15 England: Frontrunner on the road to Abolition[1]
Mart-Jan de Jong
Slavery in medieval England and Ireland.
After the fall of the western Roman Empire, the Roman troops left England and Wales in disarray. Large numbers of Germanic people, known as Anglo-Saxons, arrived and settled in the East and the south-East of England. Historians estimate that during these post-Roman times about half the population was a slave or could be considered to be a in a slave-like position. Most of them were native Britons.[2] Later, in the 9th century, the Vikings forayed into the British Isles. They took prisoners, and killed and enslaved many men, women and children. The Normans also burned and completely wrecked numerous simple huts and homes. They damaged many manors and castles and also several monasteries. And then, they began to settle and to mingle with the Anglo-Saxons. In 841, they started to develop early Scandinavian Dublin. Trading slaves was their main business and Dublin became the biggest slave market of Western Europe.[3] The Vikings also plundered, captured and enslaved many people in countries as distant as Muslim Spain, Morocco and Tunisia. This led to an increase of slaves in English and Ireland.[4]
William of Normandy, bastard son of Robert I, duke of Normandy, and Herleva of Flanders, invaded the South of England in September 1066. He had prepared this invasion since the day he learned that after the death of King Edward the Confessor, Harold Godwinson had been crowned King England on 5 January 1066.[5] William of Normandy, aka William the conqueror, claimed that he should have been crowned instead. Mid-October, he and his French-Norman army defeated Harold’s armies at the Battle of Hastings mid-October. He was King of England since 5 January 1066 and died on the 14th of October after a spear had pierced his eye and damaged his brain. Also two of Harold’s brother were killed during this fight. On the 10th of December, after defeating more enemies, William arrived in London and declared himself King of England. In the following months he had to suppress several more revolts before his Royal status as King of England was established.[6]
In 1086, William the Conqueror ordered a survey to register all the land-holdings in England along with their pre-Conquest and current holders. This survey, known as the Domesday book, also registered all slaves (Theows) as property. Gradually and unintentionally this administrative rigour contributed to their absorption into the class of unfree peasants or serfs and the decline of slavery.[7]
The Domesday Book estimated that about 1 in 6 of all Anglo-Saxons was enslaved. That is 16 percent. They were bought and sold like chattel.[8] Their price equalled that of an ox or a mare. The price of stallions was 50 per cent higher. [9] At the time, hardly anybody questioned whether it was right to enslave men, women and children as spoils of war, as payments for debt or as a punishment for all sorts of crimes. Though, there were a few exceptions; albeit very few. In 1102, Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury, organized the Synod of Westminster. This Italian-born theologian issued a decree against the sale of English slaves to the Irish:“… that shameful trading whereby heretofore men … used to be sold like brute beasts.”[10] This decree did not stop church officials owning slaves.[11] Nor did it have a meaningful impact on slavery in England and Ireland.
Seven decades later, Gelasius, archbishop of Armagh, son of the Irish poet and bard Diarmaid, organized an ecclesial synod. The Decree of the Concilium Armachianum of 1170/1171 stated that …”the English people had become accustomed to selling their sons and relatives in Ireland, to expose their children for sale as slaves, rather than suffer any need or want.” [12] Surely, this chilling and accusative text ignores the heart-breaking feelings of impoverished parents, who no longer could feed their children. Most of them saw selling themselves or their children as slaves as a last chance to survive dying of hunger.
The Council of Armagh acknowledged that the Irish were subject to English Authority. Therefore, the Synod decreed “that all the English slaves in the whole of Ireland, be immediately emancipated and restored to their former liberty.” [13] This was good news for enslaved Englishmen in Ireland, but this decree did not improve the position of enslaved people of other nationalities.
Gradually Anglo-Saxon chattel slavery was replaced by bonded servitude. Serfs, also called villeins, held a secure hereditary title to their land. They were obliged to offer services to their landlord and could not leave his territory. In a way, the villeins still were owned. But a serf might upgrade his status through ordination, marriage or even by being knighted. Serfs provided for most of the agricultural labour. In the 14th and the 15th century also the system of feudalism evaporated. Hiring people during a few weeks or months was much cheaper than “owning” serfs all year round.[14]
In the 16th century, the English, and not only the English, reinvented slavery. Overseas, the colonization of the Americas changed the views on slavery for the worse. The profitable and rapidly expanding plantation economy required a lot of manual labour. Working yourself to death under tropical conditions was not everybody’s dream. Very few European workers were willing to make the crossing. Seeing no other solution to the shortage of labourers, the planters decided to buy slaves, imported from Africa. Since 1553, the British became very active slave traders. In less than 300 years, British vessels shipped more than 12 million Africans to the Western Hemisphere. Near the end of the 17th century one out of four ships leaving Liverpool was a slaver. Only the Portuguese shipped more Africans to the Americas than the British.
Court cases against slavery
In overseas colonies very few people bothered to think about the great injustice of slavery. The colonists needed them, exploited them and treated them like animals without rights. In the colonies nobody would take their cases to court. But after some time, a few courts in England were being confronted with cases of duped slaves. Step by step the verdicts formed a pattern of English Common Law that became a solid basis for outlining the rights of enslaved people.
The first historic case referring to slavery, quoted by a Lawyer in 1637, was a case from 1569 against Mr. Cartwright. This Englishman often had lashed a Russian slave, using a whip or the more painful cat of nine tails. Cartwright was brought to court, questioned and judged. The verdict was that the Russian slave must be freed. The judge held that “England was too pure an Air for Slaves to breathe in.” The judge’s name is never mentioned, but his poetically worded argument has been quoted by many lawyers defending similar cases. Was this a definitive verdict against slavery on English soil? No: judicial archaeology unearthed a series of later verdicts that show that this issue was far from being settled.[15]
In 1677, in Butts vs. Penny, the King’s Bench Court ruled that, since blacks were normally bought and sold, they ranked as merchandize. These black infidels could be considered property for the purposes of claiming trover (that is: stolen property or trespassing).[16] In two similar cases, near the end of the 17th century, not being a Christian was used to define blacks as material property. Hence, the courts decided that they could be handed back to their legal owner and shipped back into colonial slavery.
In 1705, in Smith versus Brown and Cooper, Chief Justice John Holt argued Blacks could be bought and sold as chattels in Barbados, but not in England. He concluded that “as soon as a Negro comes into England, he becomes free; one may be a villain [serf] in England, but not a slave.” [17] Chief Judge Holt meant that an enslaved person coming from a British colony will not be recognised as such by English law. Hence, he must be treated as a person with the limited rights of a serf or commoner. As a serf could be asked to serve his master for life. No longer was he his master’s property, though he could be returned to slavery in a British colony.
English merchants and planters kept searching for loopholes that would favour their interests. In 1729, they sought an opinion from attorney-general Sir Philip Yorke and solicitor-general Charles Talbot. Yorke and Talbot declared that “a Slave, by coming from the West Indies to Great Britain or Ireland … did not become free.” They added that baptism would not give them freedom either. However, since this view was vented at a dinner with law students in Lincoln’s Inn, it had no proper legal status.
In 1750, in Galway versus Cadee, Baron Thompson declared that a slave became free on arrival in England. Twelve years later, in another case, Lord Chancellor Henley came to the same conclusion. He even asserted that an enslaved black could take his master to court for cruel treatment.[18]
In 1774, John Wilkes, a radical journalist and lay magistrate, went even further than Lord Henley. Wilkes had to present a verdict over the case of a poor black fellow from Guadeloupe. This man had served his master in England for fourteen years, but was never allowed any wages. When his wife got pregnant and gave birth to a child, he asked his master for a little money for her support, but without success. In the course of his examination this man expressed such tender feelings for the distress of his wife and child, that it drew compassion from Judge Wilkes. His Lordship discharged him from his maser, telling him that he was not a slave, according the laws of this free country. Judge Wilkes advised him to sue his former master for 14 years’ worth of wages. He and some other gentlemen present gave him some money to support him till he did find a new job.[19]
As far as I know this slave did not sue his master, nor did other former slaves. Wilkes’ advice was far too radical to give it a second thought. It took two more centuries before descendants of enslaved Black Africans would table claims for a collective compensation. To me, a complete outsider to legal training and thinking, it appears to be very unlikely that any claim for individual or group compensation for crimes committed more than two centuries or six generations ago will be sustained. As social scientist I foresee negative impacts of going through with such claims. All kinds of issues will emerge as soon as politicians put forward and discuss concrete ideas about the form, content, size of any financial compensation to individual descendants or specific categories of descendants. Nonetheless, it must be possible to offer compensation in the form of a national museum of slavery and abolition, declare abolition day a national holiday, and naming new streets or renaming existing streets, official buildings or squares after anti-slavery heroes.
The case of Jonathan Strong, Granville Sharpe and Judge Sir Robert Kite.
Around 1800, employing a smartly dressed black servant was a symbol of high status in England. Perhaps that was one of the reasons why David Lisle, a wealthy planter from Barbados, returned to London in 1795, accompanied by his house slave Jonathan Strong. Some people told Jonathan that getting baptized would buy him a ticket to freedom. This was not true. His route to freedom was much more difficult. One night, Jonathan got entangled in a pub brawl and was left for dead on the cobbled street. Some historians assert that he was almost beaten to death by David Lisle, who did not like that Jonathan was being Christianized.[20] Anyhow, after some minutes, Jonathan was able to stand on his feet and stumble all the way to the house of a doctor. Surgeon William Sharp gave him first aid. Next, he was nursed in Saint Bartholomew’s hospital for several months. William and his brother Granville Sharp kept visiting and supporting him during his long stay in hospital. After being discharged Jonathan still needed a whole year to recover. In fact, he never fully recovered.[21] Fortunately, his benefactors found him a job at an apothecary.
When David Lisle learned that his former house slave had regained his strength and had gotten a proper job, he ordered two slave hunters to catch him. He was caught, Lisle sold him to Jamaican planter James Kerr. Kerr lodged him in a makeshift prison until he could be put him on board of a ship destined for Jamaica. When Granville Sharp learned what had happened, he did not hesitate to bring Strong’s case to court. Granville Sharp was not a trained lawyer. He feared that he would be outsmarted by Kerr’s lawyer and that, as a consequence, Jonathan’s status might be compared to that of a serf. If that would happen Jonathan would never be really free, because in 1701, Lord Holt, the Chief Justice of the Court of King’s Bench, had written that “one may be a villein [serf] in England, but not a slave.” Lacking detailed knowledge about the rulings in similar cases Granville could only think of reinforcing his arguments by raising his voice and using dramatic words and gestures. Granville placed his hand on the shoulder of the ship’s captain and proclaimed:
“I charge you, in the name of the king, with an assault upon the person of Jonathan Strong, and all these are my witnesses.”[22]
Sir Robert Kite, Lord Mayor and Coroner of London, ruled that “the lad had not stolen anything, and was not guilty of any offence, and was therefore at liberty to go away.” [23] Lisle and Kerr refused to accept this outcome. Lisle challenged Granville for a duel, but, wisely, the latter refused. Then Lisle and Kerr started a court action against the Sharp brothers, claiming £ 200 compensation for taking their property. Again, they lost. James Kerr tenaciously persisted with eight more law suits. He lost them all and was fined for wasting court’s time.[24]
Who was Granville Sharp? Granville was born in 1735. He was the ninth son of Judith Wheler and Thomas Sharp, Archdeacon of Northumberland. Aged 15, he became an apprentice of a linen-draper. Why did a bright middle class boy start his career as a draper? The simple reason was that five of his brothers had been sent to expensive colleges depleting the family fund for education.[25] Young Granville who had taken a special interest in history and theology had to find alternative ways to satisfy his hunger for knowledge and learning foreign languages. Somehow, he taught himself Greek. A Jewish fellow-apprentice helped him to learn Hebrew. Frequent discussions with two fellow-apprentices improve his theological argumentation skills. Aged 22, he became a clerk in the Ordnance Office. This job allowed him more time to further his intellectual and musical development. He was an excellent singer and loved to make music together with his siblings.[26]
After Granville Sharp had gotten involved in Jonathan Strong’s case, he realized that he needed proper legal training to shore up his tenacious campaign against slavery and other forms of social injustice. In 1769, he produced a fiery antislavery pamphlet; the first antislavery pamphlet published in Britain.[27] These activities brought him in contact with renowned abolitionists like Methodist John Wesley and French-American Quaker Anthony Benezet, with whom he exchanged many letters. Granville Sharp’s first great judicial success was winning the James Somerset case in 1772. This victory gave new fuel to the fight against slavery. The Somerset case would boost the abolition movement even more.
Abolitionist Granville Sharp and the James Somerset case
What was the issue? James Somerset was born in Africa. He was about 8 when he was kidnapped by fellow Africans, most likely people from a different tribe. Next they sold him to African traffickers who shunted him all the way to the West Coast. Of course, his parents had given him a proper African name, but western slave traders and new owners never bothered to find out the African name of their slaves. So his African birth name was skipped and replaced by a British one: James Somerset, maybe because the trader came from Somerset.[28] On the 10th of March 1749, James was bought by a British trader and put on board of a ship destined for North America. In America, he was sold to Charles Steuart (or Stewart), a young Scottish merchant. Stuart had crossed the Atlantic to become an apprentice in the store of a Scottish tobacco trader in Virginia. Three years later he started his own company. He served as quartermaster to the county militia and made a career as customs officer. In 1763, Stuart was promoted to Surveyor General of Customs for the Middle Eastern District of America.
On the one hand, Charles Steuart was a kind and generous man. He helped his orphaned nephews. On the other hand, he traded slaves like cattle, never showing any concern for the cruelties of this trade.[29] He just wanted to make profit with fair deals. If he sold a slave that turned out to be incapable of doing the heavy lifting, Stuart paid back part of the price. He owned several slaves, but James stood out. James became his trusted man-servant. He accompanied him on his business trips. Steuart also bought him nice clothes and gave him pocket money to spend on whatever he needed or fancied. During these travels, James Somerset met many men of high rank or position. He enjoyed his master’s affection and that of his master’s friends and listened to their discussions about natural rights, liberty and equity.[30]
In 1768, Charles Steuart returned to London. Somerset accompanied him. They settled in a house near the heart of the city. James ran errands for Steuart, taking and returning letters, messages, and packages. Thus, he learned the roadmap of the city and made several new friends. Then, about 2 percent of the populace was black. Most blacks were enslaved. One day, James Somerset ran away.[31] Steuart saw this desertion as an act of great ingratitude. To recoup his investment he hired slave-catchers. In London, finding people on the run was far from easy. Most of the 800,000 Londoners were living in overcrowded, dirty, and dilapidated houses, in twisting mazes of alleyways and courtyards.[32] Somerset was helped by the community of self-supportive free blacks: runaways, musicians, seamen, actors, boxers and prostitutes. He got help from some white abolitionists too. Nonetheless, after 65 days he was captured, shackled and put on board of the Ann and Mary, a ship destined for Jamaica.
Abolitionists intervened. They put his case before court. Two days later Judge William Murray, the 1st Earl of Mansfield, issued the writ of habeas corpus, ordering Knowles, captain of the Ann and Mary, to produce Somerset within three days, to place him under the authority of the Court of King’s Bench until a final hearing.[33] This case received a lot of media attention. Several abolitionists donated money for hiring good lawyers. Granville Sharp was asked to defend James Somerset. Judge Mansfield realized that this was a very important case. He took his time and acted with great judicial care.[34] Between February and May, in three separate hearings, five advocates argued that neither common, nor positive law recognised slavery in England and Wales.[35] Colonial law was quite another matter.
The arguments focused on legal issues rather than on moral principles. Lord Mansfield recognized that the case also involved important moral aspects and that his verdict would have great political consequences. Steuart’s lawyers argued that a contract for the sale of a slave was acknowledged in England. Ergo, slavery must be legal too. Mansfield called a recess. The case required more consultation. During his intensive deliberations with colleagues and long discussions with his inner self Mansfield decided that the fate of the enslaved Jonathan Somersett in England had to be dictated by English rules only. Jamaican and Virginian laws should not play a role here.[36] Finally, on the 22nd of June 1772, Lord Mansfield delivered his judgment before a packed and tense courtroom, in which James Somerset anxiously awaited the verdict. Steuart had stayed at home and so had Granville Sharp. Mansfield declared that he spoke for a unanimous Court and told his audience that a master could not carry his slave out of England by force, because:
Slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political; …: it’s so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged.[37]
The following four or five decades planters kept flouting Mansfield’s Somerset ruling. As late as 1823, a certain Mrs Allen took her house slave Grace Jones back to Antigua against the latter’s will.[38] For Brits that had assimilated a colonial mindset during their stay overseas, it was hard to accept that slavery on English soil was a thing of the past.
The significance of the Somerset case
The Somerset case gave a tremendous impetus to the growing abolitionist movement. It helped to diminish the number of slaves, though it did not completely stop slavery in England; certainly not in overseas colonies. The hunt for runaway slaves continued. In 1779, a black boy’ was offered for sale in a Liverpool newspaper. In 1792, a Bristol newspaper reported the sale of an enslaved African woman. Nonetheless, the abolitionist flame was burning brightly, largely through the campaigns of Quakers and other evangelicals. Lord Wilberforce was their chief parliamentary advocate. 22 July 1833, a week before he died, parliament passed an Act that abolished slavery throughout the British Empire (the Act specifically excluded ‘the Territories in the Possession of the East India Company, the Island of Ceylon, and the Island of Saint Helena’). These exceptions were eliminated in 1843 and the might of the Royal Navy was enlisted to impound not only British slave ships but those of foreigners as well. A remarkable exception to national sovereignty.
For the fight against abolition, it is also important to learn how Mansfield’s ruling was received by the wider public, in particular by British abolitionists. Think of the famous Thomas Theorem: “If men define situations as real, they will become real in their consequences.”[39] Among all those who wanted to end slavery, Mansfield’s ruling was like manna from heaven. It gave their mission extra energy. But, first and foremost, more legal clarity was needed. For many magistrates, lawyers and common people Mansfield’s ruling was crystal clear. For them, it meant the end of slavery in England. But technically all that was decided was that it was unlawful to return an enslaved person from England to a British colony against his or her will.
The Somersett ruling did not decide that slavery was illegal in England. In 1785, Judge Mansfield presided over the Rex versus Inhabitants of Thames Ditton case. Charlotte Howe was an enslaved black woman. Captain Tyringham Howe had brought her to England in 1781. At the time she was 15 years young. Servants of Captain Howe did not receive a salary. Their only compensation was board and lodging. Charlotte received her master’s surname when she was baptized in the parish church of St. Nicolas, Thames Ditton. The baptism took place on the 17th of December 1783; six months after Captain Howe had died. Howe had made no mention of Charlotte in his will. In 1784, Howe’s widow moved to Chelsea. A few months later, Charlotte walked out and returned to Thames Ditton. She must have had good reasons to elope, for this was a very risky manoeuvre for an unmarried young black woman without money or fixed income. In Thames Ditton she applied for Poor Relief. The overseers of the parish of St. Nicolas rejected her request, because she had not lived and worked in Thames Ditton during the last forty days. She was duly removed to the parish workhouse of St. Lukes in Chelsea. Some good friends brought her case to court. Lord Mansfield ruled that Charlotte was not entitled to Poor Relief under the existing harsh criteria. Poor relief was dependent on having being “hired.” The law did not recognize her work as (enslaved) servant as paid work.[40] Following legal logic, the Parish of Saint Nicolas was not obliged to give Charlotte poor relief. By not recognizing Charlotte as a normal, paid servant, Mansfield acknowledged that she was a slave. Thus acknowledging the existence of slavery in England.
The verdict in the Somerset case was closely followed in the North American colonies. Some northern states began to support the idea that slavery was inhumane, immoral, and unlawful with more vigour. In contrast, the southern states argued that slavery was vital to their cotton-based economy. This conflict of opinion gave extra fuel to the independence movement. Eventually, in 1776, it led to the founding of the United States. Subsequently, three score and seven years later, it led to the civil war. So, what people believed what Lord Mansfield had decided in the Somerset case had repercussions for politics in the Americas.
Who was Judge Mansfield?
His name of birth was William Murray. He was born on the 2nd of March 1705 as the fourth son of Viscount of Stormont. He went to primary school in Perth. Aged thirteen he moved to London, to take up a place at Westminster School. He studied in Oxford and graduated in 1723. He was noted for his great power of eloquence, rose speedily through the ranks of English society and became an independent MP in 1742. That same year he was appointed Solicitor General for England and Wales. In 1754, he became Attorney General and Chief Justice. Thus he became a confidential advisor to kings. In 1783, he became Lord Speaker in the House of Lords.
He married Elizabeth Finch. The pair had no children of their own. In 1765, Mansfield’s nephew, Captain John Lindsay, returned from the West Indies with his four year old mulatto daughter Elizabeth. Her mother was Maria Bell, a young enslaved woman. Lindsay asked his uncle to take care of Elizabeth’s education. In 1766, she was baptized Dido Elizabeth Belle and raised in the style of an English lady, though she was not allowed to join the family at dinner. Surely, this must have hurt her feelings day after day. The First Earl of Mansfield was uncertain how his verdict in the Somerset case would be applied in the long run. Therefore, in his will he committed that Dido, who had lived with him and his wife for 30 years, was to be considered a free woman. This was a wise decision. It would take more than half a century before slavery became completely illegal in the British Empire.[41]
Judge Mansfield and the case of The Zong massacre?
The Somersett victory meant that an important battle had been won. Overseas the war on slavery was far from over. British abolitionists needed more supporters. Granville Sharp did all he could to make people aware of the countless horrific crimes committed against slaves. A special gruesome case was what had happened on board of The Zong. February 1781, English privateers had hijacked a Dutch slaver ship, called De Zorg.[42] It was sold to William Gregson, including its cargo of 244 captured Africans. Liverpool merchant William Gregson had made a fortune with trafficking Africans. His company ordered captain Collingwood, a ship’s surgeon by profession, to buy more slaves before it would make the crossing. Collingwood had to sailed to several slave markets along the African coast, to buy a sufficient number of enslaved blacks. 18August 1781, the ship set sail to Jamaica with 442 enslaved blacks, 200 more than its capacity. There also was one white passenger: Robert Stubbs, a former sea captain and a failed governor of a British fortification in Ghana. The crew, captain included, counted only 16 men. This number was far too small for solid navigation and taking care of 442 angry slaves.
Soon serious problem arose. Members of the make-shift crew fell out with navigating Officer James Kelsall. Captain Collingwood discharged Kelsall from his function. After Collingwood got ill, it fell upon Robert Stubbs to replace him, but this drunkard failed miserably. Poor navigation did cost him three weeks of extra time. He forgot to buy fresh food and water in Tobago and made the same mistake after reaching Jamaica. Overcrowding and a lack of fresh water and healthy food produced many casualties. During the crossing, sixty-two slaves (14 %) and seven members of the crew (41%) passed away. Panic could break out any day. Under these perilous circumstances, the ten surviving members of the crew agreed to drown all blacks that had fallen ill, to save up food and water for themselves and the healthy and saleable blacks. The insurance company would pay 30 pounds for every slave that died during the crossing. Sick ones would not be compensated, and hard to sell. Egoism and ice cold calculation influenced the decisions of the crew, knowing that their pay depended on the profits being made.
The crew pushed the first number of diseased women and children overboard on the 29th of November. This was far from easy. Boosts of adrenaline triggered by their fear to be drowned or eaten by sharks gave these victims extra strength to kick and wriggle themselves loose. In spite of this strong resistance pairs of strong sailors managed to finish this harrowing job. Could they ever sleep without being haunted by nightmarish visions of these killings? Save at home in Britain, the investors were lying awake about lost profits, for the Insurance Company was unwilling to recompensate all their losses. Gregson’s lawyers asserted that these brutal actions had been necessary to avoid a greater loss of human life or an imminent insurrection. Later research proved that the ship still stored 2,000 litres of drinkable water, enough for more than a week. The jury and the judge did not know this. On the 22nd of May 1783, Lord Mansfield stated that “The Matter left to the Jury was, whether [the mass murder arose] […] from necessity, for they had no doubt (tho’ it shocks one very much) the Case of Slaves was the same as if Horses had been thrown overboard.”[43] Kelsall and Stubbs convinced the jury that indeed a revolt was at hand. The court decided that the Gregson syndicate should receive £3,660 for the loss of a total of 122 Africans. The abolitionists accused the crew of murder, but lost their case.[44]
The Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade (SEAST).
The horrific news about The Zong increased awareness of the inhumanity of trafficking and slavery. 22 May 1787 twelve British men established the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade (SEAST). Nine of them were Quakers.[45] In 1783, five of them had pioneered the organisation of the first petition against the slave trade presented to Parliament. Quakers were a small and marginalized group in England. They were debarred from standing for Parliament. Therefore, the inclusion of Granville Sharp and Thomas Clarkson, two renowned Anglicans, was of great importance for giving SEAST more political clout.[46] The founders of SEAST made a tactical decision to focus on the abolition of the slave trade first, instead of attacking slavery in all its forms and permutations.[47] Whenever support has to be gained for a revolutionary policy, it makes sense to go for a limited, concrete and feasible goal first. Stopping the slave trade appeared to be such a limited and relatively easy target. Yet, achieving this would create huge manpower problems for the entire plantation economy. And, hopefully, it would lead to the phasing out of slavery.
SEAST activities attracted scores of new members. 10 per cent were women. It founded many local abolition groups. In 1788, SEAST organized a successful national petition requesting a humane way of transporting captured Africans to America. Almost 100.000 persons signed, including tens of thousands of women. Four years later, over 400.000 Britons signed a similar petition. This means that about one in seven British adults had put his or her signature under the petition. These petitions incited a lot of political activity. In 1792, a parliamentarian bill proposed several improvements, such as some extra space for the enslaved on board.
Thomas Clarkson was the first paid employee of SEAST. As a student he had won a first prize for his essay on the cruelty and immorality of colonial slavery. Next, he translated his Latin essay into English, to reach a wider audience. It was published in 1786 and reprinted many times.[48] Clarkson’s first SEAST project was investigating the slave market in Liverpool. He sent his report, chockful of shocking facts, to parliament. He also made a visit to MP William Wilberforce (1759-1833). This meeting marked the start of a long and fruitful collaboration. Without the input of Wilberforce’s parliamentary leadership and Clarkson’s research and public mobilisation of SEAST, abolition might have materialized much later.[49]
Politics and the fight against slavery
James Ramsay had been a ship’s surgeon on HMS Arundel. In 1759, the Arundel intercepted The Swift. Below decks, surgeon Ramsay found 100 unhealthy shackled slaves sitting or lying in extremely degrading and conditions. This sorry sight changed his take on slavery forever. After a nasty fall that fractured his thighbone, Ramsay was declared unfit for the navy. Next he made a remarkable career shift and became a minister of the church. As such, he chose to work among slaves in the Caribbean. In 1762, he travelled to Saint Kitts and married Mary Akers, a planter’s daughter. He kept functioning as physician and surgeon and witnessed countless mistreatments of blacks, which gave him a lot of extra work. The depraved lifestyle of many planters appalled him too.[50] Speaking from the pulpit Rev. Ramsay criticized the planters. He told them to improve the working and living conditions of the slaves. This aroused the ire of most planters and officials.
Back in England, Ramsay published a critical essay, fostering more awareness about the inhumanity of slavery. [51] Until then most information had come from grossly sanitized reports and letters that rarely mentioned the plight of the Africans. On the front page of his essay Reverend Ramsay quoted two Bible verses, making clear that his stance on racism and slavery was firmly based on Christian doctrine: God had made of one Blood all Nations on the Earth … (Acts, XVII, 26), and He that stealeth a Man, and selleth him, …, he shall surely be put to death (Exodus, XVI, 16). If these clear Biblical verses would not impact Christian planters and politicians to change their views on slavery, what else will?
William Wilberforce (1759 – 1833): Great politician and champion abolitionist
After having met Reverend James Ramsay, MP William Wilberforce had taken a great interest in the dark sides of colonial slavery. William Wilberforce was a brilliant politician with a strong theological persuasion.[52] As a teenager, he had met John Newton, another remorseful sea captain and slave trader who had changed into an evangelical pastor and active abolitionist. Few people know that he is the author of Amazing Grace, that famous hymn in which he refers to his past as surgeon on a slaver:
Amazing grace, how sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost, but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.
Newton’s sermons made a great impression. Some words got stored in the deeper recesses of Wilberforce’s mind, to be digested later. Overnight, two inheritances had made young Wilberforce quite rich. As a student he had indulged in gambling, drinking, and attending theatre shows. Yet, he managed to pass his exams.
In 1780, aged 21, the youngest age at which one could be elected, William Wilberforce became Member of Parliament for Kingston upon Hull. He still was a student at Cambridge, though an extremely rich one. He spend more than £ 8.000 to secure sufficient votes.[53] (The purchasing power of £ 8.000 in 1780 equals almost 2 million pounds in 2026.) When Parliament was not in session he liked to travel with friends. In the winter of 1784 he invited Isaac Milner, his friend from grammar school, to accompany him to the French Riviera. Milner, was a tutor in Queens College, Cambridge. He also was a great scientist and mathematician. To his amazement Milner turned out to be a convinced Evangelical Christian. They talked for hours about the faith, which led to Wilberforce’s conversion.[54]
A few years later, Wilberforce wanted to become a minister of the church. John Newton, his mentor, advised him to stay in politics and to serve God in this specific role, which he did. He joined the evangelical movement of the Church of England and approached every political issue from a strict Christian ethic. In 1797, he published “A Practical View on the Prevailing Religious System of Professed Christians …” It was an urgent call for a religious revival; a response to the moral decline of the Nation. He argued that only a revitalization of the Church could lead to a harmonious society.
For Wilberforce, as a devout Christian, ending slavery became his primary goal. He focussed on making a law that would outlaw the Atlantic slave trade. William Wilberforce was a conservative politician. Opponents accused him of blatant hypocrisy: vigorously campaigning for better living and working conditions of enslaved workers in the colonies but doing nothing for the exploited British factory workers and miners in England and Wales. Radical activists targeted Wilberforce for not protesting against “the torture of children in our manufactories [and] the daily murders by famine in Ireland.”
Also historian Michael Taylor, author of “The Interest: How the British Establishment resisted the Abolition of Slavery” (2020) criticizes Wilberforce.Taylor shows little understanding for Wilberforce’s fear that demanding immediate emancipation, would entice so much resistance that it would ruin every chance of achieving any positive result. He also blames Wilberforce for his friendship with the Earl of Harewood, an absentee owner of plantations in the West Indies.
Wilberforce never visited the West Indies and never witnessed the inhumane treatment of blacks from close range. Maybe that’s why he held on to the belief that West Indian planters, people from his own culture, class and religion, must be decent men, quite different from slave traders. After meeting some slave traders he had concluded that they were a rough breed of harsh and uncouth men, who”… had consciously committed the original sin of wrenching Africans from their homelands.”[55]Already these words make clear that Wilberforce, definitely a famous member of the British Establishment, was an abolitionist. Surely, he was not the only representative of the establishment who fought for the abolition of slavery. But they were exceptions. Undeniably, the majority profited from colonial slavery. They had a strong interest in resisting abolition. But blaming the entire establishment for blocking abolition is not fair, it is easy, one-sided, and does not shed new light on slavery or the forces that went against the current to promote abolition.
Also, Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger (1759-1806) was a fine specimen of The Establishment and a fervent abolitionist. In 1787, he asked Wilberforce to become leader of the English abolition movement and to bring the case to parliament. To prepare himself for this challenging task, Wilberforce dug deep in the topic of the slave trade and was shocked by what he learned. In parliament, he became the principal spokesman for abolition and remained so for forty years. One of his first actions was to present the Clarkson Report to a parliamentary committee. However, the report’s shameful findings were questioned after some bribed witnesses retracted their testimonies. Thus, his first political attempt to end slavery failed, but support for abolition soared among the wider populace. From then on, Wilberforce contested everyone who asserted that Negroes formed an inferior race and could be treated like farm animals. To him, the words of The New Testament convey that all people are equal in the eyes of The Lord. [56]
MP William Wilberforce proposed a law against the international slave trade in 1789. He held a long and impressive speech, maybe the best parliamentary speech ever, but failed to muster sufficient support in Parliament. He still had to convince more MPs. Reliable witnesses told a parliamentary committee that some enslaved Africans committed suicide by jumping overboard. Others went on a hunger strike. This kind of information outraged the populace and triggered a few petitions. In 1791, after Parliament had rejected the abolition bill, abolitionist William Fox published “An Address to the People of Great Britain, on the Utility of Refraining from the Use of West India Sugar and Rum.” It had to be reprinted many times and triggered the so-called Anti-Saccharate campaign. [57]
In his address, Fox appealed to moral awareness: “The slave-dealer, the slave-holder, and the slave-driver, are virtually the agents of the consumer, and may be considered as employed and hired by him to procure the commodity.” And if this was not convincing enough, Fox added: “… in every pound of sugar used, we may be considered as consuming one ounce of human flesh”[58] The result was that people began to boycott sugar from the colonies. Many British women reduced the consumption of cane sugar in food and drinks, though their husbands and children might have grumbled first. About 400,000 men, women, and children abstained from sugar. This was about 7 per cent of the population of England. This does not seem much. However, since the bulk of the nation was too poor to buy cane sugar, the effect on total cane sugar production was enough to harm the planters.[59]
Finally, parliament decided that the slave trade had to stop within four years. However, a small parliamentary faction applied all kinds of tactics to delay its implementation. They argued that more research was needed. Sessions were being adjourned and the issue was transferred to a Select Committee. Precious time got lost. In 1792, Wilberforce presented his law again. Agaion, he made a fiery speech. And again, to no avail.
MP Henry Dundas, secretary of State for the Home Office (1791- 1794), argued that immediate abolition would be ineffective, as it would drive the slave trade into the hands of foreign nations. He agreed that the slave trade and slavery must be abolished, though, by moderate measures. Dundas added the word “gradual” to the Wilberforce motion. This did the trick. Finally, in 1792, the motion passed with a vote of 230-85.[60] For the first time in British history, the House of commons voted to end the slave trade.[61] However, the House of Lords did not follow suit. Therefore, in April 1792, PM William Pitt gave a three-hour speech in The Commons. He called the British slave trade the greatest stigma on our national character and a curse on mankind. “Why ought the Slave Trade to be abolished? Because it is incurable injustice. How much stronger then is the argument for immediate, than gradual abolition!” [62]
This course of events has triggered an acrimonious debate whether the individual, but prominent MP Henry Dundas was The Great Delayer of Abolition or whether he was just one of several or many delayers.[63] Dundas added the word “gradual
to The Wilberforce motion, but it was the majority in the Commons that passed the motion, a majority that could not be found to support the original motion. And it was the House of Lords that did not pass the weakened Wilberforce motion. Clearly it is wrong to blame Dundas, and him alone, for the delay.
= = = = =
Already in 1780, philosopher Edmund Burke had proposed to humanize colonial slavery. Inspired by the words of French philosopher Montesquieu Burke pleaded for total abolition, albeit step by step. He supported the motions of Wilberforce from 12 May 1789 and 19 April 1791. Meanwhile Edmund Burke had approached Henry Dundas, a powerful MP and cabinet minister, with a detailed plan to achieve abolition, albeit it in a gradual way.[64] This helped the lobby of slave traders. They grabbed any opportunity to delay the political process. Due to these delays attention for the noble cause of abolition ebbed away. Even the public speeches of Wilberforce were receiving less response. Things got worse after the news arrived of a slave rebellion in the northern part of Santo Domingo (now Haiti) in which several white colonists and troops got killed. This event was held against the abolitionists and the law against the slave trade was cancelled. Wilberforce refused to accept defeat. He continued to gather more support. New pamphlets were written, printed and dispersed, and new petitions got signed by thousands of people.
In 1792, to restore order, France sent army leader Léger-Félicité Sonthonax, to Haiti. Sonthonax was an abolitionist. 29 August 1792, he and Commissioner Etienne Polveral proclaimed the freedom of all slaves. In response, Conservative French royalists, helped by the British, began to fight Sonthonax and his republican army. The greedy British government wanted to add Saint Domingue to the British empire, to benefit from its highly profitable sugar production, and to prevent that plans for similar rebellions would arise in their Caribbean colonies. The British also grabbed this opportunity, because they knew that the French armies had been weakened by their battles with the Spanish, the French planters and their slaves.
In 1795, the political climate in France had swung back to the right, to the restoration of the Ancien Regime. Sonthonax was ordered to return to France. Before he left Haiti he had hastily armed numerous freed slaves. Toussaint Louverture, a self-educated former domestic slave, turned these rooky soldiers into well-trained soldiers. In the past, Louverture had fought for the Spanish Crown and against the French. After the British invaded Saint-Dominique and the Spanish refused to end slavery on their part of the island, he decided to fight for the French under the condition that they would agree to free all the slaves.[65] His guerrilla troops fought against British and Spanish troops that attempted to reconquer Haiti and restore slavery. Both armies failed, despite deploying more than 10,000 soldiers. The Brits were ousted from the island in 1798; the Spaniards in 1801. Alas, in 1802, Emperor Napoleon made slavery legal again in some colonies. After these notorious events, many British people regained their interest in this issue.
Several hhistoric developments delayed the ban on the Atlantic slave trade until 1807. The war against the new French Republic led to a British military campaign overseas, producing the Haitian Paradox. Pitt opposed slavery but hated the French Republic even more, hence he chose to support French monarchists and slave owners in Caribbean colonies. The French colonists had made it clear that they preferred to be ruled by British monarchs than by French republicans. So, in the same period in which PM William Pitt was acting against slavery in Britain and its colonies, he and his Home Secretary Henry Dundas (1742-1811), who also was Minister of War, sent 40,000 troops to Haiti.
Due to the war events in the West Indies, opposing slavery now was seen as an important part of the fight against France – historically, their biggest enemy. Nevertheless, the law was outvoted again in 1804 and once more in 1805. Yet, the arguments of the abolitionists did reach a nation-wide audience. In 1805, PM Pitt put a halt to this part of the slave trade. A year later, the abolition moment achieved its greatest victory. It had emphasized the British national interest of prohibiting trading slaves with foreign powers.[66] On the night of February 23, 1807, the House of Commons voted against the slave trade by a vote of 283 to 16. The House rose to its feet, turned to William Wilberforce and began to cheer. Parliament gave him a standing ovation, a highly exceptional gesture, for applauding was not allowed in parliament.[67] Wilberforce sat with his head bowed and wept for joy. The Royal assent was declared on March 25, 1807.
So, finally, the Atlantic Slave Trade was made illegal, but slavery was not. More steps had to be made. More opposition had to be suppressed. Wilberforce remained focused on complete abolition. Physically weakened, he had to delegate ever more tasks. Abolitionists collected 750,000 signatures for yet another petition, demanding that Britain should force all nations to stop the international slave trade. The British Navy helped to mitigate the slave trade of Spain, Portugal, and other countries. It was evident that there had to be a register of slaves to control whether planters did not buy new slaves from British or foreign traders. Prime Minister Spencer Perceval supported the Registration Law. He was murdered on 11 May 1812, not by a planter, but by John Bellingham, a frustrated businessman.[68] Robert Jenkinson, the new PM, resisted supplementary legalisation. In 1815, he and his government blocked the registration of slaves again.
Not satisfied with a job half done, Wilberforce started a new campaign, but his health worsened. No longer was he capable of touring the country to deliver spell bounding speeches. All he could was writing new pamphlets.[69] The planters, still needing shiploads of forced labourers, formed a massive counterforce. In 1823, a group of Londoners founded the Society for the Mitigation and gradual Abolition of Slavery. They wanted to reach their goals in a piecemeal way. MP Thomas Fowell Buxton was willing to assist them. He was a Quaker and a tireless campaigner for social reform. Government introduced ameliorative measures, which the planters ignored. This mutiny spurred some campaigners to demand abolition for all, and right away.[70]
The new London Antislavery Society distributed a large number of pamphlets and sponsored many speeches, inspiring people to take action. The degree of radicalisation took such a leap that some moderate abolitionists began to fear for a revolutionary backlash.[71] Political activity spawned even more petitions and more signatures. The number of supporters soared to one and a half million, including 350,000 women. Never before, had so many people signed a petition. Meanwhile the health of Wilberforce got worse and Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton became the leader of the parliamentary anti-slavery campaign.
The drive to take action was boosted by the news of a big slave revolt on Jamaica that started around Christmas 1831. Since 1655 there had been 16 recorded slave revolts; averaging one uprising per decade. The insurgencies of 1816 and 1823 were the most violent ones. In these years, each week about 50 slaves protested silently by escaping into the mountains. For their greedy owners they counted as a serious financial loss as well as a loss of experienced labour.
The December 1831 insurrection was the greatest ever on Jamaica. It began with a peaceful dispute over pay organized by deacon Samuel Sharpe, a coloured Baptist Minister. Soon the dispute turned into a violent insurgency. Rebels set fire to crops, houses and barns, destroying entire estates, harming many people and damaging the sugar industry. Sixty thousand Jamaican slaves joined the month-long rebellion. It took British troops helped by Jamaican Military forces and Jamaican Maroon warriors two weeks to control the uprising. Samuel “Daddy” Sharpe had stayed at the helm of the insurgency. He kept inspiring his men by telling them about “the natural equality of man with regard to freedom;” an idea he had learned from European missionaries. He also urged blacks to drive the whites off their plantations, but not to harm them, except in self-defence.[72]
During this insurrection and the following reprisals 200 blacks and 14 whites lost their life. Hundreds of rebels were seized and convicted. More than 300 of these freedom fighters were sentenced to death and hanged.[73] Samual Sharpe was executed in public. The news of this revolt shocked the British. It did remind them of the big Haiti uprising.[74] Once more, this rebellion showed that maintaining order under conditions of slavery was a risky and costly affair. This last uprising also showed that rebelling blacks could act in a civilized way. They killed far less whites than they could have done, far less than was expected of them.
Afterwards, more reprisals followed. The government tried, convicted, and hanged many of the leaders, including Sharpe, in 1832. A total of 310 to 340 were executed through the judicial process, including many for purely property offences such as theft of livestock. The rebellion and government response triggered two Parliamentary Inquiries. These events and the outcomes of these inquiries are believed to have contributed to the passage of the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.
March 1833, Edward Stanley, the new Secretary of State, had presented his own abolition bill. It featured two innovations: freed slaves would continue to work for their masters for another twelve years as “apprentices” and all owners would be compensated by the government of the UK for the loss of “their property.” Yet, the bill was rejected. Having listened to arguments put forward by MPs and pressure from Abolitionists led to a reduction of the “apprentice years” to six; still a very long period, especially, when you have been promised to be set free at last.
For British MPs private property was of very great importance. Landlords and property-owners dominated the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Nullifying the value of a legally held asset would set a frightening precedent for all landowners: big, medium and small. The Slavery Abolition Act passed its second reading in the House of Commons on 22 July 1833, just a week before Wilberforce died. It passed the House of Lords on 20 August 1933 and received Royal assent on 28 August 1933, freeing all enslaved children below the age of six immediately. The rest was set free on probation: They still had to serve their master as an apprentice for another six years.[75] The Slavery Abolition Act excluded the territories in the possession of the East India Company. A decade later the Indian Slavery Act of 1843 put a halt to this exception.
Finally the UK forbade slavery. William Wilberforce thanked God for being alive when the law, for which he had been fighting for so many years, finally passed parliament. He died on the 29th of July 1833. The former PM was buried with great honour.[76] The next year, on the 1st of August 1834. 800,000 formerly enslaved men and women were set free at last. The generous compensation for slave owners set the national coffers back with 20 million pound Sterling.
Most abolitionists could live with the compensation for slave owners, but not with the fact that the former slaves received nothing and still had to work six more years as their master’s “apprentice,” to prepare them for a life as a free person. Viscount Howick rejected this apprenticeship deal. He feared that planters would go on exploiting “freed slaves” as much as they could.[77] Indeed, many planters obstructed the law in all sorts of ways. Nonetheless, slavery had become a true crime. This was what mattered most. It was achieved thanks to the courageous efforts of people prepared to row against the stream; people that weathered all sorts of critique and threats. Slavery ended thanks to the help of many people from all walks of life; thanks to the tenacious and courageous actions of many renowned people and the supportive activities of thousands of others. After about hundred centuries of slavery, this was no less than a miracle, one of the greatest a social and political wonders of the world.
[1] Chapter 15 of my Book Project: From Ancient Slavery to Abolition (24 August 2026; 9272)
[2] Morris, Marc (2021). The Anglo-Saxons: A History of the Beginnings of England: 400–1066. Pegasus Books; Pp 49-50.
[3] Slavery in Ireland: Wikipedia.org; Retrieved 17 August 2026. Wikipedia refers to: Dickson, David (2014). Dublin The Making of a Capital City. Profile Books Ltd. p. 10.
[4] Idem
[5] Harold Godwinson was the son of Earl Godwin of Wessex and Gytha Thorkelsdottir.
[6] William the conqueror. Wikipedia.org. Retrieved: 19 August 2027.
[7] Slavery in Britain: Wikipedia.org. Retrieved: 17 August 2026
[8] Steve M. Wise: Though the Heavens May Fall. Da Capo Press/Perseus Books Group. Cambridge. 2005. pp 13-15.
[9] David A. E. Pelteret: Slavery in Early Mediaeval England from the Reign of Alfred until the Twelfth Century. Boydell and Brewer: 2001.
[10] Idem: P 15
[11] Sally N. Vaughn: St Anselm of Canterbury: the philosopher-saint as politician. Journal of Medieval History: Volume 1, Issue 3, October 1975, Pages 279-305.; Council of London in 1102: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_London_in_1102. Retrieved 3 May 2022
[12] Wikipedia refers to: Internet History Source Books Project. sourcebooks.fordham.edu
[13] Armagh, Council of: The Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. James Strong and John McClintock; Harper and Brothers; NY; 1880. Biblicalcyclopedia.com. retrieved: 17 August 2026.
[14] History of Serfdom: Wikipedia.org. retrieved: 6 June 2024
[15] Miranda Kaufmann: o. c.
[16] Trover is a law case for claiming stolen property or trespassing. Miranda Kaufmann, o. c.
[17] Famous Abolitionists of Slavery – A Knowledge Archive (infomory.com) Retrieved: 6-7-2021.
[18] Miranda Kaufmann: , English Common Law, Slavery and’ Encyclopaedia of Blacks in European History and Culture (2008),Vol. I, pp. 200-203)
[19] 1774: Anonymous, London Lord Mayors’ Court. The Statuses Project: Putting Historic British Law on line. Statuses.or.uk. Retrieved: 20-8-2026
[20] Jonathan Strong (Slave): Wikipedia.org. Retrieved: 10-6-2024 www.umich.edu/~ece/student_projects/slavery/the_mansfield_case.ht
[21] Strong kept being hindered by his injuries. On 17 April 1773, Granville Sharp wrote in his diary that Jonathan had died, aged 25. brycchancarey.com/abolition/sharp.htm: Retrieved 30 September 2015
[22] Adam Hochschild, Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire’s Slaves (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2005), 44.
[23] Stories from the Switching the Lens Project: Jonathan Strong. Cityoflondon.gov.uk; Retrieved: 29 May 2024
[24] Michael Taylor. The Interest: How the British Establishment Resisted the Abolition of Slavery. The Bodley Head London, 2020, p 20
[25] Three other brothers had died at a young age.
[26] At a young age he had learned to play several musical instruments, had a good voice for singing and also composed music. Michael Taylor, o. c.
[27] Granville Sharp: A Representation of the injustice and dangerous tendency of admitting the least claim of private property in the persons of men, in England, etc. London: 1769.
[28] Steven M. Wise: Though The Heavens May Fall: The Landmark Trial That Led to the End of Human Slavery. Da Capo Press / Perseus Book Group. Cambridge, MA. 2005. p 1-2.
[29] Idem, p 3
[30] Idem
[31] James Somerset: Wikipedia. Retrieved: 16 May 2024
[32] Steven M. Wise: o. c., pp 5-8
[33] Idem: p 10
[34] Lord Mansfield was accompanied by judges Ashton, Willes and Ashurst.
[35] Common law, also known as judicial precedent or judge made law is that body of law derived from decisions of courts and tribunals.
[36] Henry Nicholas Buehner: Mansfieldism: law and politics in anglo-america.1700-1850. Dissertation: Temple University, May 2014
[37] Stephen Usherwood: The Black Must Be Discharged – The Abolitionists’ Debt to Lord Mansfield. History Today: Issue 3, 1981. Jerome Nadelhaft: The Somersett Case and Slavery: Myth, Reality, and Repercussions. Journal of Negro History: Vol. 51. July 1966, pp 193–208.
[38] Miranda Kaufmann: English Common Law, Slavery and Encyclopaedia of Blacks in European History and Culture (2008), Vol. I, pp. 200-203). Retrieved: 6-7-2021
[39] This sociological theorem was formulated by William Isaac Thomas and Dorothy Swaine Thomas in their book: The Child in America: Behavior Problems and Programs. New York: Knopf, 1928: 571-572.
[40] Charlotte Howe – An Enslaved American in Thames Ditton. exploringsurreyspast.org.uk; Slavery at Common Law: Wikipedia.org. Retrieved: 17 June 2024
[41] Heward, Edmund (1979). Lord Mansfield: A Biography of William Murray 1st Earl of Mansfield 1705–1793 Chichester: Barry Rose Ltd. Quoted in Wikipedia: William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield.
[42] The original Dutch name of the ship was De Zorg, which means The Care in Dutch.
[43] Idem
[44] Roy Sprangers: www.isgeschiedenis.nl/…/gruwelijke-reis-van-het-slavenschip-zong: Retrieved 31 May 2013. David B. Davis: Inhuman bondage, o. c. p 234;
The Zong case study: understandingslavery.com: Retrieved 29 March 2018.
[45] Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade. Wikipedia.org. Retrieved: 9 June 2024
[46] Philip Sansom, the third Anglican founder, was less renowned.
[47] Sharp argued for targeting slavery instead of the more modest goal of putting an end to the Atlantic Slave Trade. He was outvoted, but always remained a loyal and active member of this Society. Granville Sharp: Wikipedia. Retrieved: 12-7-2021
[48] Published as a pamphlet in 1786 as: An essay on the slavery and commerce of the human species, particularly the African, translated from a Latin Dissertation (Gutenberg Project)
[49] William Wilberforce: en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved: 3 October 2022
[50] William Wilberforce: Abolition of the slave trade: wikipedia.org. Retrieved: 6-7-2021
[51] Rev. James Ramsay: An Essay on the Treatment and Conversion of African Slaves in the British Sugar Colonies. Dublin, 1784
[52] Wilberforce, William. A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System of Professed Christians in the Higher and Middle Classes of This Country Contrasted with Real Christianity. London: 1797.
[53] William Wilberforce; Wikipedia: Retrieved 14 May 2018.
[54] John Piper: The Amazing Grace in the Life of William Wilberforce. Crossway Books; Wheaton, Illinois. 2006.
[55] Michael Taylor. The Interest: o. c., p 26
[56] Wilberforce, William. A Letter on the Abolition of the Slave Trade Addressed to the Freeholders and Other Inhabitants of Yorkshire. London: Cadell and Davies, 1807, p. 54.
[57] Susanne Schmid: Sugar. Digitens.org. Retrieved: 1-7-2026. Schmid refers to and quotes from: Charlotte Sussman, ‘Women and the Politics of Sugar‘, Representations (vol. 48, 1994), p. 48-69, p.51.
[58] William Fox, An Address to the People of Great Britain, on the Utility of Refraining from the Use of West India Sugar and Rum (London: 1791), reprinted in Timothy Morton (ed.), Radical Food: The Culture and Politics of Eating and Drinking 1790-1820, vol. 1 (London: Routledge, 2004), p. 33-40, p. 34, 35.
[59] Banning cane sugar can be viewed as a precursor of many successful boycotts.
[60] Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville: Wikipedia.org. retrieved: 7-7-2026.
[61] Idem: Wikipedia refers to: The Debate on a Motion for the Abolition of the Slave-trade, in the House of Commons, Monday the Second of April, 1792. House of Commons. 1792. p. 169. Archived from the original on 21 January 2023.
[62] The speech of the Right Honourable William Pitt, on a motion for stopping the slave trade : in the House of Commons, on Monday the second of April, 1792. London: James Phillips,
[63] Angela McCarthy: Bad History: The Controversy over Henry Dundas and the Historiography of the Abolition of the Slave Trade. Scottish Affairs; Vol 31.nr 2. 4 February 2022. Eu.publishing.org.
[64] Roger Anstey: The Atlantic Slave Trade and British Abolition 1760-1810. p 108
[65] Bryan, Patrick(1984). The Haitian Revolution and Its Effects. London: Heinemann. p. 23
[66] Roger Anstey: Atlantic Slave Trade and British Abolition, pp 343-413
[67] The William Wilberforce School;Williamwilberforcesdchool.org. Retrieved: 12-7-2026. Parliament made trading slaves illegal.
[68] This frustrated businessman found that the government had not paid sufficient attention to his problems with Russian businessmen and officials
[69] An Appeal to the Religion, Justice, and Humanity of the inhabitants of the British Empire: on Behalf of the Negro Slaves in the West Indies (London: J. Hatchard, 1823)
[70] In 1824, Elizabeth Heyrick presented her pamphlet: Immediate, Not Gradual Abolition.
[71] David B. Davis: Inhuman bondage, o.c. p 237
[72] Idem, o.c. p 218-219
[73] Samuel Sharpe: Wikipedia.org. Retrieved: 24 August 2026. Wikipedia refers to: Craton, Michael (1983). Testing the Chains: Resistance to Slavery in the British West Indies. Cornell University Press.
[74] The Abolition Project; Case Study 4: Jamaica (1831) The Rebellion. Wikipedia: Retrieved: January 15, 2013.
[75] Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833; en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved: 13 July 2026
[76] Carey, Brycchan: William Wilberforce; brycchancarey.com, ‘William Wilberforce’s Sentimental Rhetoric: Parliamentary Reportage and the Abolition Speech of 1789’, The Age of Johnson: A Scholarly Annual, 14 (2003), 281-305.
[77] David Brion Davis: Slavery and Human Progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp 204