ABSTRACT

After the passing of Abolition of the Slave Trade Act in 1807, British captains who were caught
continuing the trade were fined £100 for every slave found on board. However, this law did not
stop the British slave trade. If slave-ships were in danger of being captured by the British navy,
captains often reduced the fines they had to pay by ordering the slaves to be thrown into the sea.

Some people involved in the anti-slave trade campaign argued that the only way to end the
suffering of the slaves was to make slavery illegal. A new Anti-Slavery Society was formed in
1823. Members included Thomas Clarkson, Henry Brougham, William Wilberforce, Thomas
Fowell Buxton, Elizabeth Heyrick, Mary Lloyd, Jane Smeal, Elizabeth Pease and Anne Knight).

Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833. This act gave all slaves in the British
Empire their freedom. The British government paid compensation to the slave owners. The
amount that the plantation owners received depended on the number of slaves that they had. For
example, the Bishop of Exeter's 665 slaves resulted in him receiving £12,700.

INTRODUCTION

The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 abolished slavery throughout the British Empire. This Act of
the Parliament of the United Kingdom, expanded the jurisdiction of the Slave Trade Act 1807,
making the purchase or ownership of slaves illegal within the British Empire, with the exception
"of the Territories in the Possession of the East India Company", Ceylon (now Sri Lanka),
and Saint Helena. The Act was repealed in 1998 as a part of wider rationalisation of English
statute law; however, later anti-slavery legislationremains in force.

In May 1772, Lord Mansfield's judgement in the Somersett's Case emancipated a slave in
England, which helped launch the movement to abolish slavery.[1]

By 1783, an anti-slavery movement to abolish the slave trade throughout the Empire had begun
among the British public. In 1793 Lieutenant-Governor of Upper Canada John Graves
Simcoe signed the Act Against Slavery. Passed by the local Legislative Assembly, it was the first
legislation to outlaw the slave trade in a part of the British Empire.[4]

In 1807, Parliament passed the Slave Trade Act of 1807, which outlawed the slave trade, but not
slavery itself. Abolitionist Henry Brougham realized that trading would continue and as an new
MP successfully introduced the Slave Trade Felony Act 1811 which at last made slave trading
criminal throughout the empire. The Royal Navy established the West Africa Squadron to
suppress the Atlantic slave trade by patrolling the coast of West Africa. It did suppress the slave
trade, but did not stop it entirely. Between 1808 and 1860, the West Africa Squadron captured
1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans.[5] They resettled many in Jamaica and the
Bahamas.[6][7] Britain also used its influence to coerce other countries to agree treaties to end
their slave trade and allow the Royal Navy to seize their slave ships.[8][9]
 In 1823, the Anti-Slavery Society was founded in London. Members included Joseph
Sturge, Thomas Clarkson, William Wilberforce, Henry Brougham, Thomas Fowell
Buxton, Elizabeth Heyrick, Mary Lloyd, Jane Smeal, Elizabeth Pease, and Anne
Knight.[10] William Wilberforce had prior written in his diary in 1787 that his great purpose in
life was to suppress the slave trade before waging a 20-year fight on the industry.[11]

During the Christmas holiday of 1831, a large-scale slave revolt in Jamaica, known as the Baptist
War, broke out. It was organised originally as a peaceful strike by the Baptist minister Samuel
Sharpe. The rebellion was suppressed by the militia of the Jamaican plantocracy and the British
garrison ten days later in early 1832. Because of the loss of property and life in the 1831
rebellion, the British Parliament held two inquiries. The results of these inquiries contributed
greatly to the abolition of slavery with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.

Origins of Slavery

 ORIGINS OF SLAVERY FROM 1490'S

 Firstly Amerindians were used to assist European colonists. They were over worked and ill
treated through the encomienda system and hence their numbers depleted. The genocide of these
people caused the colonists to look for other sources of labour.

 *European indentured labourers were recruited and later they were kidnapped from English
ports and forced into indentureship contracts which lasted 5 years. Afterwards they sourced
labour from bringing white prisoners from England, Scotland and Ireland to work in the
Caribbean on the plantations but there was still not enough labour to fulfill plantation needs.

 *Spain graned Asiento to the Portuguese in 1515 to bring slaves from West Africa. Thus
began a 300 year trade in human cargo across the Atlantic.

ORIGINS OF AFRICAN SLAVERY

 African slaves were used as early as the 12th century when Italians planted sugarin Cyprus
using African slaves provided by Arabs

 *In the 14th century sugar production spread to Portugal and Spain using African slaves
provided by the Arabs.

 *In the 15th century some of the African slaves were shipped from Portugal and Spain to work
on Portuguese colonies of Madeira, Azores and the Canary Islands.

 Most of the African slaves were being used by planters in the Americas in the 16th century.to
produce sugar.By 1800, cattle ranches in Puerto Rico and Cuba were turned into canefields with
slaves working on them.

 *In the U.S.(Southern U.S), starting in Louisiana, millions of Africans used slaves on tobacco,
cotton and rice fields.
Over a period of 300 years, 20 million Africans fell victim to the Atlantic slave trade.Not all
survived because half died in the Middle Passage.

A comparison of the presence of African slaves in the Caribbean in the early 1500s and the
1700s.

African slaves were introduced by the Spanish to the Caribbean in small numbers in the
1490s and early 1500s. They were initially part of Spanish exploration teams sailing to the
Caribbean. By the 1500s a few slaves were brought to a few territories working to build
settlements and plant crops for the Spanish. They were also brought to replace indigenous people
who were enslaved but eventually died out. By the early 1500s, plantation economies had not yet
developed as at this point European colonization was now beginning in the Caribbean. By the
1700s, the plantation economies (based in the Caribbean on sugar production) which depended
on cheap labour had developed and more thousands more African slaves had to be brought in to
work.

Also advances in trading, ship building and the gradual European penetration of West
Africa had made slaving a profitable business. Another reason for the rise in the numbers of
African slaves in the Caribbean by the 1700s was the rise in the demand of sugar and the fall in
the demand of tobacco which lead to an increase in the demand of labour which was needed for
sugar cultivation but was not needed for tobacco cultivation.

Economic and social reasons for the enslavement of Africans

The main economic reason for obtaining labout from the West African area was simply
the fact that the capture of persons meant that they would be paid no wages. They were literally
goods obtained for free, sold at a price and for a profit. Thus there were no overhead costs to be
incurred in this regard. Western European society by the middle of the 16th century was fully
convinced of its own superiority over the people of the African continent. Indeed social and
religious justification for slavery often stated that the African societies were pagan and through
enslavement could be brought to Christianity. Life on a typical slave plantation Sugar estates
varied in size.

They ranged from a few hundred to a thousand acres depending on soil, climate and
physical geographical conditions. The mixture of industry and agriculture gave good reasons to
set up a plantation by a river; so that water could easily by carried to run mills which were used
in processing sugar. The largest parts of the estates were fields used for planting the cane. The
rest of the estates were divided into sections used as pastures, woodlands, provision grounds,
work yards and living quarters for the plantation owners and their families and

Background Information
The anti-slavery campaign

Britain went from being the most active slave trading country at the turn of the nineteenth
century to showing the most vehement opposition in only a few generations. Factors that pushed
Britain to turn against slavery are many – economic, revolutionary, political, societal, and
religious. The history of abolition by the British – first of the slave trade and then of slavery
involved the campaigning efforts of key individuals and the mobilization of the masses.

Changing perspectives

Britain went from being the most active slave trading country at the turn of the nineteenth
century to showing the most vehement opposition in only a few generations. There are many
factors, and their relative importance continues to be debated. Social, religious, political,
economic and revolutionary forces were all clearly at work.

There was social and ideological change in The Enlightenment period and enslavement sat
uncomfortably alongside the free trade economy of the industrial revolution in Britain. Some
have argued that the economic value of the plantations fell following the loss of the North
American colonies in 1776. Although the attractiveness of cane sugar and other crops produced
by plantation slaves declined in the face of the new industrial economy in Britain with
technologically advanced production methods, there is evidence that the West Indies were
operating profitably as late as the 1820s.

Others point to the intervention of religion, and especially the role of the Quakers and the
nonconformist churches as agents of change. The Society of Friends (who became the Quakers)
put forward their objections to slavery as early as the late 1600s, produced the first anti-slavery
literature in the 1760s, and presented their first petition to Parliament in 17631 . They were
ignored as eccentrics. John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist movement, was a vociferous
critic of the slave trade and published his ‘Thoughts Upon Slavery’ in 1774.

Insurrection, a series of rebellions and revolts throughout the Caribbean and the southern states
of America, as well as political and social reform and an effective anti-slavery movement, finally
ended first the slave trade and then the institution of slavery itself. The revolution in Haiti
defeating thousands of French and British troops, made the continuation of the transatlantic slave
trade seem untenable. It was clear that if slavery was not abolished, then slaves might well
emancipate themselves.

The work of some former slaves contributed to the anti-slavery movement (most notably Ottabah
Cugoano, Olaudah Equiano and Mary Prince) as did the ongoing resistance and rebellions in the
colonies. There were also British people who were prepared to come forward and testify to the
inhumanity of slavery including John Newton, a sea captain who later became an Anglican priest
and author of the hymn ‘Amazing Grace’.

Course of events
Several court cases, such as the infamous slave ship the Zong in 1781 brought the harsh reality of
the trade to the attention of the wider public in Britain. There was also a growing legal problem
relating to the position of enslaved Africans in Britain. Granville Sharp brought the controversial
test case of James Somerset to court and in 1772 it was ruled that enslaved people in England,
Wales & Ireland could not be forced to return to the Caribbean, which was wrongly interpreted
to mean that all slaves in Britain were free.

Although there had been criticisms of, and protests against, slavery since its inception, the first
mass anti-slavery society was formed in 1787 by 12 men including Thomas Clarkson and
Granville Sharp: The Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade. The group quickly
recruited William Wilberforce to act as its political mouthpiece in Parliament. The first Bill to
abolish the slave trade was introduced in the House of Commons in 1791 by Wilberforce but it
was rejected.

The following year the House of Commons voted in favour of abolishing the slave trade but the
bill was rejected by the House of Lords. Despite several more failed attempts the abolitionists
persevered and finally, in 1807, helped in large part by the successful revolution in Haiti the
British Parliament passed an Act on the 25th March abolishing the transatlantic slave trade in
British colonies. Although this ended the transportation of Africans across the Atlantic, it did not
stop other European countries trading nor did it end the institution of slavery itself. It was not
until 1833 that an Act of Parliament was passed which, when it became law in 1834, ended
slavery itself. Even then, full emancipation was not realized until 1838 when a period of
apprenticeship failed.

Compensation

The Act provided for compensation for slave-owners. The amount of money to be spent on the
compensation claims was set at "the Sum of Twenty Million Pounds Sterling".[14] Under the
terms of the Act, the British government raised £20 million (£16.5 billion in 2013 pounds, when
calculated as wage values)[15] to pay out in compensation for the loss of the slaves as business
assets to the registered owners of the freed slaves. In 1833, £20 million amounted to 40% of the
Treasury's annual income[16] or approximately 5% of the British GDP[17] .[18] To finance the
compensation, the British government had to take on a £15 million loan, finalised on 3 August
1835, with banker Nathan Mayer Rothschild and his brother-in-law Moses Montefiore. The
money wasn't paid back until 2015.[19]

Half of the money went to slave-owning families in the Caribbean and Africa, while the other
half went to absentee owners living in Britain.[15] The names listed in the returns for slave
compensation show that ownership was spread over many hundreds of British families,[20] many
of them of high social standing. For example, Henry Phillpotts (then the Bishop of Exeter), with
three others (as trustees and executors of the will of John Ward, 1st Earl of Dudley), was paid
£12,700 for 665 slaves in the West Indies,[21] whilst Henry Lascelles, 2nd Earl of
Harewood received £26,309 for 2,554 slaves on 6 plantations.[22] The majority of men and
women who were awarded compensation under the 1833 Abolition Act are listed in a
Parliamentary Return, entitled Slavery Abolition Act, which is an account of all moneys awarded
by the Commissioners of Slave Compensation in the Parliamentary Papers 1837-8 (215) vol.
48.[23]

The British Pro-slavery movement

For nearly 200 years many plantation owners and politicians were successful in their opposition
to ending the slave trade, and in delaying any movement to ending the slave trade. Olaudah
Equiano was constantly in a war of words with James Tobin, who had been a member of His
Majesty’s council on the island of Nevis and supported slavery. Gordon Turnbull wrote a
sixtyfour page ‘Apology for Negro Slavery’ (1786) arguing that the supporters of slavery, and
not the abolitionists were the true men of feeling. Equiano wrote a letter to Turnbull refuting his
claims.

The British anti-slavery movement

In May 1787 a group of men met at 2, George Yard in East London and founded of the Society
for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade where the minutes recorded ‘the said Trade was
both impolitick and unjust’. The group was mainly made up of Quakers who already had a
century of experience as a pressure group. They mobilized their existing networks, and shaped
the campaign, but relied on figureheads such as Thomas Clarkson and William Wilberforce from
the established Anglican faith to bring the cause to wider mainstream attention. (Society for
Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade became is the world’s oldest Human Rights Charity,
now called Anti-Slavery International.)

Mass mobilization

What is remarkable about the development of the anti-slavery campaign is that large numbers of
people became outraged over issues of human rights. Due in part to the skills of the abolitionists
who drew connections between local and global inequities. At this time 19 out of 20 Englishmen
and all Englishwomen were not even allowed to vote. Abolitionists demonstrated what lay
behind the sugar, tobacco and coffee used and enjoyed by the British population. They
campaigned against slave trade using leaflets, posters, petitions, pin badges, and boycotts.

Advertising bill for abolition

The success of these campaigns is evidenced by the fact that as early as 1792, after the first
abolition bill to Parliament was defeated, it is estimated 400,000 Britons refused to eat
slavegrown sugar. This action was initiated and carried out by women and it quickly swept
across the country. Many did abstain from using plantation grown sugar during the abolition
period but many also switched to using East Indian grown sugar as a substitute. Others made the
sacrifice to add their weight to the abolitionist movement. In the course of the campaign
Parliament was flooded by far more signatures on petitions against slavery than on any other
subject, and often the number of signatures totalled half a million. Every major town and city had
an anti-slavery movement linked to London.
Abolition sugar bowl

As the main buyers and consumers of sugar, women came to play an important role in the
antislavery campaign, particularly between 1807 and 1838 when they grew impatient with the
male dominated societies gradual approach to ending slavery and campaigned for immediate
emancipation

Freed slaves and their involvement in the movement

The anti-slavery movement in Britain was a largely white enterprise, however there were a
number of freed slaves who contributed significantly to the effectiveness of the abolitionist
campaign, although not always in partnership. The upper class leaders of both Parliament and the
Anti-Slavery Committee might have been moved by sympathy for the enslaved, but they were
not motivated by the issue of equality.

Quobna Ottobah Cugoano was the first black voice to be heard when he published the first
directly abolitionist book in English by an African in 1787, ‘Thoughts and Sentiments on the
Evil and Wicked Traffic of the Slavery and Commerce of the Human Species’ (possibly assisted
by Equiano). He was progressive in his approach, challenging the abolitionist line of only
seeking to abolish the trade in slaves and called for the end of slavery itself: ‘I would propse
that…universal emancipation of slaves should begin’, Cugoano.

Olaudah Equiano wrote about his life experiences of capture, slavery and freedom and in 1789
he published ‘The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, or Gustavus the African’
as well as campaigning for abolition. Members of the official Anti Slavery Committee (except
Granville Sharp) showed little interest in Equiano and did not campaign alongside him. But he
became the principal spokesman of Britain’s African communities and thereby represented
another important constituency who opposed the slave trade.

Mary Prince who came to Britain later in the course of the abolition campaign in 1828 was one
free slave who did work with the Anti Slavery Society. A Quaker, Susanna Strickland
documented her life story in 1831and ‘The History of Mary Prince: A West Indian Slave’
became an important part of the abolitionists’ campaign. Mary Prince was the first woman to
present an anti-slavery petition to Parliament.

Although the black voice was heard through individuals in Britain, the actions of the enslaved in
resisting and rebelling against slavery in the colonies contributed more to bringing about an end
to slavery. It is important to note that there are few historical records relating to the role of
Africans in the abolition of the transatlantic slave, due in part to the way in which elements of
the history were selected for documentation.
 Anti- abolition

The impact of the transatlantic slave trade in creating a major economy meant there was
significant opposition to abolition. Liverpool was particularly pro-slavery and John Tarleton a
leading slave-trader spent over 3 hours in 1788 trying to persuade Prime Minister Pitt that
abolition would bring ‘total ruin’. As well as the port cities, anti-abolition sentiments were
evident in urban centres such as Birmingham and Manchester and the North West where jobs
depended on manufacturing goods for export or processing the imported raw products
(particularly cotton in Lancashire). When it appeared that the 1807 bill would be passed, 439
mill owners in Manchester petitioned against it to Parliament and within a few hours a counter-
petition of 2354 names was presented.

Despite the 1807 the Act of Parliament African people were still forced into slavery. A quarter of
all Africans who were enslaved between 1500-1870 were in fact transported across the Atlantic
after 1807.

British Campaigners

William Wilberforce is often presented as the most important abolitionist, rather than the
political agitator of the abolitionist movement. He was, in fact recruited by Thomas Clarkson and
the Abolition Committee. He was an eloquent speaker. He was MP for Hull, then Yorkshire,
wealthy and politically independent. As Hull was not a slaving port taking a stand against slavery
was not a political risk. Moreover as a mainstream Anglican, part of the Establishment, he gave
legitimacy to the efforts of the more peripheral Quakers. Wilberforce’s gentle nature was
profoundly conservative on all other issues other than slavery. He was against wider electoral
reform, and he opposed women's involvement in the Anti Slavery Society. ‘For ladies to meet, to
publish, to go from house to house stirring up petitions – these appear to me proceedings
unsuited to the female character as delineated in Scripture. I fear its tendency would be to mix
them in all the multiform warfare of political life’ (1826).

Thomas Clarkson, by contrast, was not just involved in the anti-slavery movement, he was its
‘moral steam-engine’ according to Samuel Taylor Coleridge and he dedicated his life to the
cause. But Clarkson the agitator needed Wilberforce the insider and their friendship and work
together lasted nearly 50 years. Clarkson had his father’s passion for looking after the poor (his
clergyman father died after visiting the sick when Clarkson was 6).

Clarkson became the movement’s only full-time organizer. He traveled 35,000 miles between
1787 and 1794, mostly on horseback, visiting ports such as Bristol, Liverpool, Whitehaven and
London, gathering information (a risky business as owners and ship captains made efforts to
curtail any threat against to their commercial endeavours).

He built up a case against the slavery and the Middle Passage, interviewed over 20,000 sailors
and collecting artefacts to illustrate the brutality, such as thumb screws, handcuffs, leg-shackles,
jaw clamps (for forced feeding) and branding irons used on the slave ships and on the
plantations. He also collected goods made in West Africa, such as ivory, cloth, pepper and
woods, to demonstrate the fact that the African peoples were in fact equal and to build a case for
the need to enter in dialogue with West Africans to develop legitimate trade He carried this case
with him at all times

Clarkson began to receive death threats as a result of his activities and Alexander Falconbridge,
the former slave ship surgeon, began to accompany him on his travels as a bodyguard.
Abolitionists successfully petitioned Parliament to withdraw a tax on cotton cloth and they
applied the same approach to ending the slave trade. 10,000 people in Manchester signed the
petition against slavery (20% of the population).

Historical Background

APART from the consideration of the abstract principle, on which the advocates of
Parliamentary Reform had insisted, of the right of many classes hitherto unrepresented to
representation, they bad also dwelt on the practical advantage which might be expected to ensue
from the greater degree in which public opinion would henceforth be brought to bear on the
action of the Houses, and, by a natural consequence, on the administrative government also.

And the bill had hardly passed when this result began to show itself, not only in transactions of
domestic legislation, but in others which affected our most remote dependencies, both in the East
and West. We have seen in a previous chapter how Wilberforce, after twenty years of labor and
anxiety, reaped the reward of his virtuous exertions in the abolition of the slave-trade. But be had
not ventured to grapple with the institution which gave birth to that trade, the employment of
slaves in our West India Islands.

Yet it was an evil indefensible on every ground that could possibly be alleged. It was not only a
crime and an injustice, but it was an anomaly, and a glaring inconsistency, in any British
settlement. The law, as we have seen, had been laid down as absolutely settled, that no man
within the precincts of the United Kingdom could be a slave; that, even had such been his
previous condition, the moment his foot touched English soil he became a free man.

By what process of reasoning, then, could it be contended that his right to liberty according to
English law depended on what portion of the British dominion he was in-that what was
incompatible with his claims as a human being in Kent ceased to be so in Jamaica? The
sentiment that what was just or unjust in one place was just or unjust in every place; that a man's
right to freedom did not depend on the country of his birth or the color of his skin, had naturally
and logically been widely diffused and fostered by the abolition of the slave-trade.

It was but a small step from admitting that there could be no justification for making a man a
slave, to asserting that there was an equal violation of all justice in keeping one in slavery; and
this conclusion was strengthened by tales, which were continually reaching those most interested
in the subject, of oppression and cruelty practised by the masters, or oftener by their agents and
overseers, on the unfortunate beings over whom they claimed power and right as absolute as any
owner could pretend to over any description of property.
They made so general an impression that, ten years before the time at which we have now
arrived, a society had been formed in London whose object was the immediate extinction of
slavery in every British settlement; and Canning, then Secretary of State, had entered warmly
into the general object of the society; not, indeed, thinking the instant abolition practicable, but
inducing Parliament to pass a body of resolutions in favor of at once improving the condition of
the slaves, as the best and necessary preparation for their entire enfranchisement;* and the next
year, 1824, the subject was recommended to the attention of the Houses in the King's speech, and
an Order in Council was issued enjoining the adoption of a series of measures conceived in the
spirit of those resolutions, among which one was evidently meant as a precursor of the slaves'
entire emancipation, since it gave the " negro who had acquired sufficient property " a title " to
purchase his own freedom and that of his wife and family."

And it was, probably, from regarding it in this light that the planters (as the owners of estates in
the West Indies were generally called) selected that provision as the object of their most
vehement remonstrances. But, though they were not so open in their remonstrances against the
other clauses of the order, they did worse, they disregarded them; and the stories of the*
illtreatment of the slaves were neither less frequent nor less revolting than before.

Compensation voted to slave holders

Fresh Orders in Council, avowedly designed as the steppingstones to eventual emancipation,

were issued; and one which reached the West Indies at the end of 1831 was, unhappily, so
misconstrued by the slaves in Jamaica, who regarded it as recognizing their right to instant
liberation, that, when their masters refused to treat it as doing so, they broke out into a
formidable insurrection, which was not quelled without great loss of life and destruction of
property. The planters were panicstricken; many of them, indeed, were almost ruined. The
colonial Legislatures,* which had been established in the greater part of the islands, addressed
the ministers with strong protests against the last Order in Council; and the mischief which had
confessedly been already done, and the farther mischief which was not unreasonably dreaded,
were so great that the cabinet consented to suspend it for a while; and the House of Commons
made a practical confession that the planters were entitled to sympathy as well as the slaves, by
voting nearly a million of money to compensate those of Jamaica for their recent losses.

But out-of-doors the feeling rather was that the insurrection had been caused, not by the
unreasoning though natural impatience for freedom entertained by the negro-whom Canning had
truly described as "possessing the form and strength of a man, but the intellect of a child "-but by
the slackness and supineness of the local Legislature, too much under the influence of the timid
clamors of the planters to listen to the voice of justice and humanity, which demanded to the full
as emphatically, if somewhat less vociferously, the immediate deliverance of the slave. The
object, however, thus desired was not so free from difficulty as it seemed to those zealous but
irresponsible advocates of universal freedom; for, in the first place, the slaves were not the only
persons to be considered; the planters also had an undoubted right to have their interests
proteefed, since, however illegitimate property in human beings might be, it was certain that its
existence in that portion of the King's dominions had been recognized by Parliament and courts
of justice for many generations, and that suddenly to withdraw a sanction and abrogate a custom
thus established, and, as it might fairly be believed, almost legalized by time, would be not only
ruinous to the planters, who would have no other means of cultivating their lands, but, as being
ruinous to them, would also manifestly be most unjust.

Even in the interests of the slaves themselves, instant emancipation before they were fit for it
might prove to them a very doubtful blessing. The state, too, and the general interests of the
kingdom had to be considered, for the shipping employed in the West India trade, and the
revenue derived by the Imperial Exchequer from it, were both of great amount. It was a very
complicated question, and required very cautious handling; but it was plain that the people were
greatly excited on the subject.

One or two of the ministers themselves had deeply pledged themselves to their constituents to
labor for the cessation of slavery; and eventually, though by no means blind to the difficulty of
arriving at a thoroughly safe solution of the question, the ministry decided that " delay was more
perilous than decision," and they brought in a bill, in which they endeavored to combine the
three great objects-justice to the slave, by conferring on him that freedom to which he, in
common with all mankind, had an inviolable right; justice to the slave-owner, by compensating
him fairly for the loss of what (however originally vicious the practice may have been) he was
entitled by long usage and more than one positive law to regard as property; and a farther justice
to the slave, that justice which consists in being careful so to confer benefits as to do the greatest
amount of good to the recipient.

The first object was attained by enacting that those who had hitherto been slaves should be free;
the third was arrived at by making the freedom thus given, not instantaneous, but by leading
them to it, and preparing them for its proper and useful enjoyment, by a system of
apprenticeship. The slave was to be apprenticed to his master for seven years, receiving, partly in
money and partly in kind, a certain fair amount of wages, and having also one-fourth of his time
absolutely at his own disposal. And the second was secured by granting the planters the
magnificent sum of twenty millions of money, as compensation for the injury done to them; or,
in other words, as purchase-money for the property they were compelled to surrender. The
apprenticeship system did not wholly succeed.

The slaves were not sufficiently enlightened to appreciate the character of the new arrangement;
and, as the light in which it appeared to them was rather that of deferring than of securing their
emancipation, it made them impatient rather than thankful. In the majority of cases it proved
difficult to induce them to work even three-fourths of their time, and eventually the planters
themselves were driven to the conclusion that it was best to abridge the period of apprenticeship.
By the act of the colonial Legislatures themselves it was shortened by two years, an the
emancipation was completed on the 1st of August, 1838.

Still, though on this single point the success of the scheme did not fully correspond to the hopes
of those who had framed it, it was one which did great honor to their ingenuity as well as to their
philanthropy (Lord Stanley, as Colonial Secretary, being the minister to whose department it
belonged). And the nation itself is fairly entitled to no small credit for its cordial, ungrudging
approval of a measure of such unprecedented liberality.

Indeed, the credit deserved was frankly allowed it by foreign countries. To quote the language of
an eloquent historian of the period, " the generous acquiescence of the people under this
prodigious increase of their burdens has caused the moralists of other nations to declare that the
British Act of Emancipation stands alone for moral grandeur in the history of the world."* And,
in respect of the personal liberty of the subject, it may be said to have completed the British
constitution; establishing the glorious principle, that freedom is not limited to one part of our
sovereign's dominions, to these islands alone, but that in no part of the world in which the British
flag is erected can any sort of slavery exist for a single moment.

The abolition of the political authority of the East India Company, which took place some years
after the time at which we have arrived, and which will be mentioned in a subsequent chapter,
would make it unnecessary to mention the renewal of its charter, which took place at this time,
were it not that the force of public opinion again made itself felt in some important limitations of
its previous rights.

The monopoly of the trade with China which the Company had hitherto enjoyed was resented as
an injustice by the great body of our merchants and ship-owners, who contended that all British
subjects had an equal right to share in advantages which had been won by British arms. The
government and Parliament adopted their view, and the renewed charter extinguished not only
that monopoly, but even the Company's exclusive trading privileges in India itself, though these,
like the rights of the West India planters over their slaves, were purchased of it by an annuity for
forty years, which was estimated as an equivalent for the loss of profit which must result to the
proprietors of the Company's stock from the sudden alteration.

It cannot be said that any constitutional principle was involved in what was merely a commercial
regulation, or relaxation of such regulations. Yet it may not be thought inopportune to mention
the transaction thus briefly, as one important step toward the establishment of free-trade, which,
at the end of fifty years from the time when Pitt first laid the foundation of it, was gradually
forcing itself on all our statesmen, as the only sound principle of commercial intercourse
between nations. The laborious historian of Europe during these years finds fault with the
arrangements now made, but only on the ground that they did not go far enough in that direction;
that, while "everything was done to promote the commercial and manufacturing interests of
England, nothing was done for those of Hindostan;"*
that, " while English cotton goods were admitted for a nominal duty into India, there was no
corresponding advantage thought of to the industry of India in supplying the markets of the
country." The objection was not unfounded; but the system of which it complains was too one-
sided to be long maintained, and in less than ten years a great financial reform had swept away
the great mass of import duties, and so far had placed the Indian manufacturer on the same level
with his fellow-subjects of English blood.

PERNICIOUS WORKING OF POOR LAW

The disturbances which agitated the first years of the reign of William IV. were not caused solely
by the excitement attendant on the passing of the Reform Bill. There had been extensive
agricultural distress in England, which had shown.itself in an outbreak of new crimes, the
burning of ricks in the farm-yards, and the destruction of machinery, to which the peasantry were
persuaded by designing demagogues to attribute the scarcity of employment. But statesmen of
both parties were agreed in believing that a great deal of the poverty which, especially in the
agricultural counties, had become the normal condition of the laborer, might be ascribed to the
pernicious working of the Poor-law, which subsisted with scarcely any alteration as it had been
originally enacted in the reign of Elizabeth.

There was even reason to doubt whether the slight changes which had been made had been
improvements. If they had been in the direction of increased liberality to the poor man who
needed parish relief, and had to some extent lessened his discomforts, they had at the same time
tended greatly to demoralize both him and his employer, by introducing a system of out-door
relief, which, coupled with the practice of regarding such relief as a legitimate addition to wages,
led the former to feel no shame at underpaying his workmen, and the workman to feel no shame
at depending on the parish for a portion of his means of subsistence.

It was not to be wondered at that under such a system the poor-rates gradually rose to the
prodigious amount of seven millions and a quarter of money; or that the rate-payers began to
clamor against such a state of things, as imposing on them a burden beyond their power to bear.

It was evident that it was an evil which imperatively demanded a remedy; and accordingly one of
the first objects to which Lord Grey's Cabinet turned its attention after the completion of the
Reform Bill was the amendment of the Poor-law.

SUGAR REVOLUTION

Revolution means change. There was an economic revolution that occurred in the17th Century.
Some refer to it as the Sugar Revolution.During this period, several basic changed took place.

(1) Sugar replaced tobacco as the chief export crop in the Caribbean
 (2) The population changed from one that was mainly white to one that was mainly black
because of the introduction of african slaves.
(3) The size of land holdings changed.

The Sugar Revolution occurred the fastest in Barbados where it occurred in about one decade
(1640 to 1650). It happened at a slower pace in other islands. Some other small islands had fast
rates of change such as Nevis, Antigua, St Kitts and Montserrat.

Although the Sugar Revolution took place at different times for different countries, the
approximate period when it began was between the mid 1600's and the end of the 1600's.

CAUSES OF THE SUGAR REVOLUTION

(1) There was a fall in tobacco prices. Tobacco was previously the main cash crop of the Indies
because of sales to Europe. However in the early 160"s, new competitors emerged selling
tobacco mainly from Virginia and Venezuela. Because of this new competition, there was less
demand for tobacco, prices fell and many small farmers went out of production.

(2) There was a rise in demand for sugar. Sugar was already being used for sweets and baked
goods, but it was demanded even more as a sweetener for coffee and tea which were becoming
popular in Europe.

(3) At the same time that tobacco was declining and sugar demand was increasing, the Dutch
who were losing a war against the Portuguese for possession of Brazil, ran away to the eastern
Caribbean islands and brought with them their expertise in large scale sugar production.

SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL CHANGES ACCOMPANYING THE COMING OF

THE SUGAR REVOLUTION SOCIAL CHANGES:

(1) The introduction of a great number of African slaves changed the population structure in the
islands because there were then more blacks than whites. This also caused the emergence of
different social classes.

(2) Absenteeism was a new factor brought about by the sugar revolution. Absenteeism refers to
the sugar planters (plantation owners) living away f from the plantations in Europe and hired an
overseer to stay on the island and manage and take charge of the plantation. The plantation
owner would meanwhile live a comfortable life in Europe where they prefered to stay so they
could maintain their lifestyle and enjoy a climate that was more comfortable to them.

ECONOMIC CHANGES

(1) The emergence of the large plantation and an almost complete dependence on sugar and the
adoption ofrestrictive navigation laws by the European mother countries.

(2) The sugar revolution led to a change from agricultural diversification (planting of avariety of
crops for sale) to monoculture ( a one crop economy).
POLITICAL CHANGES

There was more direct control by the European mother countries of the respective colonies and
this led to international rivalry and war.

The Emancipation Act and Apprenticeship

 The Emancipation Act and Apprenticeship

The Emancipation Act The Emancipation Act was passed in British Parliament in May 1833 and
it was put into practice in 1834. this Act was passed due to overwhelming support for the anti
slavery movement in parliament.Many parliamentarians already belonged to the Society for the
Gradual Abolition of Slavery.

The planters in parliament had lost political power mainly due to the fact that they had not stuck
to the amelioration proposals made by their own colleagues in London.

The planters were also unpopular because the public was growing to be against them on the issue
of slavery. Economically, slavery was becoming useless because sugar from the British colonies
was more expensive than sugar fro, Cuba, Brazil or Mauritius and therefore less in demand in
Europe.

Another factor that led to a majority vote to end slavery in British Parliament in 1833 was the
fact that the 1830 election in Britain brought in a majority of new members who were
industrialists who had no interest in slavery and wanted it to end.

Terms of the Emancipation Act

 All slaves were to be freed at the same time

 Most of the former slaves were to become 'apprentices' who would have to work for their
former masters for a fixed number of hours per day for a specified number of years

 The slave owners were to be paid a monetary sum as compensation for the loss of their slaves

 The money for this payment was to come from raising the duties (a type of tax) on sugar from
the colonies

 Therefore the main concerns of the Emancipation Act were to

 Ensure that former slaves had protection of the law

 Ensure that there would be a transition period between slavery and full freedom

 Calm the planters whose business would be disrupted by these changes.

 Apprenticeship

The system of apprenticeship was put in place by the Emancipation Act which was passed in
1833. The system of apprenticeship was neither full freedom nor full slavery but rather a system
set up for planters to keep their labourers on the plantations although slavery was officially over.

 It was intended to provide an easy and peaceful transition from slavery to freedom for the
slaves

 It was meant to guarantee the planters an adequate supply of labour during the period that it
lasted

 it was expected to train the apprentices for the responsibilities of freedom especially in
working regularly for wages.

 It was meant to give the planters time to introduce new equipment, technology and labour
management.

 To allow time for legal changes- to facilitate the change from slave codes to new laws  to
Provide time for the establishment of colonial banking institutions to meet the needs of a new
society

Structure of Apprenticeship

 Non-field slaves were to be apprentices for a period of four years and field slaves for a period
of six years

 All children under the age of six years were freed

 Destitute mothers could indenture their free children on estate until they reached age 21

 Stipendiary magistrates were appointed by the Crown to protect the freed Africans against
overwork, maltreatment and abuse. These stipendiary magistrates were paid by the Crown

 All apprentices were to work forty and a half per week

 Food allowances would continue as during slavery

 The apprentices had the option of performing extra labour or purchasing their freedom

Measures enforcing apperentice

Officials called Stipendiary Magistrates were put in place to enforce the apprenticeship system.
Most of these men were appointed from Britain. They were mostly retired navy and army
officers. The rest were non-officials from Britain as well as some whites and coloured West
Indians not associated with the planter class. The main problem faced by these magistrates was
that they worked under poor working conditions and this prevented them from performing their
roles effectively.

Duties of the Stipendiary Magistrates

 Their main duty was to supervise the operation of the act of Emancipation

 To inspect jails and work houses

 They were to ensure that both owners and apprentices secured their respective rights under the
law

 They were expected to administer justice and assist in preventing social and economic
disturbances

 They were appointed to help maintain the peace

 They had exclusive jurisdiction over offences commited by apprentices and their employers 
They made sure that no one was unduly jailed without proper reason  They ensured that
apprentices received proper medical attention  They had to come up with the price of slaves
who wanted to buy their freedom.

Problems with the Apprenticeship system

There were some abuses when planters tried to break or bend the new laws. Some of the abuses
are as follows:  Enslaved Africans were re-classified by the planters from non-praedial
(farming) to praedial, so they would all be forced to work in the fields and do six years instead of
four  There was no proper registration of the slaves, so the stipendiary magistrates who were
appointed to oversee and enforce the new system did not have proper records to base their
decisions on  women and children were overworked  Work hours were extended beyond the
forty and a half stipulated in the Act to 45 and even 50 hours  The work day was extended from
9 to 11 hours  Food, clothing and other requirements specified in one of the clauses of the Act
were withheld

Extent to which the aims of Apprenticeship were accomplished

To an extent they were because estates were provided with adequate supply of labour since
apprentices were required to work for many hours for free.Apprenticeship also kept up
production in the sugar industry as well so it was also successful to this extent. However,
apprenticeship was nothing but a changed/modified version of slavery and apprentices could not
bargain with the planters about the conditions of labour.
 Conclusion

The success of the anti-slavery campaign in ending the slave trade in 1807 did not end the
abolitionist activities. If anything, the movement and the number of voices involved (particularly
of women) gained momentum over the next 30 years. Further successful uprisings took place in
Barbados in 1816, Demerara (Guyana) in 1823 and Jamaica in 1831-32 which severely affected
these sugar colonies. These revolts, and others, played a critical part in forcing the anti-slavery
movements in Britain to move from simply banning the trade in slaves in 1807 to bringing to an
end the institution of slavery in 1833.