This page is available in:
EN

Quaque, Catherine Blunt

--1766
Anglican Communion
Ghana

Little is known about the life of Catherine Blunt, the white English wife of Philip Quaque, the first African to be ordained in the Church of England and sent as a missionary and chaplain to Cape Coast. (See “Philip Quaque” DACB entries for further details of his life and ministry). However, given her marriage to this important figure and her role accompanying her husband as an Anglican missionary back to his home in Cape Coast, Ghana (Gold Coast or Guinea Coast at the time), Catherine Blunt is a historical and missional figure worthy of our notice. While history leaves little record of her, we can glean a few important details from her husband’s correspondence with the SPG (Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts) and a few archival records, while speculating about others.

We do not currently know Catherine’s date of birth, but we know that she lived within the Church of England parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, in central London.[1] This was not far from St. Sepulchre, the church in which she and Philip were married on May 2, 1765. In investigating parish registry records, there is not an identifiable baptismal or christening record for a Catherine or Katherine Blunt that seems to fit Mrs. Quaque timewise. Working backwards from her 1766 death, however, we might assume a likely birthdate somewhere in the 1740s. Indeed, Philip’s date of birth is estimated to have been around 1740 or 1741.[2] Therefore it would seem likely to estimate somewhere in that time period for Catherine. In the absence of a lack of baptismal/christening document, one could speculate that she came from a non-conformist family. It is also possible she was born elsewhere and came as an adult to London.

For details of her early life, we can only speculate. However, there are several different church records for Blunt families at St. Andrew, Holborn during this period, which suggests that this may have been the parish in which Catherine was born and raised. Alternatively, if born elsewhere, she may have had close family connections here. We assume she came from a middle to upper middleclass family, given that she received some form of education and had a ladies’ maid who accompanied her to the Gold Coast.

While history is silent regarding how Catherine and Philip may have met, their marriage register provides a few glimmers of insight about Catherine that invite further speculation about her and about their partnership. The marriage register indicates that they were married on May 2, 1765 by the Rev. John Moore, whom we know was the longtime tutor and fatherly figure to Philip. Moore was “a member of the SPG and curate and lecturer at St. Sepulchre’s Church in Holborn,” [3]and had overseen Philip’s theological training for several years.

Another interesting detail about Catherine gleaned from their marriage certificate is the fact that she was educated. In his biographical account of Philip Quaque, F. L. Bartels draws our attention to the fact that “It is to be noted that unlike others who put their mark against their names in the marriage register, Mrs. Quaque signed her own name. She could read and write.”[4] We can only speculate as to how much and what sort of education she may have had, and whether shared theological or missional interests may have drawn her and Philip together. But as we shall see, like her husband, Catherine was deeply committed to her Anglican faith.[5]

Next, the marriage register also indicates that it was a first marriage for both Philip and Catherine and that they were married by license rather than by banns. In 18th century England, there were various reasons for choosing a license over the publication of banns. While most couples chose the latter, a license, procured from the local Archdeacon at a fee, was typically chosen for one of three reasons: if the couple was marrying outside of their home parish(es); if there was a need for the marriage to be formalised rapidly; or if either party was under 21 years of age.[6] Other scholars add that choosing a license may have been done in cases where there was a concern about the marriage being opposed.[7]

We know that Catherine was from St. Andrew, Holborn parish, and that the couple married in Philip’s church, St. Sepulchre. Though different parishes, both formed part of London’s Holborn district, such that differing parishes was not likely a reason for the license. With the question of whether the marriage needed to be formalised in haste, it is interesting to observe that Philip was ordained as priest on May 1, married on May 2; on May 4, paid the fee for his bishop’s license “to preach in Britain’s overseas colonies,”[8] and on May 17, stood for examination before the SPG’s General Meeting, the archbishop of Canterbury, and the bishops of Lincoln and Winchester, subsequently being appointed “Missionary, Catechist, and Schoolmaster to the Negroes on the Gold Coast in Africa.” This appointment included a salary of £50 per annum, “with effect from 25th March (Lady Day last), 1765.”[9]

Considering possible reasons for a marriage by license, while it could be that Catherine was under 21 years of age (Philip would have been 24 or 25), when we take into account this short span of time for all of these qualifying and preparatory aspects to Philip’s missionary endeavours, not the least of which included beginning to draw a salary a few months’ retroactively, it seems fair to assume that these factors were likely the reason for this more expedient marriage.

Another thought is that, while their cross-cultural marriage would certainly have been less common at the time, Afro-European marriages were not entirely uncommon in 18th century England and may not have been opposed; however, if Catherine’s family status differed significantly from Philip’s, it may have been challenged, again prompting an avoidance of the publication of banns. While several reasons may have been contributing factors, it is clear that Philip was preparing for his new missional vocation, and an expedient marriage was a helpful part of that process.

This was a very full season for both Catherine and Philip, with significant life changes happening in short order. History is silent on this point, but we might imagine their mixed feelings during this period as they settled into married life in London and looked ahead – perhaps with a mix of excitement, Christian conviction, and surely more than a little apprehension – to an uncertain future in what would be for Catherine an entirely unfamiliar context and new culture. And for Philip, having essentially grown up in London and being intellectually and theologically formed by British Anglicanism, we might wonder whether he also experienced some ambivalence or uncertainty in preparing to return to his home and extended family, together with his white British wife, after so many years away. If he was, he did not reflect this in his letters. However, we know that Philip and Catherine were committed to this missional call and to each other.

From London to Cape Coast: Family and Cultural Challenges

Following their marriage in May 1765, the couple left for Cape Coast in October 1765, sailing on the King of Prussia.[10] Another interesting detail is that we know that Philip, Catherine, “and her maid” left England for the Gold Coast.[11] There is currently no further information about who this maid was, but we know that she was Afro-European, or what at the time was referred to as mulatto or mustee.[12] While Vincent Carretta and Ty Reese speculate that this ladies’ maid may have been given to Catherine as a “gift” from Cudjo Caboceer on arrival in the Gold Coast,[13] this is incorrect, unless a subsequent servant was given. Margaret Priestly identifies in a footnote that, “Writing to the governor of Cape Coast Castle on 29 October 1765 about Quaque’s appointment, the African Committee announced that his wife was coming with him to West Africa, accompanied by a woman companion.”[14] As to whether this maid was born in England, we can only speculate; but we know that she was black, as Priestly and other scholars note that “[Philip’s] second and third wives were both African women.”[15]

Turning to Philip’s letters for further details about Catherine, we hear of her first in his account of their voyage to Cape Coast in a letter to the Rev. Dr Burton, SPG Secretary, February 29, 1766. It is interesting to note that rather than referring to Catherine as his “spouse” here, as he does throughout his subsequent correspondence, he refers instead to “my little family” in describing invitations they received during a stopover in Madeira in December 1766.[16] This idea is purely speculative, but it raises a point of curiosity in the reader: is it possible that Catherine was pregnant at this time? It is certainly not impossible. However, if she was, she must have suffered a miscarriage, as there is no account of a birth in subsequent months. Again, this idea is purely speculative, but one which historical imagination and curiosity prompts us to consider. It could also be that Philip is including their maid here in his sense of “family,” if indeed the maid did sail with them from England.

Regarding Catherine’s arrival and reception into the Cape Coast Castle community, we can piece together some details of her mixed experiences as expressed through various voices, as well as through Philip’s own experiences. Philip records the pleased reaction of the relative whom he called his “father,” Cudjo Caboceer, saying, “[Cudjo] was very glad to see me, and his New Daughter.”[17] But we know that Philip experienced various tensions with his family, and likely suffered a great deal of culture shock on his return to Cape Coast, having left as a youth and spending most of his formative years in England. Some have aptly described Philip’s experience as “cultural deracination” with an identity as “an Atlantic creole caught between competing worlds.”[18] As Reese notes, Philip “was a proselytized and Western-educated African who became an outsider to both the Africans and Europeans of Cape Coast. At this slave trade and administrative center,” he had lost certain access to his African community, “as he lost his native language and culture during his stay in England, yet he was not English because of his African origins.”[19]

Throughout Philip’s fifty-year sojourn in Cape Coast, his correspondence regularly depicts conflicts with his extended family. Priestly describes this as

problems of culture-conflict at a personal level, resenting the claims made on him from within the African community. At the root of the trouble was a fundamental difference of attitude toward society – Western individualism as against his duties to the extended family. After his period in England, Quaque regarded these duties as an infringement on private spheres of action.[20]

We can only guess how quickly these tensions may have arisen; but we can imagine the challenges for Catherine: a newly married wife, arriving in a foreign country, meeting with unfamiliar demands and expectations on both her and her husband, and being in some ways a source of contention within her husband’s family and community. We can imagine the challenging position in which this left her, relying upon a husband who was in some ways an outsider to his own community yet not fully accepted by the local English community either.

Added to these challenges, we know that Catherine’s presence at Cape Coast Castle was not welcomed by the white British community either. One expert notes that her arrival “immediately caused dissension within the garrison and emerged as a great concern for Governor John Hippisley,” the British governor of Cape Coast.[21] While Hippisley was initially supportive of Philip’s work and sympathetic to his challenging financial realities, arguing to have his salary increased from £60 to £100 (which Hippisley felt was nevertheless “not a Sixth part of the Requisite Sum to keep [Catherine] from starving,”] Hippisley also hoped “that this may be the last Woman of that Complection [sic] that I shall see here.”[22]

Hippisley was opposed to the presence of a white woman equally at Cape Coast Castle as in the town because of all the “shocking circumstances” that regularly occurred. Furthermore, “She [a white woman] becomes a theme of dispute, the Cause of Idleness, and a Spring of Disease among Your Officers.”[23] However, some insight into the Quaques’ deep ties may be further gleaned from Hippisley’s letter: while speaking more broadly about any future white wives accompanying their husbands to the Gold Coast, we know Hippisley is writing in the first instance with regard to Philip and Catherine, such that his following comment may be taken as applying to their relationship: “It may be said there is no separating Man & Wife when disposed to keep together; But if a Married Man shall hereafter come out in Your Service and cannot get the better of this Weakness, let him remember his Sensibility will be no excuse for what might happen…”[24]

This remark alerts us to several facts. One is the probability that there were likely no other, or very few other, white women at the Castle, putting Catherine in an awkward and simultaneously exposed and perhaps vulnerable position. It also raises questions about her community and friends: it is clear that from the perspective of her British compatriots that she was unwelcome and unwanted, and also that her position with Philip’s family – given Philip’s own tensions there – may have been somewhat uncertain. Taken together, it gives us some ideas of the deeply interpersonally fraught situation in which Catherine found herself. But Hippisley’s remark that “there is no separating Man & Wife when disposed to keep together” also shows the strong bonds between Philip and Catherine: they were “disposed to keep together,” and the realities of the myriad challenges of life in Cape Coast were not a deterrent to them; nor was Catherine remaining behind in London a consideration for either of them.

The Challenges of Life in Cape Coast Castle

The next thing that we notice about Catherine’s immediate context is that she was living as a woman in a very male dominated and unpredictable environment. Philip, returning to the Gold Coast from a very British Anglican environment, was hopeful that the Europeans living in the Castle garrison would exemplify “proper Christianity”; however, he found the opposite to be true. For ships’ crew, merchants, and government officials living for many months at a time at the Castle with little to do, “fighting when intoxicated was a major form of recreation for many of the European members of the garrison immersed in a strange and often hostile environment.”[25] Furthermore, “scandal, gossip, and backbiting were major forms of entertainment in the European forts along the Gold Coast.”[26] And we know Cape Coast Castle was its own very small community, and have already heard that Catherine was not particularly welcome there.

It is safe to assume that life within the Castle was a vulnerable position for Catherine physically, socially, and emotionally. It was, no doubt, a lonely and perhaps traumatic experience for her. Given Hippisley’s words, as well as the frequently drunken, brawling men, gossiping governing officials and merchants, and the incomprehensibility of the steady stream of captured and tortured Africans, we can imagine that living within the Castle—a fairly confined and dilapidated space—was a frightening and bewildering experience, despite the fact the Quaques had been given “two of the most convenient Rooms.”[27] As Catherine was unwanted by her own community and had an uncertain position in Philip’s, and being aware of the risk of physical harm and sexual violence in the Castle, it would have been difficult for her to know whom to trust. Was she able to establish any sense of home within her small rooms? Or any sense of friendship or community with those around her? It seems unlikely. We might imagine her living quite a confined life, perhaps with her maid and her husband as her most ready companions, while she endeavoured to support Philip’s ministry and sense of mission.

To add to the challenges of this environment, we also hear from Philip’s letter of September 28, 1766 that they arrived at the height of the rainy season, during which time their rooms quickly flooded, adding to the overall stress of the situation:

at the Time of our severe rainy Season every individual [was] almost drowned in their Apartments by leeking [sic], during which I was forced to strip & quit my two Rooms of all my Furniture, & incumbering others who were in a better Condition than I with them, & I & my Spouse partaking with whomsoever we could.[28]

Having to share accommodation with those who may not have been overly welcoming of either Catherine or Philip’s presence must have been its own trial.

Illness and Death

All of this clearly proved too much for Catherine’s health and mental well-being. In this same letter, only seven months after their February 1766 arrival, Philip writes, “My poor Spouse & Bosom Companion has been but very indifferent since we came upon the Coast, who now lies at the point of Death, & every moment expecting it to be her last.”[29]

The term “indifferent” is an interesting one to note: was this simply indicative of a feverish illness and bodily weakness? We know she was pregnant at this time. Under these circumstances, it was likely a very difficult pregnancy. Recalling Governor Hippisley’s remark that Philip’s salary was insufficient to keep Catherine from starving, and knowing the high cost and challenges of procuring necessary food items at the Castle, we should bear in mind the likelihood that hunger and malnutrition as well as illness contributed to her state. But perhaps it is also indicative of mental distress and trauma. If she did in fact experience the loss of an earlier pregnancy shortly before their arrival in Cape Coast, that would certainly be traumatic in its own right. Perhaps Philip’s description of Catherine as being “very indifferent” since their arrival was more indicative of trauma, grief, or depression. But even if that was not the case, the very difficult, confusing, lonely, and vulnerable circumstances into which Catherine stepped, and for which she can in no way have been psychologically prepared—indeed, Philip himself was not—would surely have been cause for significant distress, in addition to physical illness.

Whatever the various causes, we know that from Philip’s description, Catherine was extremely ill during this time. He petitioned the SPG for leave to accompany her back to England. As he writes, “I would willingly send her or else take a trip with her Home again, but the Difficulty at present is the getting leave from the considerate Society or a Faithful Captn [sic] to trust her with, for her perfect health, if in case there shou’d be a change for the better. Now if leave cannot be obtained & no known Captn to convey her to, she must inevitabl[y] perish, as here is no proper Remedy for [the] female Sex.”[30]

Philip’s concern over not finding a trustworthy Captain further underscores the sexually vulnerable environment in which Catherine was living, such that Philip felt that she was not safe apart from under his care. The anxiety and distress of the situation must have been palpable to him, and incredibly bewildering to her—pregnant, isolated, vulnerable, moving between apartments and with no fixed home of her own, and only her husband and maid for immediate companionship.

Sadly, Catherine died shortly after Philip’s letter. He records her death in a subsequent letter to the Rev. Dr. Burton, March 7, 1767, the details of which provide us a little further insight into the tender nature of their relationship, as well as into Catherine’s Anglican piety. Philip writes,

I do now with great regret inform them…of the heaviness w[hich] surrounds me at this time for the los[s] of so dear & worthy a Spouse, whom Providence in pity & for wiser Ends (I hope) has thought proper to deprive me of, & the sweet Consolations I rec[eived] from her tender Breast on Nov[ember] last. A stroke w[hich], as a Young unskillful Fellow in these incidental Scenes of Nature, & a doating Husb[and] withal, [I] am not able as yet to Eradicate. The Death of so Good & valuable a Partner, & a Child too, has involved me into many Troubles, Difficulties, & Perplexities inexpressible…[31]

Philip writes on, desiring to share in greater detail with the SPG the circumstances of Catherine’s death and her “last dying Words,” which perhaps somewhat hagiographically portray her deep Christian convictions and Anglican piety. Following her labour and the delivery of a stillborn child, Philip records that:

[… she said] to me in a low & mournful Accent, not to be alarmed & unhappy for her departure, but that she also has a Call from her Merciful & Gracious Creator, to leave the World & all its Vanities, by putting a final End to all her grievous & heavy Sufferings with [Christian] patienc[e]. [H]aving so said, She desired that I would not neglect returning thanks to the Almighty for her safe Deliverance, whereby she might have once more an Opportunity of embracing the last Legacy of her Blessed Lord left to last Mankind.[32]

Interrupting Philip’s letter briefly, it is helpful to have a clear picture of this tragic scene in mind: Catherine, who has been pregnant and desperately ill for months, constantly anticipating her own death, nevertheless survives and gives birth. But while she survives the labour, her child, stillborn, does not.[33] One wonders here if Philip was there in attendance at the birth when he refers to himself as a “young unskillful fellow in these incidental scenes of nature.”[34] Was there a local midwife present? Or was Catherine left solely to the care of Philip and her maid, as in the rest of her life? Further, it seems likely the child was full term, or nearly, for Philip to record the loss of “spouse and child.”

In surviving the delivery of her lifeless child, but perhaps already anticipating her own death, Catherine asks Philip to immediately perform what is known in the Anglican Church as “the churching of woman” – the thanksgiving Eucharistic service usually held forty days after childbirth, to return thanks to the Lord for accompanying the mother safely through this dangerous moment. In order to have a better sense of what Catherine was requesting, it is sobering to read elements from this service from the Book of Common Prayer, which typically begins with the reading of Psalm 116:

I am well pleased: that the Lord hath heard the voice of my prayer; That he hath inclined his ear unto me: therefore will I call upon him as long as I live.

The snares of death compassed me round about: and the pains of hell gat hold upon me.

I found trouble and heaviness, and I called upon the name of the Lord: O Lord, I beseech thee, deliver my soul.

Gracious is the Lord, and righteous: yea, our God is merciful.

The Lord preserveth the simple: I was in misery, and he helped me.

Turn again then unto thy rest, O my soul: for the Lord hath rewarded thee.

And why? Thou has delivered my soul from death: mine eyes from tears and my feet from falling.

I will walk before the Lord: in the land of the living. I believed, and therefore will I speak; but I was sore troubled: I said in my haste, All men are liars.

What reward shall I give unto the Lord: for all the benefits that he hath done unto me?

I will receive the cup of salvation: and call upon the name of the Lord.

I will pay my vows now in the presence of all his people: in the courts of the Lord’s house, even in the midst of thee, O Jerusalem. Praise the Lord.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son: and to the Holy Gost; As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be: world without end. Amen…

[Minister] Let us pray. O Almighty God, we give thee humble thanks for that thou hast vouchsafed to deliver this woman thy servant from the great pain and peril of child-birth: Grant, we beseech thee, most merciful Father, that she through thy help may both faithfully live and walk according to thy will, in this life present; and also may be partaker of everlasting glory in the life to come; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

(The woman, that cometh to give her thanks, must offer accustomed offerings; and, if there be a Communion, it is convenient that she receive holy Communion.)[35]

Returning to Philip’s letter, he records that Catherine’s wish for the performance of this eucharistic service was “instantly fulfilled accord[ingly], & no sooner had it been over, but she remain’d speechless, & a little while after dropt a tender Tear & then departed in peace like a Lamb.”[36]

This was in November 1766, almost exactly one year from her departure from England, and a year-and-a-half into her marriage to Philip. His grief at losing both Catherine and their child was understandably heavy; and he subsequently describes his grief and pain—“my pitiable and lamentable Condition”—as “deplorable misfortune.”[37]

Two years later, Philip married Catherine’s maid, who also died in childbirth, and he eventually married a third wife – again, stories for Philip’s biography. But is noteworthy that Philip never referred to these subsequent wives by name; neither does he record any sort of tender affection towards them. While we do not know very much about Catherine’s life, or of her relationship with Philip, it seems in the midst of multiple and complex traumatic circumstances, to have been a very deep and tender partnership – indeed, Partner is the uncommon word he uses for her. We might assume that she was a strong supporter of his, sharing and upholding his sense of call to Christian engagement in the Gold Coast. Her ministry was not a public one, but a private one, supporting Philip’s efforts at the cost of her own life and that of their child.

In Catherine Blunt Quaque, we see an 18th century Anglican woman with a faith firmly rooted within the traditional Book of Common Prayer expression of Protestantism. Clearly deeply committed to her husband and a partner in his sense of calling to missional service in the Gold Coast, Catherine’s tragic death remained a traumatic loss to Philip for years to come. It is a sobering reminder that within this period of Church history, West Africa was not only a “white man’s grave,” but also a woman’s grave.

Sara Fretheim, with Daniel Justice Eshun

End Notes:

  1. As indicated on the marriage register between Blunt and Quaque (London, England, Church of England Marriages and Banns, 1754–1938: Saint Sepulchre, London, 1764–1776.).

  2. See Vincent Carretta and Ty M. Reese, eds., The Life and Letters of Philip Quaque: The First African Anglican Missionary (London: University of Georgia Press, 2010), 2. All subsequent references from this work are simply cited as “Carretta and Reese, [page].

  3. Carretta and Reese, 9.

  4. F. L. Bartels, “Philip Quaque, 1741–1816,” Transactions of the Gold Coast and Togoland Historical Society, 1955, Vol. 1, No. 5 (1955), pp. 153–177: 156–157. A small detail to note here is that on the parish register, the clerk has recorded her name as Katherine (with a ‘K’), but we can assume her signature offers the correct spelling, with a ‘C.’

  5. In his letter dated September 28, 1766, several months after the Quaques’ arrival in Cape Coast, Philip writes of the lack of interest among those in the Castle community in partaking in the Eucharist, saying, “while I remain in th[is] remote Soil, that branch of Duty will never be exercised in publick [sic], unless it be to myself & Spouse.” (Carretta and Reese, 41.)

  6. See “Married by License,” 6th Jan 2016 https://www.essexrecordofficeblog.co.uk/married-by-licence/.

  7. For further discussion, see Jeannette Holt, “Social Mobility through Marriage in London 1743 to 1763” (PhD thesis, 2024), https://pure.royalholloway.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/62809313/2024holtjphd.pdf. In terms of a license being a quicker process than announcing the banns of marriage, we might consider that the publishing of banns required three Sundays in addition to seven days’ notice prior to the minister.

  8. Carretta and Reese, 9.

  9. Carretta and Reese, 9.

  10. Carretta and Reese add that this was “one of the annual store-ships sent from England with supplies to Cape Coast Castle,” 37, footnote 2. They note the date as November 1765 but the database at https://www.slavevoyages.org/ lists this sailing as being captained by Cpt John Shepherd, sailing from London to Anomabu in October 1765 and on to Grenada before returning to London 1766.

  11. Carretta and Reese, 9.

  12. This is based on the fact that Philip, in subsequently marrying this maid a few years after Catherine’s death, writes that, “I learn’d from a Friend, that the Gov[ernor] and some other Chiefs shou[d] say one Day, publickly [sic]… that since I was disappointed in my Amour of a Mustee [someone of mixed racial descent] Young Lady, if I did not get One to marry, I should meet with no other Countenance from them…[than] what they always treated Me with, i.e., with Defidence [diffidence] & Coldness.” (Philip Quaque to the Rev. Dr Daniel Burton, SPG Secretary, Sept 5th, 1769, in Carretta and Reese, 86).

  13. See Carretta and Reese, 13.

  14. Margaret Priestly, “Philip Quaque of Cape Coast,” in Philip Curtin, ed., Africa Remembered: Narratives by West Africans from the Era of the Slave Trade (London: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967), pp.99–139:115, footnote 39.

  15. Priestly cites the Governor and Council to African Committee, Cape Coast Castle, 20 June 1791, T. 70/33, f. 274.

  16. See Carretta and Reese, 34. Philip writes, “I had an invitation sen[t] me by a Gentleman, an English Merchant, to take my little Family and partake part of his House, til our departure from thence…”

  17. Philip Quaque to the Reverend Doctor Burton, SPG Secretary, Feb 29, 1766, in Caretta and Reese, 35. The latter further note that Cudjo Caboceer was not likely Philip’s biological father, but the patriarch of Quaque’s family group (p.6).

  18. Carretta and Reese, Introduction, 21.

  19. Ty M. Reese, “Philip Quaque (1741–1816): African Anglican Missionary on the Gold Coast,” in Beatriz G. Mamigonian and Karen Racine, eds., The Human Tradition in the Black Atlantic, 1500–2000 (Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2010: pp.37–50: 38–39.

  20. Priestly, 112.

  21. Ty M. Reese, “The Barriers to Conversion: The Rev. Philip Quaque, Company Pay, and the Economy of Cape Coast, 1766–1816,” African Economic History, Vol. 48, No. 1 (2020), pp. 1–19:13. Reese is drawing from a letter from Governor John Hippisley to African Committee, 20th March 1766 [TNA/PRO T70/31].

  22. Letter from Governor John Hippisley to African Committee, 20th March 1766 [TNA/ PRO T70/31, 20 March 1766]. See transcription in Carretta and Reese, 195.

  23. Letter from Governor John Hippisley to African Committee, 20th March 1766 [TNA/ PRO T70/31, 20 March 1766]. See transcription in Carretta and Reese, 195.

  24. Letter from Governor John Hippisley to African Committee, 20th March 1766 [TNA/ PRO T70/31, 20 March 1766]. See transcription in Carretta and Reese, 195. See also Reese, “The Barriers to Conversion,” 13.

  25. Carretta and Reese, 13.

  26. Carretta and Reese, 14.

  27. Letter from Governor John Hippisley to African Committee, 20th March 1766 [TNA/ PRO T70/31, 20 March 1766]. See Carretta and Reese, 194.

  28. Carretta and Reese, “Philip Quaque to the Rev. Dr Daniel Burton, SPG Secretary, Sept 28, 1766”, 41.

  29. Carretta and Reese, “Philip Quaque to the Rev. Dr Daniel Burton, SPG Secretary, Sept 28, 1766”, 41.

  30. Carretta and Reese, “Philip Quaque to the Rev. Dr Daniel Burton, SPG Secretary, Sept 28, 1766”, 41.

  31. Carretta and Reese, 45. Philip Quaque to the Rev. Dr Daniel Burton, SPG Secretary, March 7, 1767.

  32. Carretta and Reese, 45. Philip Quaque to the Rev. Dr Daniel Burton, SPG Secretary, March 7, 1767.

  33. Carretta and Reese, 49, footnote 1.

  34. It is also possible that he is simply referring more generally to being “unskillful” in the experiences of grief and loss as a young husband.

  35. “The Churching of Women – The Thanksgiving of Woman after Child-birth Commonly Called the Churching of Woman.” The Book of Common Prayer.

  36. Carretta and Reese, 45.

  37. Carretta and Reese, 45.

Bibliography

Bartels, F.L.“Philip Quaque, 1741–1816,” Transactions of the Gold Coast and Togoland Historical Society, Vol. 1, No. 5 (1955), pp. 153–177.

Book of Common Prayer, “The Churching of Women – The Thanksgiving of Woman after Child-birth Commonly Called the Churching of Woman.”

Carretta, Vincent, and Ty M. Reese, eds., The Life and Letters of Philip Quaque: The First African Anglican Missionary. London: University of Georgia Press, 2010.

Holt, Jeannette. “Social Mobility through Marriage in London 1743 to 1763.” PhD thesis, 2024, Royal Holloway, University of London. https://pure.royalholloway.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/62809313/2024holtjphd.pdf.

“Married by License,” 6th Jan 2016 https://www.essexrecordofficeblog.co.uk/married-by-licence/

Priestly, Margaret. “Philip Quaque of Cape Coast,” in Philip Curtin, ed., Africa Remembered: Narratives by West Africans from the Era of the Slave Trade. London: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967, pp.99–139.

Reese, Ty M. “Philip Quaque (1741–1816): African Anglican Missionary on the Gold Coast,” in Beatriz G. Mamigonian and Karen Racine, eds., The Human Tradition in the Black Atlantic, 1500–2000 (Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2010: pp.37–50.

Reese, Ty M. “The Barriers to Conversion: The Rev. Philip Quaque, Company Pay, and the Economy of Cape Coast, 1766–1816,” African Economic History, Vol. 48, No. 1 (2020), pp. 1–19.

This article, received in October 2024, was written by Sara Fretheim who was assisted by Daniel Eshun. They are Co-Directors of the Quaque-Blunt Centre for Transatlantic Trauma and Reconciliation. Daniel is also the Anglican Dean of Chapel, Whitelands College, and Senior Lecturer, Roehampton University.