This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
There have been a number of arguments put forward for the cause of the downfall of slavery, and in particular the abolition of it from the British Empire.
The traditional and accepted argument is the Whig/liberal interpretation. This attributes the Abolition Act of 1933 mainly down to mass protest. Slavery not only went against the British tradition of liberty, but also against the increasingly prevalent bourgeouis ideal of 'free labour'. The size and popularity of abolitionism was huge and almost unprecedented - this is not doubted by any historical interpretation. However, the extent of the effect of this on government as well as the other contributing factors has been verociously challenged.
The, perhaps, antithesis of the liberal view is the economic one led by Eric Williams in his path breaking work 'Capitalism and Slavery'. He emphasised the importance of the economic and financial decline of slavery in the West Indies *1, as opposed to public opposition to it (but in no way did he discount it). Trade between the islands and Great Britain had fallen rapidly between the 1810s and 1830s. In 1821, British exports to the islands were 1/9 of the country's total; by, 1832, just 1/17. Imports from the island were also declining. For example, the B.W.I provided 7/10 of cotton imports from 1786-90 and just 1/50 in 1826-30. The B.W.I were becoming less and less commercially important. By the late 20s, they had also become a financial burden on the state. In 1828, the islands would have been running at a loss if it wasn't for their subsidisation, which, in 1828 alone, cost the British taxpayer £1,500,000. This fiscal protection afforded to and maintaining the B.W.I monopoly was extremely unpopular amongst Britains booming commercial and manufacturing sector, especially as (mentioned above) they had beocme unimportant to their interests.
............not finished
1.although not the only place slavery existed in the British Empire, was the predominant and only significant place
With the abolishment of slavery, the planters were not as profitable and many plantations were shut down at an alarming rate.
Sorry to be all english teacher about this, but I don't think abolishment is a word. I think the correct word is abolition, I'm not 100% sure on this though. (I get mixed answers from the internet and am not sure who to trust) —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
89.145.211.42 (
talk)
12:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC).reply
Probably just a clean up of the law, as the article says the issue is still covered in more recent statutes, this happens alot.
StevenAFC
The link to more recent statutes is to an article that, as far as I can tell, doesn't cover anything past this act. Am I missing something?
Dstar3k (
talk)
00:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I have read the original text of the Act, which is linked to in the article. There appears to have been 3 separate dates for the end of slavery. The official end of slavery in the British Empire was 1 August 1834 when it became unlawful to own a slave. However, in reality only slaves below the age of six were freed as all slaves over the age of six were redesignated as "apprentices". Apprentices would continue to serve their former owners for a period of time after the abolition of slavery, though the length of time they served depended on what type of apprentice they were:
The first class of apprentice covered labourers that had served as slaves on their owner's land - they were freed from their apprenticeships on 1 August 1840.
The second class of apprentice covered labourers that had served as slaves somewhere other than their owner's land - they were freed from their apprenticeships on 1 August 1840.
The third class of apprentice covered all other types of slaves - they were freed from their apprenticeships on 1 August 1838.
Apprentices could buy their way out of apprenticeship early, but this was probably not an option for the majority of former slaves. I will amend the article to include these details later today.
Road Wizard (
talk)
18:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)reply
The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 was made an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It affected the British Empire, not the United States. --
Mysdaaotalk13:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)reply
It would be nice if this article would list the places where it was abolished by Britain rather than using vague terminology like saying it was abolished in "most" but there are "notable exceptions". All exceptions are noteworthy, as are all inclusions, so they should be listed. A map could be very helpful. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.92.220.115 (
talk)
07:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately it is very difficult to tell exactly where was affected and when. The text of the act mentions "Slavery within divers of His Majesty's Colonies," "Laws now in force in the said several Colonies", the ability of the colonies to bring in their own laws to free the slaves earlier than the Act, exclusion of the territories controlled by the East India Company, exclusion of Ceylon and St Helena and delayed implementation in the Cape of Good Hope and Mauritius colonies.
Added to the fact that some territories would have abolished slavery before the Act was written, it will take a lot of
research to straighten things out. Hopefully someone can find a secondary or tertiary source that can provide the answers.
86.175.217.110 (
talk)
21:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)reply
The Parliamentary Paper of awards for compensation lists the countries in which slave holders and their representatives made claims. These are Antigua, Bahamas, Barbados, Bermuda, British Guiana (Guyana), British Honduras (Belize), British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Montserrat, Nevis, St Kitts, St Lucia, St Vincent, Tobago, Trinidad, Cape of Good Hope and Mauritius.
GGrannum (
talk)
19:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)reply
The Act freed slaves alive in 1834. Depending on how literal you want to be in your interpretation, the repeal of the act could have made them slaves again in 1998, but as they were all dead the question is an academic one. I don't see how either freeing slaves in 1834 or possibly unfreeing long dead slaves in 1998 would have any bearing on benefit law. Your question seems a complete non sequitur so I may have missed the point you are trying to make.
Road Wizard (
talk)
19:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Are you pulling my leg? ;O) The point I was making was why repeal the law? Was it the simple removal of a dead letter or was there an ulterior motive?
Keith-264 (
talk)
20:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)reply
It would have helped if you had asked that from the start. The answer is already given earlier in the talk page and the article. The Act has been repealed as the few elements that are still relevant are covered by other statutes. As I said, this particular Act was primarily for freeing slaves alive in 1834 and compensating the owners. Repealing the Act would at the very worst reverse those two points and have no further impact.
What was throwing me was your reference to coercion and benefits; a comparable question would be "Did the repeal of the Trunk Roads Act 1936 legalise coercion in benefit law?" They are all completely separate subjects.
Road Wizard (
talk)
20:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)reply
In answer to the original poster the question of re-introducing 'coercion' is made irrelevant by the various
European Human Rights Acts that are now part of UK law, no matter how much certain right-wing groups would wish otherwise. So it would not be legal to introduce an element of coercion to the benefit laws, despite the repeal of the 1833 Act. However for this to be proven illegal would require a test case which would clarify matters legally. This would need to be started by the benefit claimant and as the government is well aware, with the reduction or elimination of almost all
Legal Aid to those on low incomes, they will not be able to dispute any such action. Thus the government can in effect do as it pleases, safe in the knowledge that no-one affected will be able to take them to court - where the claimant would likely win. So one is in a position where the government can break laws willy-nilly, as long as its victims are unable to afford to go to court to uphold the law - the introduction of the 'No Win, No Fee' system, made the law in-effect unobtainable to those on low incomes - as indeed it was intended to do - what shuyster lawyer is going to risk his fee on proving a test case for some poor sod living in a council house on benefits. Prior to NWNF a claimant could get Legal Aid and (theoretically) the best
solicitor or
barrister in the land - with Legal Aid it was first come, first served see, and the solicitor of barrister got his fee come what may. Not now though. This introduction of NWNF was necessary as the relevant UK benefit rules were drawn up by previous governments of the past twenty years or-so made up almost entirely of lawyers, fortunately not very good ones it would seem, as many seem to lack any knowledge of the spirit behind the law, and as a result many of the new laws are on very dodgy ground, human rights-wise. Thus the vulnerability to test cases and the need to prevent them ever reaching court.
Charles Dickens eat your heart out.
The result is something that twenty or thirty years ago would have had Panorama or World in Action screaming about 'injustice' but which now after the '
dumbing down' of the media is just allowed to pass into law without even a murmur.
But that's what happens when the populace loses interest in true democracy and is content instead with mindless drivel. Left alone, Governments get out of control. Just look what
happened after 1933. We live, as the Chinese say, in 'Interesting times'. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
80.7.147.13 (
talk)
18:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Who did this?
This article contains not a single word about who was behind this act in Parliament, who was Prime Minister, how much opposition there was, or who was opposed. I think we should at least know who was Prime Minister at the time. --
MiguelMunoz (
talk)
06:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Number of slaves freed
Going to look it into it on my own, but I think the article would be well served by including an estimate of how many slaves were emancipated as a result of the act.
ThomasAndrewNimmo (
talk)
20:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Ten years later this important fact is still missing from the article. I believe the number is around 800,000, but I would like to see a breakdown by location.
LastDodo (
talk)
13:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Weird blockquote instruction
The first paragraph of the "Background" section has an unresolved html "blockquote". I have no idea what the author of this edit intended, but someone who understands this (I do not) ought to fix the problem.
Bill Jefferys (
talk)
02:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Category:Slave owners is being considered for deletion
I have just modified 2 external links on
Slavery Abolition Act 1833. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I have just modified one external link on
Slavery Abolition Act 1833. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
Hi
Juliet212 and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I have left most of your changes from "slaves" to "enslaved people" except where the term (and others) were used in a quote, or created clumsy constructions, such as "enslaved people ships". However, the slave trade is a recognised term and used throughout articles about slavery in Wikipedia, as are slave ships. You introduced "from African heritage" where cited sources make no mention of this. Please be careful about introducing wholesale changes to long-standing articles - it is better to tread cautiously as a new editor, and post questions on the talk page, or go to the
Teahouse or
Help Desk rather than making blanket changes.
Laterthanyouthink (
talk)
02:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Gradual or immediate?
The opening sentence of the article is misleading. "'The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 (3 & 4 Will. IV c. 73) provided for the immediate abolition of slavery in most parts of the British Empire."
It does not explicitly state that the 1833 act was an act of immediate emancipation, but implies to readers that this is the case. Per
WP:RS, according to distinguished professor of emancipation and slavery at the University of Hull John Oilfield, the 1833 Act was an act of gradual emancipation and not immediate.
[1] One way or the other, the article should clearly the case unambiguously. Professor Oilfield wrote:
In May 1833 Lord Stanley presented a plan to Parliament which finally passed into law on August 29. In essence, the new legislation called for the gradual abolition of slavery. Everyone over the age of six on August 1, 1834, when the law went into effect, was required to serve an apprenticeship of four years in the case of domestics and six years in the case of field hands (apprenticeship was later abolished by Parliament in 1838).104.254.227.62 (
talk)
05:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)reply
There is no way it was done twice. £20m is the figure used everywhere so the first Act must have made no such provision.
LastDodo (
talk)
13:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)reply