Genesis of the abolitionist movement

The debate on abolition was two folds:

The first debate was centered on the buying and selling of people.

The second debate was focused on the freeing of all enslaved persons.

The British abolished the slave trade in 1807 and abolished slavery in 1834.

English Quakers had begun to express their official disapproval of the slave trade since 1727 and
promote reforms. From the 1750s, a number of Quakers in Britain's American colonies also began to
oppose slavery, calling on English Quakers to take action, and encourage their fellow citizens, including
Quaker slave owners to improve conditions for slaves, educate their slaves in Christianity, reading and
writing.

The abolitionist movement in England was initiated by new political and religious ideas that marked the
18th Century. The thoughts of philosophers also impacted upon the abolitionist movement.

French philosopher Voltaire

Voltaire was scornful of the anti-intellectualism of racism. He saw it as a sign of ignorance that people
should consider things such as skin colour, hair, texture and facial structure as important indicators of
civilization.

1
Jean-Jacques Rousseau,  (born June 28, 1712, Geneva, Switz.—died July 2, 1778, Ermenonville,
France, Swiss-born philosopher, writer, and political theorist whose treatises and novels inspired the
leaders of the French Revolution.

Philosopher who denounced slavery by stating, "From whatever aspect we regard the question, the
right of slavery is null and void, not only as being illegitimate, but also because it is absurd and
meaningless. The words slave and right contradict each other, and are mutually exclusive.

The members of the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade decided to concentrate on
a campaign to persuade Parliament to prohibit the trading in slaves, for tactical reasons. They felt
they were more likely to succeed, than if they demanded the abolition of slavery itself throughout
the empire.

They also believed that, if the trade was ceased, slavery would eventually wither away. 

In Parliament, both Charles James Fox and William Pitt the Younger agreed with the
committee's aims. However, some of the most powerful economic interests of the day opposed
them, including the formidable West India Lobby. Fortunes had been made through the trade and
those benefiting were not going to give up easily. The first bill put to parliament in 1791 was
rejected by 163 votes to 88.

In 1793, Britain went to war against France. The Slave Trade was seen as the "nursery of
seamen"  and to oppose it seemed unpatriotic to many. Therefore attention became diverted away

2
from the abolition of the trade, although Wilberforce continued to propose legislation for
abolition in the House of Commons.

It was not until 1807, when the evils of the trade were generally accepted, that the law was able
to pass both Houses. The first breakthrough was in 1806, when James Stephen wrote a bill that
was passed, banning involvement in the Slave Trade with France. Other events also played a
part. The Act of Union allowed 100 Irish MPs into Parliament, most of whom supported
abolition. The chances of abolition became even more favourable when William Grenville, who
was extremely sympathetic to the views of the anti-slavery committee, became Prime Minister
after the death of William Pitt.   

The effect of Stephen's 1806 act was to reduce the trade by two-thirds, paving the way for the
Abolition of the Slave Trade Act in February 1807. The Prime Minister, Lord Grenville,
introduced the Slave Trade Abolition Bill in the House of Lords on the 2nd January 1807 when it
received a first reading. The House of Lords, voted for the abolition of the slave trade on 5th
February by 100 votes to 34; after an impassioned speech by the Prime minister, despite
opposition from the West India Lobby. The bill was debated for ten hours in the House of
Commons on 23rd February. At 4am the next morning the House voted in favour of the Bill by
283 votes to 16. Finally on 25 March 1807 the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act received its
royal assent, abolishing the slave trade in the British colonies and making it illegal to carry
enslaved people in British ships.

The act abolished the Slave Trade in the British colonies. It became illegal to carry slaves in
British ships (although many ships tried to evade the ban). The ultimate aim, however, had
always been the abolition of slavery itself. 

The abolitionists had assumed that ending the Slave Trade would eventually lead to the freeing
of all enslaved people. When it became clear this would not happen, Clarkson joined with
Thomas Fowell Buxton in 1823, to form 'the Society for the Mitigation and Gradual Abolition of
Slavery' (later the Anti-Slavery Society). At first the aim, as the title suggests, was for gradual
abolition.

In May 1823, Thomas Fowell Buxton, the Society's representative, introduced a motion in the
House of Commons, "That the state of Slavery is repugnant to the principles of the British
constitution and of the Christian religion and that it ought to be gradually abolished throughout
the British colonies".

However, when it became clear that the West Indian planters were not implementing the
improvements to conditions and rights for enslaved people, that had been agreed in an 1823
'amelioration programme', the abolitionists hardened their stance. New campaigners, such as
Elizabeth Heyrick, pressed for total abolition and the removal of the word 'gradual' from the
resolution.

In the second quarter of the nineteenth century, the abolitionists, particuarly women's

groups, organized letter-writing campaigns, petition drives and sugar boycotts. Thomas Clarkson
went back on his travels, visiting every county in England, Scotland and Wales. The sons of

3
James Stephen organised speaking tours around the country. By the late 1820s, abolitionists were
demanding immediate emancipation, as well as supporting calls for political reform; this they
saw as necessary, to break the control of the West India Lobby. 

What was the Pro-Slavery or West India Lobby?

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the production of sugar in Britain's West Indian
colonies saw money pouring into Britain. The sugar production came to be controlled by a small
circle of wealthy planters and merchants.   

By the 1670's, London had became the centre of colonial decision-making and the West Indian
planters, living in England, formed an association with the London merchants and agents
responsible for colonial legislation. By 1733, the West India Lobby had grown to included
associations from all the principle trade cities (Bristol, Liverpool, Glasgow, and London).
Together, they nurtured ties with members of both houses of Parliament and eventually a number
became MPs.

Once the planters became part of the government, they had the opportunity to influence policies
that affected the colonies. The rise of the sugar industry also saw the rise of the Transatlantic
Slave Trade and, with it, attempts by individuals to create a similar influence on the
governmental economic policy, in line with slave trader interests.

Many ‘absentee' plantation owners and merchants involved in the Slave Trade, rose to high
office as mayors or served in Parliament.  William Beckford, for example, the owner of a 22,000
acre estate in Jamaica, was twice Lord Mayor of London and, in the mid to late 1700's, over 50
MPs in parliament represented the slave plantations.  

For 200 years, supporters of the Slave Trade were successful in opposing any opposition. The
lobby won major concessions from the British government and proved tough opposition to the
abolitionists.

What tactics did they use?

The West India Lobby used very similar tactics to the anti-slavery lobby (see Campaign
Section). They wrote pamphlets and other literature arguing that the Slave Trade was necessary
and, in fact, beneficial to the Africans. They lobbied parliament and produced witnesses to testify
to parliament.  They had the power and wealth to buy votes and exert pressure on others.

They also used delaying tactics, for example, suggesting the need for further time or
investigation, before consideration of the issue by the House, or supporting compromise
solutions. On April 2nd 1792, when Wilberforce again brought a bill calling for abolition, Henry
Dundas, as home secretary, proposed a compromise solution of ‘gradual abolition' over a number
of years. Although this was passed by 230 to 85 votes, the compromise was seen as little more
than a clever ploy by the pro-slavery lobby. Gradual, in their view, meant never.

4
Another response to attacks by the anti slavery lobby was to show themselves as reformers, by
revising slave codes and offering improvements to conditions.  In 1823, for example, pressure
for total abolition saw the Government outline a reform programme, drawn up in close
consultation with the committee of West Indian Planters and Merchants, known as ‘the
amelioration programme'. The committee was chaired by an influential absentee plantation
owner, Charles Ellis.

The programme involved revising the laws which regulated the number of hours enslaved
people could work and the food they were provided with. It gave enslaved people basic legal
rights, including the right to own property, and also provided for religious instruction. The idea
was for a legally-regulated abolition of slave status, over an unspecified time period. Although
the programme led to some improvements in conditions, by the early 1830's, many had still not
implemented these changes.