Parliament and the Escalation of the Slave Trade, 1690-1714

There was as pronounced a parliamentary dimension to the escalation of England's slave trade as there was to its abolition. Between 1690 and 1714, and absorbing about the same parliamentary time as discussions of its abolition, parliament persistently debated how the slave trade should be managed. Would a joint-stock monopoly company, the foundering Royal African Company, better promote the export of English goods to Africa and satisfy the colonies' demand for slave labour than an open trade in which any British subject was free to trade in slaves?¹ By 1714 the British slave trade had become entirely deregulated, and its capacity dramatically increased, and the origins of slave trading voyages altered.² There are remarkable similarities between the parliamentary debates about the escalation of the slave trade and those concerning its abolition. Both discussions sought to mobilize and respond to public opinion. Both proceeded against the backdrop of war that often delayed proceedings and encouraged, in respective cases, policy-makers to consider the imperial implications of their proposals. There are also similarities between the movement that expanded Britain's slave trade, 'the separate traders', and the group who achieved its abolition. Both movements had a distinctive transatlantic aspect, and both appealed to ideas of free trade. Although the escalation of Britain's slave trade resulted from a legislative vacuum while abolition required a statute, parliamentary consideration contributed equally to both outcomes.

This essay analyzes the effect of parliamentary consideration on the development of the British slave trade. It has two overlapping aims. The first is to offer a better sense of the intentional, parliamentary aspect of slave trade escalation to complement all we know about the parliamentary dimensions of abolition, and to show how, in particular, slave trade escalation depended upon the emergence and interaction of those two historiographical shibboleths of the post-1688 period, the public sphere and parliamentary sovereignty. It argues that notions of political reform and liberty proved as instrumental to the acceleration of England's slave trade as they were to its abolition. Second, this essay aims to show how the legislative process is better examined beyond the narrow confines of statute, the annual session, and parliament itself. The legislative process produced non-statutory results, such as the deregulation of the British slave trade that could be as significant as statutory outcomes. Legislative failure could be a constructive process.³ The legislative process often involved multiple parliamentary sessions, and what occurred and resulted from activity outside the chamber proved critical to its outcome. Effective policy makers, like the separate traders, had to employ the means to influence both public opinion and its representatives in parliament to ensure the success of their proposal. Extra-parliamentary public opinion was not, on its own, sufficient. This public opinion had to be subjected to the legitimating gaze of formal parliamentary consideration before a legislative vacuum could be tolerated. The essay begins by describing why the Royal African Company brought the Africa trade issue before parliament; it then examines how changes in the political landscape in England after 1688 encouraged opposition to the company, and then compares the company and its opponents as interest groups by analysing their various constituencies, as well as their lobbying tactics.

The demise of absolutist monarchy in England did much to liberate the British slave trade. More than any other monopoly company, the Royal African Company depended on royal patronage. Charles II founded the company in 1672. Its motto 'Regio floret patricionio commercium, commercioque regum' (Commerce flourishes due to royal protection, and the kingdom due to commerce) made explicit the perceived link between monarchical protection and commercial prosperity. Parliament offered a platform for those who opposed the company's monopoly. In 1679, interlopers in the African trade used parliament to undermine the company as part of a movement to exclude the duke of York, the company's governor, from the succession. But King Charles intervened and prorogued parliament. Other opponents of the company had attempted to lobby the privy council complaining that the company restricted trade and fixed prices. But again, the monarch protected the company...