Parliamentary Struggle

Supporters of the slave trade included in their arguments that the commercial success of Britain and the colonies, indeed the colonies’ survival, not only depended upon continued slavery, but on increased numbers of slaves. A pamphlet of 1745, published anonymously, argued that the greater the number of slaves taken from Africa, the more British-manufactured goods would be required to trade for them; and, as a consequence of a larger labour force in the colonies, the greater the quantity and diversity of produce being delivered to the European market.

Supporters of slavery warned also against the threat of international competition, particularly from, as the century passed, the French. Moreover, Britain was at war with France for long periods during the two decades either side of the turn of the nineteenth century, and it was this and its consequences for Europe that dominated the political agenda throughout that period, not least because of French agitation in the West Indies.

Despite these and similar arguments the abolitionists prevailed, although not without a struggle. Winning the argument in Parliament took sixteen years, which was detrimental upon the health of leading abolitionists, including Wilberforce, who introduced an Abolition motion in the House of Commons every year from 1791, and Thomas Clarkson who, frustrated and overworked, withdrew from the movement for ten years from 1794.

Wilberforce introduced his first motion in Parliament on 19 April 1791. He spoke for four hours imploring his fellow-MPs to consider the human rights of those enslaved:

Although the motion was defeated by 163 votes to 88, the abolitionists remained resolute and set about raising petitions throughout the country. As a counter, those who supported the slave trade did likewise, but, unexpectedly, they had lost the backing of the city of Liverpool, which failed to submit a petition to either side.

On 2 April 1792 a second motion calling for abolition was defeated by 234 votes to 87. However, a further motion introduced by the Treasurer of the Navy Henry Dundas, advocating a ‘middle way’, was carried by 230 votes to 85. Although vague, Dundas proposed the ‘gradual’ abolition of the slave trade, and later recommended 1800 as the year for abolition. The abolitionists suggested 1 January 1793, just eight months away, and then 1795. The compromise reached was 1796, although the Bill then was stalled in the House of Lords. Their Lordships wanted further evidence, and whilst they conducted their own hearings, any legislation affecting the slave trade was postponed. In reality, Dundas’ 1792 Bill was left to wither away, and there was no abolition in 1796.

In 1797 Trinidad was ceded to Britain from Spain. The island had more land available for sugar production than in Jamaica, and to work that land would have meant importing one million slaves. William Pitt, the Prime Minister who at times supported the abolitionists’ cause and at other times was less enthusiastic, suggested that any slaves transported into Trinidad would have to come from existing West Indian colonies. But, as the abolitionists recognised, any slaves removed from the colonies and sent to Trinidad would be replaced by others from Africa; nothing would be achieved. In April that year a motion put before the Commons by CR Ellis, member of a prominent West Indies plantation-owning family, proposed that responsibility for deciding the abolition issue should pass from the British Parliament to the colonies’ Assemblies. Although abolitionists argued that such a measure would safeguard the continuation of the slave trade, Ellis’ motion was carried whilst a counter-motion laid by Wilberforce was rejected.

In the Commons, in the spring of 1799, Wilberforce not only condemned the idea of the colonies’ Assemblies effectively having a veto on slavery, but also introduced a new tactic. He spoke of the harm that the slave trade was having on the people of Africa who lived along the coasts and who, because they had contact with the Europeans, particularly slavers, were three centuries less advanced than Africans living in the interior.

Although in 1799 Wilberforce’s motion was defeated by 84 votes to 54, an economic factor entered the debate that year that began to swing opinion in the colonies the abolitionists’ way. In 1794 the price of raw sugar was 58 shillings per hundredweight, rising to 87 shillings by 1798. However, in 1799 the price began to fall, fluctuating in 1800 and 1801 from a high of 50 shillings to a low of 28. Sugar production in Cuba had increased to the extent that it dominated the market. Americans exported Cuban sugar to Europe, so putting British colonial planters at a commercial disadvantage. At the same time, European entrepreneurs were developing home grown sugar beet refinement. Demand for sugar from the colonies fell, and so did the need for labour. The colonies’ planters for the first time called for no new African slaves.

During May and June 1804 the Commons voted in favour of Wilberforce’s Abolition of the Trade Bill during all three readings. The abolitionists then sent the Bill to the Lords, which once again prevaricated, stalling the Bill throughout 1805 and further frustrating the abolitionists. However, in the summer of 1806 both Houses passed the Foreign Slave Bill.

In 1807 it was decided to present a new Abolition of Slavery Bill to the Lords first, where on 4 February it was passed finally by 100 votes to 36. Back in the Commons, where many new MPs had won their seats at the previous year's General Election promising to support abolition, on 23 February the motion was carried by 283 votes to 16. The senior Member who topped the poll in Plymouth, Sir Charles Morice Pole, however, was not an abolitionist: he “declared himself to be so impressed with the impolicy of the abolition, that he was induced in every stage, to thwart a bill, ruinous to the colonies and the commerce of the country”. Sir Charles introduced an amendment to the Bill on 6 March, moving to delay abolition by five years. His amendment was defeated by 125 votes to 17.

The Slave Trade Act, formally the Act for the Abolition of the Slave trade, came into force on 25 March 1807. Under the Act, the trading and purchasing of slaves was prohibited in the United Kingdom and its colonies, slave ships were banned, captains of vessels that were caught carrying slaves faced fines of £100 per slave, and the removal of slaves from Africa was outlawed. Although some traders broke the law, indeed rogue captains were known to dump slaves over the sides of their ships rather than get caught with a live cargo, the abolitionists had won the argument; the infamous middle passage was no more.

Learn more about slavery and abolition and the Plymouth connection:

John Hawkins

Slave Trade Triangle

Abolition

Conclusion

Glossary

Suggested reading

Slavery and abolition web links

[Back to top]