Methods or Money? What Pushed Parliament to Change Its Stance Towards the Abolition of Slavery in Britain?

When we consider the British abolition of slavery, one image often comes to mind: protests in various forms battling against an unyielding Parliament that profited from the slave trade. Most MPs gained greatly from this trade, suggesting that for Parliament even to consider moving away from it, they would have needed to seek economic alternatives to maintain their wealth, such as industrialisation and the exploitation of other colonies. Examining this in conjunction with the abolition campaign raises a difficult question: was it these economic alternatives that shifted Parliament's stance on abolition by enabling them to consider moving away from the trade, or was it the abolitionists' campaign methods that changed their view on the slave trade?

This article explores the argument that while economic alternatives played a significant role in the transition away from slavery, these alternatives would not have been pursued without the pressure exerted by abolitionist groups and their campaign methods.

Did economic alternatives cause this shift in position?

The argument that slave owners moved away from slavery due to the emergence of economically viable alternatives must be considered. The Industrial Revolution and colonial expansion and exploitation offered robust opportunities for powerful members of British society to further their economic development. During the Industrial Revolution, thousands of factories were established, employing large numbers of people, and significant technological advancements were made, with industries such as transport booming, as demonstrated by the 2,000 miles of canals in use by 1815 (White, 2009).

Trueman's article Factories in the Industrial Revolution suggests that at the height of the Industrial Revolution, around 1830, it was increasingly common for MPs to own factories. This suggests that by the final period of the abolition movement, MPs had begun distancing themselves from slavery, potentially recognising the economic and social benefits of industrialisation, which may have made them more willing to relinquish the trade.

However, the treatment of workers during this period, as well as working conditions and the manipulation of inspectors to cut safety costs (Trueman, 2015), suggests this may not have been a voluntary transition away from slavery. Rather, it was a necessary and forced shift to sustain their wealth, not because MPs and slave owners had become more ethical, as the underlying theme of exploitation persisted in this model of growth.

The economic alternative of colonial expansion may also have influenced Parliament’s attitude towards the abolition of slavery. The ‘development’ in India contributed to Britain's growth, providing raw materials such as iron, efficient trade routes, and cheap labour (Straussman & O'Connor, 2016), which enabled businesses to profit. This likely encouraged Parliament to view India as a viable economic alternative to slavery due to its impact on international trade and the economic growth of British businesses.

The impact of the abolitionists' campaign on Parliament

While these economic alternatives may have made Parliament more comfortable moving away from slavery as a source of wealth, it is strongly suggested that without the pressure placed on Parliament through the abolitionists' methods, they would not have pursued these alternatives.

Olaudah Equiano’s The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano details his personal desire to escape the immense suffering he endured—from his home in modern-day Nigeria, through the middle passage, and on plantations. His story circulated throughout British society, educating the public on the horrors occurring overseas and generating widespread anger towards the government. It became the most popular and widely read slave account of the entire movement, helping to shift public opinion on slavery and applying pressure on the government.

Art also served as a powerful tool that helped change Parliament's attitude towards abolition by reshaping Britain’s understanding of the treatment of enslaved people. The drawing of the slave ship Brookes (Clarkson, 1787) conveys how 454 people could be crammed into two decks of a ship. This image, one of many depicting the brutality of the trade, held significant power in the movement as an accurate and harrowing representation. The print was produced in various forms, including a model that Wilberforce presented to Parliament (Hull Museum Collections, n.d.), creating a direct, tangible challenge to Parliament.

Furthermore, art was an effective method for the abolitionist movement as it created a recognisable symbol that galvanised public support to apply social pressure on the government. Josiah Wedgwood’s Am I Not a Man and a Brother? (1787) iconography was widely used throughout the movement. This symbol may have been fundamental to changing Parliament's attitude towards slavery, as it became embedded in British life and represented support and determination against slavery. Its adaptation into various forms, such as jewellery and pottery, enabled a wider range of people, including women and the working class, to engage in the debate, contributing to social pressures through boycotts and public protests that directly challenged Parliament.

Conclusions

While economic alternatives, such as the Industrial Revolution, may have encouraged Parliament to reconsider their position by providing viable sources of wealth outside the inhumane treatment of enslaved people, it is arguable that Parliament would not have fully explored these avenues without the pressure applied by abolitionist methods.

Bibliography

Clarkson, Thomas, Brookes Slave Ship (1787), [Print]. Available at: https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/diagram-of-the-brookes-slave-ship

Equiano, Olaudah, The Interesting Narrative of Olaudah Equiano (1789), [online]. The Gutenberg Project. Available at: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/15399/15399-h/15399-h.htm

Hull Culture & Leisure, The Brookes Ship Model and Poster: Hull Museums Collections, [online]. Available at: http://museumcollections.hullcc.gov.uk/collections/subtheme.php?irn=154

Straussman, Sue and Byrd O’Connor, Brian, The Origins of the Industrial Revolution (2016), [online]. Newsela, p. 3. Available at: https://www.pdsd.org/cms/lib/PA01000989/Centricity/Domain/986/Origins%20of%20Industrial%20Revolution%201110%20L.pdf

Trueman, C.N., Factories in the Industrial Revolution (2015), [online]. History Learning Site. Available at: https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/britain-1700-to-1900/industrial-revolution/factories-in-the-industrial-revolution/

Wedgwood, Josiah, Am I Not a Man and a Brother? (1787), [Print]. Available at: https://www.wmoda.com/am-i-not-a-man-and-a-brother/ [accessed 10 November 2024].

White, Matthew, The Industrial Revolution (2009), [online]. The British Library. Available at: https://www.bl.uk/georgian-britain/articles/the-industrial-revolution