaves were lower.The Bristol merchants justifiably earned a reputation as extravagant and unbusinesslike squanderers, who treated their Captains like young gentlemen on the Grand Tour. 62 A credit crisis in 1793 caused many merchants to go bankrupt, putting an end to the slave trade for the majority of Bristolians. 63 The lack of business sagacity amongst Bristol merchants proved detrimental to their success. Conversely, the business expertise and economical ability of Liverpudlian merchants secured the citys epithet of the most successful slave trading port in Europe.Liverpool merchants trained their crew break down, paid lower wages, and minimized outfitting cost s. Additionally, merchants were economical by paying wages annually not monthly, and refusing cabin privileges, primages and port allowances. For example, crew ate salt beef and drank rum punch on board their vessel, compared with Bristol crewmembers excessive imbibition of Madeira on shore. 64 Low expenditure enabled Liverpudlians to sell slaves for four to five pounds Stirling less than other traders, underselling Bristolians considerably. 65 Accepting Bills of give-and-take avoided reliance on return goods for payment, giving flexibility to merchants, which allowed them to return direct to Africa to embark more slaves. Liverpool merchants skillfully evaded customs administrators by importing damaged and thus duty free goods, and disembarking underweight hogsheads, only to re-export them at heavier weights. 66 These tricks meant payment of less duty tax, maximising profits. resourceful and imaginative actions and decisions thrust Liverpool to record heights never reached by Br istol in the slave trade.Liverpools skillful rise to prominence in the slave trade undoubtedly provides explanation for Bristols demise from a once eminent slave trading port. Geographical location, vessel size, voyages, trade goods, international conflicts, market destinations, and urban development all provide convincing explanations of Bristols fall from the position of leading British port. However, problems could easily have been overcome or averted had the Bristol merchants possessed strong business capability, judgement skills and knowledge.Perhaps Bristols priorities did shift toward catering for the domestic market. Nevertheless, the Bristolians lack of skills and knowledge, so clearly possessed by Liverpool merchants, sealed Bristols demise from a once world-leading slaving port to an average sugar-importing town. Liverpool on the other hand, traded slaves on such a autocratic scale that it secured its position amongst Europes leading port towns far beyond the abolition of the slave trade. Word Count 3,258 BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary SourcesAn account of the ships engaged in the African trade, from the ports of London and Bristol, belonging to the break in traders to Africa with the value of the said ships and cargoes, and the number of Negroes usually carried by the said ships, London, 1713, ordinal degree centigrade shows Online. Gale Group. Captain W. gloomy of the Ship Jupiter to James Rogers, owner of The Jupiter, twentieth high-minded 1790, James Rogers Papers, Public Record Office, C/107/12, http//www. englandpast. net/education/.Great Britain, Parliament, An act for the better advancement of the trade to Africa, by establishing a adjust company, London, 1708, eighteenth carbon Collections Online. Gale Group. Letter To Captain Richard Prankard commander of the congruity ampere-second to Angola, Bristol, 29 January 1732, Bristol Central Reference Library, The Jefferies Collection glitz 13, http//www. englandpast. net/education/. Letter from Robert Thiennison (? ) to James Rogers, slave ship owner concerning his brother who was a ships cook on the Pearl, Mr. Rogers London 15 August, 1786, Public Record Office, C107/8, http//www. englandpast. et/education/. utility(prenominal) Sources Behrendt, Stephen D. , Markets, Transaction Cycles, and Profits Merchant Decision making in the British striver tidy sum, The William and bloody shame Quarterly, Vol. 58, zero(prenominal) 1, 2001, pp. 171-204. Behrendt, Stephen D. , The Annual Volume and Regional diffusion of the British slave trade, 1780-1807, Journal of African History, Vol. 38, 1997, pp. 187-211. Benezet, Anthony, or so historic account of Guinea, its situation, produce, and the general disposition of its inhabitants. With an inquiry into the rise and progress of the slave trade, its nature, and lamentable effects. withal a re usualation of the sentiments of several authors of note on this interesting subject particularly an extract of a treatise written by Gr anville Sharpe, Philadelphia, 1771, http//www. gutenberg. org/files/11489/11489-h/11489-h. htm. Clarkson, Thomas, The business relationship of the rise, progress, and accomplishment of the abolition of the African slave-trade by the British parliament, Vol. 1, London, 1808, http//www. gutenberg. org/files/12428/12428-8. txt. Clemens, capital of Minnesota G. E. , The try out of Liverpool, 1665-1750, The economical History Review, Vol. 9, zero(prenominal) 2, 1976, pp. 211-225. Enfield, William. An essay towards the history of Leverpool, drawn up from papers left by the late Mr. George Perry, and from other materials since collected, by William Enfield. With views of the principal public structures, a chart of the harbour, and a map of the environ, second Ed. , 1774. eighteenth deoxycytidine monophosphate Collections Online. Gale Group. Hyde, F. , Parkinson, B. , & Marriner, S. , The Nature and Profitability of the Liverpool hard worker profession, The Economic History Review, V ol. 5, No. 3, 1953, pp. 368-377. Jones, S. J. The harvest-tide of Bristol The Regional feel of City Development, transactions and Papers (Institute of British Geographers), No. 11, 1946, pp. 57-83. Klein, Herbert S. , The English buckle down job to Jamaica, 1782-1808, The Economic History Review, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1978, pp. 25-45. MacInnes, C. M. , Bristol and the slave trade, in Patrick McGrath (ed. ), Bristol in the eighteenth carbon, due north Abbot, 1972. Mackenzie-Grive, Averil, The Last Years of the English striver Trade Liverpool, 1750-1807, London, 1941. Morgan, Kenneth, Bristol and the Atlantic Trade in the eighteenth nose candy, The English historical Review, Vol. 07, No. 424, 1992, pp. 626-650. Morgan, Kenneth, Bristol West India Merchants in the Eighteenth Century, Transactions of the purplish Historical Society, Vol. 3, 1993, pp. 185-208. Morgan, Kenneth, James Rogers and the Bristol slave trade, Historical Research, Vol. 76, No. 192, 2003, pp. 189-216. Morgan, Kenneth, Shipping Patterns and the Atlantic Trade of Bristol, 1749-1770, The William and bloody shame Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 3. , 1989, pp. 506-538. Richardson, David, shipboard Revolts, African Authority, and the Atlantic Slave Trade, The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 1, 2001, pp. 69-92. Richardson, David, Slavery and Bristols favourable old age, Slavery and Abolition, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2005, pp. 35-54. Williams, Gomer, History of the Liverpool privateers and earn of Marque With an account of the Liverpool slave trade, London, 1897. Williams, Eric, The thriving old age of the Slave System in Britain, The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 25, No. 1, 1940, pp. 60-106. Websites Liverpool & The Slave Trade, http//www. liverpoolinpictures. com/Slavery_in_Liverpool. htm 1 S. J.Jones, The Growth of Bristol The Regional Aspect of City Development, Transactions and Papers (Institute of British Geographers), No. 11, 1946, pp. 64 71. 2 Great Britain, Parliament, An act for the bette r improvement of the trade to Africa, by establishing a regulated company, London, 1708, Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale Group. 3 Eric Williams, The fortunate Age of the Slave System in Britain, The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 25, No. 1, 1940, p. 67. 4 Gomer Williams, History of the Liverpool privateers and Letters of Marque With an account of the Liverpool slave trade, London, 1897, pp. 67-468. 5 C. M. MacInnes, Bristol and the slave trade, in Patrick McGrath (ed. ), Bristol in the Eighteenth Century, Newton Abbot, 1972, p. 173. 6 An account of the ships employed in the African trade, London, 1713, Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale Group. 7 David Richardson, Slavery and Bristols Golden Age, Slavery and Abolition, Vol. 26, No. 1, 2005, p. 44 David Richardson, Shipboard Revolts, African Authority, and the Atlantic Slave Trade, The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 1, 2001, pp. 74, 80. 8 Eric Williams, p. 69. 9 Averil Mackenzie-Grive, The Last Years of the English Slave Trade Liverpool, 1750-1807, London, 1941, p. 16. 10 F. Hyde, B. Parkinson, & S. Marriner, The Nature and Profitability of the Liverpool Slave Trade, The Economic History Review, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1953, p372 Anthony Benezet, Some historical account of Guinea, Philadelphia, 1771. 11 Thomas Clarkson, The history of the rise, progress, and accomplishment of the abolition of the African slave-trade by the British parliament, Vol. 1, London, 1808. 12 David Richardson, Shipboard Revolts, African Authority, and the Atlantic Slave Trade, p. 77. 13 David Richardson, Slavery and Bristols Golden Age, pp. 42-3. 14 Kenneth Morgan, James Rogers and the Bristol slave trade, Historical Research, Vol. 76, No. 192, 2003, pp. 195, 200. 15 Kenneth Morgan, Bristol and the Atlantic Trade in the Eighteenth Century, The English Historical Review, Vol. 107, No. 424, 1992, p. 641. 16 Similarly, South Carolinian voyages also fell by twenty-fiver per cent. ibidem , p. 640. 17 Stephen D.Behrendt , The Annual Volume and Regional Distribution of the British slave trade, 1780-1807, Journal of African History, Vol. 38, 1997, p. 189. 18 Kenneth Morgan, Shipping Patterns and the Atlantic Trade of Bristol, 1749-1770, The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 46, No. 3. , 1989, pp. 515, 532. 19 Morgan, Bristol and the Atlantic Trade in the Eighteenth Century, p. 641. 20 Stephen D. Behrendt, Markets, Transaction Cycles, and Profits Merchant Decision Making in the British Slave Trade, The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 1, 2001, p. 88. 21 William Enfield, An essay towards the history of Leverpool, 2nd Ed. , 1774. 22 Morgan, James Rogers and the Bristol slave trade, p. 197. 23 Morgan, Bristol and the Atlantic Trade in the Eighteenth Century, p. 635. 24 Letter To Captain Richard Prankard commander of the Unity Snow to Angola, Bristol, 29 January 1732, Bristol Central Reference Library, The Jefferies Collection Volume 13. 25 Morgan, Bristol and the Atlantic Trade in the Eighteenth C entury, p. 635. 26 Ibid. Eric Williams, p. 67. 27 Gomer Williams, p. 467. 28 Liverpool & The Slave Trade, http//www. liverpoolinpictures. com/ Enfield, p. 85. 29 MacInnes, p. 175. 30 Morgan, Bristol and the Atlantic Trade in the Eighteenth Century, pp. 630-2. 31 Jones, p. 76 Ibid. 32 Mackenzie-Grive, p. 4. 33 Paul G. E. Clemens, The Rise of Liverpool, 1665-1750, The Economic History Review, Vol. 29, No. 2, 1976, p. 210. 34 Captain W. Black of the Ship Jupiter to James Rogers, owner of The Jupiter, 20th August 1790, James Rogers Papers, Public Record Office, C/107/12 35 Richardson, Slavery and Bristols Golden Age, p. 40. 36 Morgan, Bristol and the Atlantic Trade in the Eighteenth Century, p. 645. 37 Morgan, James Rogers and the Bristol slave trade, p. 215. 38 Clemens, p. 215. 39 However, restrictions of two Negroes per ton reduced potential profits to 200 pounds Stirling per voyage. Hyde et al. , p. 372. 40 Liverpool & The Slave Trade, http//www. liverpoolinpictures. com. 41 Gomer W illiams, p. 471. 42 Richardson, Slavery and Bristols Golden Age, p. 46-7. 43 Kenneth Morgan, Bristol West India Merchants in the Eighteenth Century, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Vol. , 1993, p. 205. 44 Morgan, Bristol and the Atlantic Trade in the Eighteenth Century, p. 628. 45 Clemens, p. 212-7. 46 Herbert S. Klein, The English Slave Trade to Jamaica, 1782-1808, The Economic History Review, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1978, p. 42. 47 Richardson, Slavery and Bristols Golden Age, p. 47. 48 Jones, p. 71. 49 Morgan, Bristol and the Atlantic Trade in the Eighteenth Century, p. 646. 50 Morgan, Bristol West India Merchants in the Eighteenth Century, p. 204. 51 Ibid. , p. 203. 52 Ibid. , p. 205. 53 Clemens, p. 217. 54 Morgan, James Rogers and the Bristol slave trade, pp. 205, 209, 215. 55 Clemens, p. 219. 56 Richardson, Slavery and Bristols Golden Age, p. 46. 57 Morgan, James Rogers and the Bristol slave trade, p. 199. 58 Clemens, pp. 213-8. 59 Behrendt, Markets, Transaction Cycles, p . 172. 60 Gomer Williams, p. 471. 61 Morgan, James Rogers and the Bristol slave trade, pp. 196, 203. 62 Mackenzie-Grive, p. 4. 63 Morgan, Bristol and the Atlantic Trade in the Eighteenth Century, p. 633. 64 Gomer Williams, p. 471 MacInnes, p. 170. 65 Ibid. , p. 470. 66 Clemens, pp. 215, 221.