I was a bit dismayed to notice in the media today that several people seemed to have confused or conflated the abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire with the abolition of slavery itself. I honestly thought that we were better informed than that.
The Abolition of the Slave Trade Bill contained the provision that “the African slave trade should be forthwith abolished and prohibited and declared to be unlawful”. The Bill became an Act of Parliament, and therefore law, on March 25, 1807. (You can see a digital copy of the Act in the UK Parliamentary Archives online exhibit of materials related to Parliament and the Slave Trade.) Yesterday marked its bicentenary and various celebrations/commemorative events were held in Britain and the Commonwealth. More information about the abolition of the slave trade is available from the BBC website to commemorate the slave trade act and the British Government’s Central Office of Information. Oh, and there’s another BBC site on the abolition of the slave trade.
However, although the 1807 Bill represented a major step towards the abolition of slavery, slavery in the British Empire was not abolished until more than a quarter century later. In 1833 the Slavery Abolition Act (full title “An Act for the Abolition of Slavery throughout the British Colonies; for promoting the Industry of the manumitted Slaves; and for compensating the Persons hitherto entitled to the Services of such Slaves”) was passed, by which slaves in His Majesty’s colonies were manumitted and set free with effect from August 1, 1834. (It was a funny sort of manumission though, because the law required freed slaves more than six years of age to serve out several years of “apprenticeship” after 1834. During this apprenticeship, slaves were regarded as “transferable property” and were obliged to work at least 45 hours per week without pay; their “employers” in turn were required to provide such maintenance and allowances as would have been required if the apprentices were still slaves. There were also special arrangements put in place for the indentureship of children under the age of six.) August 1 is celebrated as Emancipation Day in many (all?) of the former British West Indian colonies.
My point being that the abolition of the slave trade and the abolition of slavery are not the same thing, and I think that as we celebrate the bicentenary, we should be quite clear about what it is we’re commemorating.
The Nation newspaper reports on the bicentenary celebrations which took place yesterday at the Bay Street Esplanade. Here’s an excerpt from the article.
[Dame Billie Miller] described Barbadian slaves as being “among the most industrious”, who left abundant evidence of their labour in the form of large edifices — the great-houses and “the impressive parish churches”.
Barbadians thanked them for making Bridgetown one of the busiest ports in the New World…
When I first read that, my mind, it was boggled. I am sure that Dame Billie’s speech was made with the very best of intentions, but I have to wonder if she or her speech-writers really thought about what she was saying before she actually said it.