Antislavery and political economy in the early Victorian House of Commons: a research note on "capitalist hegemony."

Half a century ago Eric Williams argued that a close connection existed between capitalism and slavery. According to Williams, slave trade profits provided a capital base for Western Europe's economic expansion; ultimately a more mature industrial capitalism turned upon West Indian slavery when it became a liability to the imperial economy. Subsequent studies now refute much of this thesis. Recent literature argues that slavery remained profitable into the 1830s. Scholarly debate therefore has shifted to address the problem of why the British tampered with the sanctity of property rights if West Indian slavery continued to remain a source of national profits.(1)

Some historians continue to argue that class interests were somehow involved. David B. Davis, in particular, frequently has been understood to suggest that abolitionism diverted attention from metropolitan grievances and that opposition to slavery was not "an innovation justified by |the~ Rights of Man." His writings indicate that this diversion reinforced capitalist hegemony through a diminished sensitivity toward class exploitation; "local evils became blurred by familiarity." According to Davis, domestic reform energies perhaps were "channeled outward toward a symbol of unparalleled oppression." David Eltis, another proponent of the hegemony thesis, writes that "anti-slavery was simply a facet of the predominating view of social relations, property, and morality which emerged with the industrialization process;" a "laissez faire, individualistic and localistic definition of freedom" that defined slavery as "antithetical to civilized society." While he acknowledges "some nice distinctions," Eltis sees "essentially the same solution" being applied to the West Indian and British labor problems.(2)

Both Davis and Eltis recognize the importance of state acceptance of antislavery and buttress their arguments with analysis of Parliamentary behavior. Eltis concludes that "none of the leading antislavery figures" in Parliament opposed the New Poor Law and by 1833 "antislavery appeared entirely consistent with laissez-faire principles." Davis is less extravagant in his claims. He emphasizes that both emancipation and the New Poor Law passed the newly reformed Parliament by overwhelming majorities but also notes a group of thirty antislavery MPs who opposed the harshest provisions of the new poor relief legislation.(3)

The hegemony thesis has not gone unchallenged. Thomas Haskell, for instance, suggests that Davis's arguments need firmer grounding in the historical record. He argues that "Davis's evidence for thinking that the abolitionists unconsciously intended to legitimate free labor by confining their attack to slavery consists essentially of two classes of facts: ... (1) critics advanced this interpretation ... |and~ (2) the abolitionists did not take the trouble to disavow in writing the intention to legitimate free labor." Another critic, Seymour Drescher, explicitly rejects the notion that antislavery was the "preserve of a group of evangelicals, operating in the interest of nascent capitalists"; nor did antislavery displace social tensions by removing focus from evils at home to evils abroad. He concedes that "class tensions were far more salient in the final pre-emancipation decade than they had ever been before," but insists that "a universalized free labor ideology was not as hegemonic in Britain as historians have assumed." Drescher challenges the notion that emancipation and the New Poor Law were grounded in the same assumptions or shared a similar demographic base of support. Drescher provides evidence that widespread support for emancipation existed within the working classes. If the antislavery movement was grounded in the lower orders of British society demanding the extension of British standards of freedom to the colonies, Drescher finds it questionable that middle class notions of political economy provided the impetus for reform."(4)

Several historians recently have advanced variations of the hegemony thesis but in their model it is embedded within an eclectic approach that views the Davis and Drescher perspectives as "less alternative than parallel explanations for abolition." Thomas C. Holt, for instance, suggests that no "inherent contradiction" exists "between an explanation of abolition in terms of a broadly based transformation of moral perception and the machinations of elite classes." David Turley agrees that moral and material perspectives "are not necessarily alternative kinds of explanation." He notes the particular importance of free trade principles within the ranks of antislavery reformers, but finds "little evidence that abolitionists primarily intended to facilitate such an ideological hegemony."(5)

In response to critics, Davis has modified his argument somewhat. In a recent treatment he limits his arguments to free labor theory: "British leaders became committed to colonial labor reform only when they were convinced that free labor would be less dangerous than slavery and more beneficial for the imperial economy as a whole." In response to Haskell, Davis rejects "any suggestion of economic determinism" and now replaces "industrial capitalists" as the "legitimators of wage labor" with "various aspiring groups, including skilled workers, who lived in a society undergoing industrialization." But the hegemony thesis has not been abandoned entirely, even if it has been refined considerably. Davis continues to acknowledge class interest; only now he is more careful to emphasize hypothetical concepts such as class "self-delusion" and to distinguish pointedly between the origins of antislavery sentiment and the adoption of antislavery legislation by the political state. If "social control" existed, it was not in the "narrow, elitist sense." According to Davis, "ideological hegemony is rarely imposed from the top down: it is an uneasy compromise created by various competing interests in search of legitimacy and mutual recognition."(6)

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the interplay of antislavery and political economy in early Victorian England in order to assess the hegemony thesis. I explore more narrowly some of the limitations of a class-conscious interpretation of British antislavery in the 1830s. Haskell warns historians against the "double illusion" that "interest is the only thing that explains human behavior and that, once historians have linked acts with interests that might plausibly account for them, there is nothing left to explain." His admonition is appropriate, and this effort to establish a link between Parliament's response to colonial slavery and domestic social issues should be viewed merely as a partial test to refine our understanding of the precise relevance and boundaries, at this point, of the hegemony thesis. If a connection between response patterns can be established, it would suggest that Eltis's claim of overlapping principles is a valid proposition. This paper argues that such a conclusion is somewhat misleading. Linkage between the House of Commons' response to colonial slavery and measures of political economy was either weak, ambiguous, or of minimal explanatory value throughout the decade of the 1830s. Class interests either were not involved to any significant degree or were shrouded in some manner, thus necessitating Davis's reliance upon "unconscious motivation" and "self-delusion."(7)

By comparing recorded opinions of Britons toward slavery and political economy, various historians have tested the connection between the two issues on a case by case basis and reconstructured a rudimentary hierarchy of values for individuals and somewhat larger groupings. No one thus far has extended this type of analysis to a sizable enough sample of abolitionists to scrutinize the hegemony thesis with the rigor it merits. As Drescher points out, "the evidence for the link between capitalism and abolition rests on extrapolations from a very narrow range of contemporary writers."(8)

The membership of Parliament, somewhat surprisingly, constitutes one group of Victorians that still warrants additional historical inquiry. On the one hand, biographies of select antislavery MPs are plentiful and more general antislavery accounts almost all give Parliament considerable attention. On the other hand, systematic analyses that trace the varying composition of the antislavery coalition in Parliament over time or that distinguish between its "soft" and more "purist" elements do not yet exist, except for some initial efforts by Drescher and others for select years.(9)

Nor will this paper attempt to tackle the entire chronology of the British antislavery movement. I instead staked out a more modest test of the hegemony thesis by analyzing a single decade and simply expanding upon the methods and data utilized thus far in the ongoing debate among scholars. My focus is narrowly on the House of Commons in 1832-1833 and during the transitional period afterwards that witnessed the dismantling of the West Indian slave system. The paper follows antislavery activity in Parliament through 1840 in order to apply criteria of persistence and consistency to behavior manifested at the time of the Emancipation Act.

Because more MPs voted on roll-calls than participated in recorded debates, even a single or partial division provides data on individuals whose position otherwise might have remained obscured entirely. I therefore resorted to the analysis of voting behavior as a means to test whether MPs actually linked together issues associated with slavery or political economy. By establishing how MPs voted on multiple occasions with regard to both issues, a statistical comparison was constructed. While not providing clarification as to why MPs voted the way they did and not designed to determine the direction of causal flow, comparative analysis did provide a method to discern if, in fact, individuals and groups of individuals actually responded in a supportive manner to both antislavery and measures of political economy.

Various problems arose in applying this method. First, what criteria distinguish an MP as an opponent of slavery? Most Britons refused to condone slavery, but the intensity and boundaries of their antislavery feelings varied. To be a sincere abolitionist, for instance, still did not clarify whether an MP merely opposed slavery in the British West Indies, the British Empire, or throughout the world. Did he distinguish between black slavery in the western hemisphere and indigenous forms of slavery in India and other parts of Asia? Any definition of antislavery, therefore, must remain arbitrary to some extent. I determined for the purposes of this paper to measure "antislavery" by identifying MP response patterns to the Emancipation Act of 1833. This act called for emancipation of black slaves primarily in the West Indies and South Africa; it did not touch indigenous forms of slavery in India and elsewhere. The legislation contained two component parts: freedom for the slave and compensation for the planter. Debate raged for a time over the form compensation would take; specifically, what would be the relative balance of monetary payments and period of apprenticeship for the freed slaves? Ultimately, a compromise provided the planters with a twenty million pound grant and an apprenticeship system of five years for domestic servants and seven years for field hands.(10)

A second problem was that voting divisions were not systematically recorded until the 1840s. Often Hansard indicates only the "yea" or "noe" list but not both. In the case of the Emancipation Act, the majority positions on various amendments were not recorded. Measuring antislavery by this method identified only those MPs that voted for minimal monetary or labor compensation to planters. While roll-call data fail to provide a comprehensive listing of every Parliamentary opponent of slavery, the partial divisions do identify those MPs who perhaps were most virulent in their opposition to the continuance of coercive West Indian labor practices.(11)

Examination of lists of MPs pledged on the colonial slavery question during the general election of 1832 seems to confirm this assessment. From the "schedules" I identified 154 pledged candidates as "decided friends to Immediate Emancipation." Eighty percent of their number appear on one or more of the partial roll-calls to limit the period of apprenticeship or reduce monetary compensation to planters. The Agency Anti-Slavery Committee also identified thirty-four candidates as "Slave Proprietors" or as "without hope" of supporting the "reasonable object" of emancipation. Only one in four of those listed in this schedule voted even once to limit the apprenticeship period. Almost twice that number favored a reduction in monetary compensation but only a fraction of these MPs appear on more than one roll-call and their action may have been an attempt to ward off reductions in the period of apprenticeship.(12)

As a secondary measure of antislavery, I supplemented analysis of the Emancipation Act with examination of the "Negro apprenticeship" issue in 1838 for which complete voting divisions exist. The two issues do not measure precisely the same brand of antislavery sentiment; after all, the act of 1833 created the apprenticeship system, even if a number of the staunchest antislavery MPs desired a modification of some of its provisions. After reading the Parliamentary debates, I am impressed that many supporters of West Indian emancipation, who had been wary initially about clauses concerning compensation and apprenticeship, agreed that apprenticeship after four years still bore the "distinguishing characteristic of slavery, that of requiring the performance of compulsory labour, for another's benefit." Voting behavior in the House of Commons seems to confirm the existence of a close connection between antislavery sentiment and opposition to "Negro apprenticeship." MPs who had initial misgivings about compensation to planters and who later voted in 1838 on apprenticeship overwhelmingly continued to oppose the transitional system they had been forced to accept as a tactical concession four years earlier.(13)

As with the term "antislavery," historians sometimes have been prone to speak of "liberal capitalism" as a unified body of ideas. Yet the theories of political economy actually were a compilation of the work of many scholars with diverse ideas but known collectively as the "classical economists." Critics argued that political economy was "ably represented" in the legislature, press, and pulpit, and sarcastically suggested that its advocates were in possession of "treasures of wisdom" unknown to the rest of humanity that led them generally to oppose state interference in the belief that the happiness of the whole could best be achieved through the removal of individual constraint.(14)

Political economists also argued against any "right to subsistence" when "labor will not fairly purchase it" and cautioned that it was "in the natural order of things that the fund for the maintenance of the poor should progressively increase till it has absorbed all the net revenues of the country." As a group the political economists shifted responsibility for poverty from a communal context to the individual who lacked enterprise or morality. Rejecting eighteenth-century notions of paternalism, the political economists advocated a new moral order: autonomous individuals operating within the independence of an uninhibited market, hedged by self-discipline based on moral guideposts and conscience developed through religious instruction and the family unit.(15)

Because of the diverse strains of political economic theory, it is extremely difficult to measure its influence on Parliament's response to domestic reform or antislavery measures. For the purposes of this study, a variety of issues were examined to measure an MP's commitment to classical economics. First, should the government intervene in the economy to provide state relief to domestic laborers such as distressed hand-loom weavers; in particular, a guarantee of a minimum wage? Political economists insisted that no government aid should be extended to the hand-loom weavers, for the laws of supply and demand ultimately would stabilize the labor market as it forced them to abandon their obsolete trade and seek employment elsewhere.

Second, should the government intervene in the economy to regulate the working conditions of laborers, such as a reduction in the long hours that factory laborers worked? This was a more complex question than that of aid to hand-loom weavers. Political economists declared "no" for adult laborers; a Ten Hours Act, in their view, would hamper productivity, risk profit margins, depress wages, and jeopardize workers' employment. Yet many of the political economists relented when it came to child labor. If an exploited individual was not a free agent and claims of abuse had merit, government had an obligation to intervene, otherwise not.

Third, should the New Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 continue to be enforced ? Influenced by Bentham's "Panopticon," this legislation ended outdoor relief for paupers. By making the workhouse as unpleasant an experience as possible, legislators hoped to force an outmigration of the labor force in southern England that previously relied upon variations of the Speenhamland allowance system. Political economists condemned older relief measures as encouraging idleness and disrupting the natural fluctuations of the economy.

Fourth, should government implement free trade policies and eradicate trade barriers? As citizens of the foremost naval power and industrializing nation of their time, political economists were convinced that their nation could dominate the global economy if offered the opportunity to compete freely with other national labor forces. Abandonment of protection, they predicted, would result in a favorable balance-of-trade that would inevitably raise the living standard throughout Britain and materially affect the happiness of the entire population.

Voting behavior indicates that antislavery MPs rarely lent their enthusiastic or undivided support to measures of political economy. In correlating roll-call division lists on colonial slavery and issues of political economy, the intensity of each MP's commitment to antislavery in 1833 was measured through the simple expedient of quantifying voting participation on the partial lists, whereas scalogram analysis was applied to the complete divisions that exist for 1838. If to be antislavery meant hostility towards "Negro apprenticeship", then it appears that at no time during the 1830s did the voting behavior of the antislavery coalition in Parliament lend credence to the hegemony thesis. During the early 1830s antislavery MPs were almost evenly divided on the issue of repealing the Corn Laws. Large numbers of antislavery MPs also voted against various provisions of the New Poor Law or favored regulating working conditions in factories. An unknown percentage of those listed in the table as not voting on the latter two issues undoubtedly supported political economy. Absenteeism in the early Victorian Parliament was often high, leading me to suspect that supporters of political economy probably did not outnumber their opponents within the antislavery coalition in the early 1830s, although there may have been something close to parity in their numbers.(16)

The profile for the latter part of the 1830s was quite similar. Antislavery MPs showed somewhat less support for free trade, if measured by efforts to repeal the Com Laws. The coalition's tendency on the question of sugar duties also was toward protectionism although three-fourths of them registered no vote at all. Proportionately speaking, more antislavery MPs supported than opposed political economy when it came to the New Poor Law or a minimum wage for hand-loom weavers. An inverse relationship existed on the issue of child labor, whether measured by the Factory Bill of 1839 or the Chimney Sweepers' Bill of 1840. Of course, political economists were not always too dogmatic when it came to regulating dependent laborers. With the exception of the Corn Law votes, less than thirty percent of the coalition's membership even voted on most issues. Less than one of ten antislavery MPs, for instance, voted on the hand-loom weaver divisions. High rates of absenteeism make it difficult to argue that the antislavery coalition was overly captivated or angered by the policies called for by political economy.

Table I

Antislavery Coalition and Voting on Measures of Political Economy Thirteenth
House of Commons, 1833-1840

         Domestic Labor & Government Relief             Free Trade

Political   Aid to       New     Regulate    Chimney   Corn    Sugar
Economy     Weavers   Poor Law   Factories   Sweeps    Laws    Duty

LIST 1: 322 MPs who voted at least once on slave emancipation roll-calls in
1833

Pro            x          ?          ?          x      38.8%     x
No Vote        x      (62.4%)     (58.0%)       x      25.4%     x
Anti           x       37.5%       41.9%        x      35.7%     x

LIST 2:325 MPs who voted at least once against apprenticeship on roll-calls in
1838

Pro           5.8%     12.0%        7.6%       1.5%    32.9%    5.8%
Moderate      1.2%      --          3.3%        --      5.2%     --
No Vote      90.7%     78.4%       72.6%      85.5%    15.5%   76.3%
Anti          2.1%      9.5%       16.3%      12.9%    46.4%   17.8%

If "moderate" antislavery MPs are extracted from the coalition for analysis in isolation, their voting profile is no more supportive of political economy. On issues relating to domestic labor or government relief, these MPs were somewhat less hostile to political economy than were members of the broader coalition. Whether this meant that they actually supported such attitudes or were evenly divided is not clear due to the high absentee rate throughout the decade. "Moderates" leaned toward support of political economy on issues such as the New Poor Law or a minimum wage for hand-loom weavers. But they also were inclined to favor government regulation of child labor. Voting participation was highest on the Corn Laws divisions. On that issue and the subject of sugar duties, "moderate" antislavery MPs either were evenly divided or slightly more supportive of protection than the coalition as a whole. As the most substantial numerical component of the antislavery coalition, it is important to recognize that the "moderates" rarely voted as a unit for measures of political economy, especially when the issue involved free trade.

Even the vanguard of the antislavery coalition demonstrated only mixed support for political economy. "Abolitionist" MPs were relatively few in number, but they differentiated themselves by repeatedly casting votes in favor of antislavery measures or by allowing their names and reputations to be linked in public to organized abolitionism. During the early 1830s they opposed political economy on questions of domestic labor and government relief. The majority of "abolitionist" MPs favored the Factory Act of 1833 and resisted at least some parts of the New Poor Law. By the second half of the decade, these MPs were more divided and absenteeism had increased. Those who voted against "Negro apprenticeship" in 1838 generally opposed state aid to hand-loom weavers whereas MPs who attended World Antislavery Conventions were more prone to favor such a policy. Both groups were split on continued enforcement of the New Poor Law but favored government intervention to regulate child labor.

"Abolitionist" MPs favored Corn Law repeal throughout the decade with impressive voting participation rates of eighty-five percent and higher. Enchantment with free trade, though, did not always carry over to the issue of sugar duties. On that question, a slightly larger percentage of MPs opposed reducing duties than favored a change in trade policy. It should be noted, however, that "abolitionists" provided greater proportional support for free trade in sugar than did other members of the antislavery coalition. Generally speaking, political economy was present, but primarily limited to the realm of commercial policy. The problem for the hegemony thesis is that support for political economy on other issues was virtually non-existent; moreover, even when the "abolitionists" voted in unison, they formed only about twenty percent of the entire membership of the antislavery coalition in the House of Comons.(17)

Table II

Abolitionist MPs and Voting on Measures of Political Economy Thirteenth House
of Commons, 1833-1840

            Domestic Labor & Government Relief            Free Trade

Political    Aid to      New      Regulate    Chimney   Corn    Sugar
Economy      Weavers   Poor Law   Factories   Sweeps    Laws    Duty

LIST 1: 20 MPs who pledged antislavery in 1832 and voted on more than one-half
of slave emancipation roll-calls in 1833

Pro             x         ?           ?          x      65.0%     x
No Vote         x      (40.0%)     (30.0%)       x      15.0%     x
Anti            x       60.0%       70.0%        x      20.0%     x

LIST 2:37 MPs who voted on one-half or more of roll-calls on both compensation
and apprenticeship in 1833

Pro             x         ?           ?          x      56.7%     x
No Vote         x      (37.8%)     (35.1%)       x      13.5%     x
Anti            x       62.1%       64.8%        x      29.7%     x

LIST 3:32 MPs who voted on more than one-half of apprenticeship roll-calls in
1833

Pro             x         ?           ?          x      65.6%     x
No Vote         x      (34.3%)     (25.0%)       x      12.5%     x
Anti            x       65.6%       75.0%        x      21.8%     x

LIST 4:59 MPs who voted repeatedly against apprenticeship on roll-calls in
1838

Pro            6.7%     15.2%        3.3%       --      54.2%   16.9%
Moderate       3.3%      --          5.0%       --       3.3%     --
No Vote       88.1%     67.7%       66.1%      83.0%    13.5%   62.7%
Anti           1.6%     16.9%       25.4%      16.9%    28.8%   20.3%

LIST 5: 16 MPs who attended a World Antislavery Convention during the 1840s

Pro            5.5%     11.1%       11.1%       --      72.2%   16.6%
Moderate        --       --          5.5%       --       --       --
No Vote       72.2%     77.7%       38.8%      88.8%     5.5%   55.5%
Anti          22.2%     11.1%       44.4%      11.1%    22.2%   27.7%

Most MPs that voted against the antislavery coalition did not consider themselves to be proponents of slavery. Some did have a self-interested tie to the institution, but many MPs simply distrusted the motives of the abolitionists or disagreed with their blanket condemnation of slave-owners as "morally incompetent to give testimony on this question." When one examines the voting record of the "opposition" MPs, the pattern is inverted from that of the "abolitionists." On the one hand, "opposition" MPs voted against the dictates of political economy on commercial issues. They were slightly more opposed to free trade as a group than the "moderate" antislavery element, if voting on Com Law repeal. On the issue of sugar, they were even more protectionist. On the other hand, it was questions relating to domestic labor and government relief that generated support from the "opposition" for the principles of political economy. These MPs provided in proportional terms only about one-half the opposition to issues of political economy in the early 1830s as did the antislavery coalition, at least ff measured by the New Poor Law and the Factory Act. It is quite possible, then, that a majority of them voted in favor of political economy on both issues although absenteeism again confounds simple interpretation of voting behavior. Of those MPs that did vote, most favored political economy when considering the case of the hand-loom weaver or whether to continue to enforce the New Poor Law. A majority voted to regulate child labor, but "opposition" MPs were more likely in a proportional sense to rebuff state intervention even in that instance than were members of the antislavery coalition.(18)

This essay has assessed the relationship of the issues of political economy and antislavery in the House of Commons during the decade after 1833. Some MPs clearly embraced both; others did not. Antislavery MPs gave an uneven reception to measures of political economy and perhaps were a bit less supportive than their more moderate colleagues or opponents. If "Negro apprenticeship" can be equated in a general sense to slavery and proponents of that system can be found voting in alignment with the principles of political economy as often as its opponents, then critics may be correct in insisting that historians handle the hegemony thesis with caution. The findings of this paper lend support to Drescher's contention that the antislavery movement was not necessarily a "capitalist weed," nor does linking the rise of antislavery to the "evolution of capitalism alone" explain the "dynamic of abolitionism."(19)

Table III

Antislavery Opposition and Voting on Measures of Political Economy Thirteenth
House of Commons, 1833-1840

            Domestic Labor & Government Relief            Free Trade

Political   Aid to       New     Regulate    Chimney   Corn    Sugar
Economy     Weavers   Poor Law   Factories   Sweeps    Laws    Duty

LIST 1: 34 MPs classified with the "Slave Proprietors" in the pledge schedules
compiled in 1832

Pro            x          ?          ?           x      11.7%     x
No Vote        x       (85.2%)    (85.2%)        x      64.8%     x
Anti           x        14.7%      14.7%         x      23.5%     x

LIST 2:91 MPs who voted consistently to uphold apprenticeship on roll-calls in
1838

Pro          10.9%      18.1%       7.6%        5.5%    22.2%    2.2%
Moderate      1.0%       --         3.2%         --      8.8%     --
No Vote      87.9%      73.6%      72.5%       74.4%    13.3%   62.2%
Anti          --         7.6%      16.4%       20.0%    55.5%   35.5%

Eltis's argument that "by the 1830s most leading abolitionists were, in fact, ... most sympathetic to utilitarian-inspired reforms" is not wrong-headed, only easily misinterpreted. On the one hand, many antislavery MPs did embrace fundamental assumptions in common with the political economists and Bentham. On the other hand, Benthamite rhetoric and the language of political economy were employed on both sides in debate. Analysis of voting behavior also suggests that many Parliamentary opponents of slavery did not recognize the same connection between political economy and antislavery as did some of their associates. Simply put, the implications of Eltis's argument that by 1833 "antislavery appeared entirely consistent with laissez-faire principles" are diminished considerably when it is learned that opponents of antislavery, in practice, often were equally, if not more consistent in their support of laissez-faire principles.(20)

Implications for Davis's arguments are less clearcut. His earlier writings suggest a link between antislavery and political economy, but Davis now has tempered his thesis somewhat with greater stress on "self-deluded" classes and free labor arguments. The findings of this essay raise some doubt about a class-conscious interpretation of antislavery, albeit little is contributed to the argument over "self-delusion." Drescher criticizes Davis for assuming an "ideology of free labor" and "not freedom," but many abolitionist MPs did celebrate free labor theory. Even so, as Drescher correctly points out, the "political and religious aspirations of a people cannot be separated from their economic relations." Indeed, the empirical record seems to indicate that those abolitionist MPs that adhered to free labor theory did so for more reasons than simply its economic implications.(21)

Opposition to slavery on Christian grounds may have been merely a subterfuge for many antislavery MPs. Many contemporaries were convinced that the antislavery crusade was "being carried on under the guise of religious feeling." The evidence left by various abolitionist MPs suggests, however, that Davis's "self-delusion" model is a more plausible explanation than more explicitly conspiratorial theses, if one refuses to accept the MPs' own commentary at face value. At least within their own minds, abolitionist MPs seem to have sincerely interpreted their world within a sacred context and honestly believed that their opposition to slavery coincided with their Christian beliefs. Afterall, the British dismantled slavery in a step-by-step procedure that ordered its victims based on British involvement in the establishment and maintenance of that system. Hence the urgency to eradicate slave labor in the West Indies and South Africa while remaining complacent toward the continuance of indigenous slavery in India. Only in this manner could the British people be absolved from the national sin. These MPs, moreover, urged peaceful means of achieving emancipation, rejected military alternatives, and continually tempered their arguments with biblical references to pacificism.(22)

But if abolitionist MPs agreed that it was preferable for the slave to choose his own employer and bargain for wages, this was not necessarily their primary consideration. Free labor constituted merely one dimension of the extension, not necessarily of natural rights, but, as Daniel O'Connell explained it, "of the truths of Christianity and the blessings of civilization." The development of individual conscience, after all, was a goal of both political economists and evangelical abolitionists. Perhaps the paramount concern of these MPs was that black slaves be able to stand independently before God and receive judgment. They would be permitted the opportunity to achieve "eternal redemption" and to honor and glorify God; a condition that English laborers already enjoyed. As one MP saw it, emancipation should remove "unjust and iniquitous restraints" and "place the negro exactly in the position of the free labourer in England." It is only when it is remembered that abolitionist MPs generally held God responsible for all prosperity, felt that slave labor must be inefficient because of man's inherent evil, and believed that the inevitable immorality of coerced labor denied Christian salvation to both master and slave that we can begin to comprehend the complexity of the context in which the free labor argument was advanced.(23)

My analysis did not explicitly examine the relationship of social reform, religious dissent, and antislavery. Izhak Gross, however, analyzed emancipation and apprenticeship roll-calls and found that antislavery MPs in both instances tended to represent constituencies of larger English boroughs that had been recently enfranchised and which contained large numbers of religious dissenters. Although Gross assumes rather than demonstrates constituent influence, perhaps his findings suggest that Catholic Emancipation, the repeal of the Test and Corporations Act, and the Reform Act of 1832 all set the stage for newly enfranchised dissent to provide religious freedom to the slave. The Duke of Wellington insisted that the dissenters desired the destruction of both the Church and slavery. Gross also notes, though, that these English and Welsh constituencies were populated by members of the lower and middle classes that stood to gain by the end of monopoly.(24)

One purpose of this research note has been to expand the range of empirical data employed at this point in the hegemony debate and thereby refine our understanding and appreciation of the proper boundaries to impose upon the meanings of terms used in historical discourse. My intention also was to indicate the possibilities for analysis of Parliamentary antislavery through the study of voting divisions. Roll-call analysis provides an excellent historical tool that is currently utilized in rather modest fashion. It can be used to delineate a pool of individuals for whom attitudes, in a general sense, can be determined on a variety of issues, thereby permitting the reconstruction of a hierarchy of values for a significant group within the British ruling elite and for comparative analysis both of individuals and larger groups.

By facilitating more detailed analysis of decision-makers and the people in positions of power in early nineteenth-century Britain, the future study of roll-calls also may lead to a more refined understanding of the relationship between governing classes and the broader British population during the Victorian era. Perhaps only then, when we are in a better position to appreciate the exact context of time and place in which a Stephen Lushington could admonish his countrymen to never "let injustice continue" or a Daniel O'Connell could demand that men all over the globe be raised "from a state of degradation to a state of freedom," can we truly begin to understand precisely what they meant by those terms or clarify why they defined them as they did. In the interim, the search for the "elusive connection between abolition and industrialization" undoubtedly will continue to generate scholarly debate.(25)

ENDNOTES

The author is a doctoral candidate in the department of history at Vanderbilt University. Earlier versions of this paper were presented to a seminar at Vanderbilt University and to the Missouri Valley History Conference at the University of Nebraska at Omaha in 1991. The author is appreciative for comments and advice received from those audiences and from the referees and staff of the Journal of Social History.

1. Eric Williams, Capitalism and Slavery (Chapel Hill, 1944); Roger Anstey, The Atlantic Slave Trade and British Abolition 1760-1810 (Atlantic Highlands, N. J., 1975); Seymour Drescher, Econocide: British Slavery in the Era of Abolition (Pittsburgh, 1977).

2. Davis, The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1776-1823 (Ithaca, 1975), pp. 346-347; Davis, Slavery and Human Progress (New York, 1984), pp. 122, 340; Davis, "The Benefit of Slavery," New York Review of Books, (March 31, 1988): 44-45; Seymour Drescher, Capitalism and Antislavery: British Mobilization in Comparative Perspective (New York, 1987), p. 151; Eltis, "Abolitionist Perspectives of Society after Slavery," in James Walvin, ed., Slavery and British Society, 1776-1846 (Baton Rouge, 1982), pp. 198-199, 212.

3. David Eltis, Economic Growth and the Ending of the Transatlantic Slave Trade (New York, 1987), p. 22; Davis, Slavery and Human Progress, pp. 122, 340.

4. Haskell, "Capitalism and the Origins of the Humanitarian Sensibility" American Historical Review LXL (April 1985): 339-361, LXL (June 1985): 457-566; Haskell, "Convention and Hegemonic Interest in the Debate over Antislavery: A Reply to Davis and Ashworth," American Historical Review LXLII (October 1987): 829-878; Edith Hurwitz, Politics and Public Conscience: Slave Emancipation and the Abolitionist Movement in Britain (London, 1973), pp. 15, 18, 49, 78; Betty Fladeland, Abolitionists and Working-Class Problems in the Age of Industrialization (Baton Rouge, 1984); Drescher, "People and Parliament: The Rhetoric of the British Slave Trade," Journal of Interdisciplinary History XX:4 (Spring 1990): 563; Drescher, Capitalism and Antislavery, pp. 134-165; Drescher, "Cart Whip and Billy Roller: Antislavery and Reform Symbolism in Industrializing Britain," Journal of Social History XV (Fall 1981): 3-24; Drescher, "Public Opinion and the Destruction of British Colonial Slavery," in Walvin, ed., Slavery and British Society, 1776-1846, p. 35; Roger Anstey, "Parliamentary Reform, Methodism and Anti-Slavery Politics, 18291833," Slavery and Abolition, II:3 (December 1981), pp. 211-226. The AHR debate between Davis, Haskell, and John Ashworth also is available in Thomas Bender, ed., The Antislavery Debate: Capitalism and Abolitionism as a Problem in Historical Interpretation (Berkeley, 1992).

5. Holt, "Explaining Abolition," Journal of Social History XXIV:2 (1990): 375-377; Holt, An Empire Over Mind: Emancipation, Race, and Ideology in the British West Indies and the American South," in J. Morgan Kousser and James M. McPherson, eds., Region, Race, and Reconstruction: Essays in Honor of C. Vann Woodward (New York, 1982); Turley, The Culture of English Antislavery, 1780-1860 (London, 1991), pp. 2-6, 227-229, 235. Also see Linda Colley, Britons: Forging the Nation 1707-1837 (New Haven, 1992), pp. 321-360. Colley argues that antislavery agitation "whether consciously or not" deflected attention from elites's refusal "to give way to public opinion on other matters rather nearer to home, such as the Chartists' demands for a broader franchise rather than serving as a means to legitimate free labor.

6. Davis, "The Benefit of Slavery," p. 45; David B. Davis, "Reflections on Abolitionism and Ideological Hegemony," American Historical Review LXLII (October 1987): 797-812; David B. Davis, "The Perils of Doing History by Ahistorical Abstraction: A Reply to Thomas L. Haskell's AHR Forum Reply," in Bender, ed., The Antislavery Debate, pp. 293, 298-299, 303-306. Also see John Ashworth, "The Relation Between Capitalism and Humanitarianism," American Historical Review LXLII (October 1987): 813-828; Ashworth, "Capitalism, Class, and Antislavery," in Bender, ed., The Antislavery Debate, pp. 283, 289.

7. Haskell, "Convention and Hegemonic Interest in the Debate over Antislavery," p. 865.

8. Drescher, "People and Parliament," pp. 562-563.

9. Ibid.; Izhak Gross, "The Abolition of Negro Slavery and British Parliamentary Politics 1832-3," The Historical Journal XXIII:1 (1980): 63-85; Gross, "Parliament and the Abolition of Negro Apprenticeship, 1835-1838," English Historical Review XCVI (1981): 560-576. Gross tracked proceedings of antislavery legislation during the 1830s and, among other things, studied the role of government ministers. He argues that "neither the emancipation scheme nor the Bill based upon it were treated as party issues." He found that "only a tiny fraction of the conservatives appeared at all" and that most of the opposition to Stanley's scheme and Bill came from members who sat on the government side of the House." If one makes anachronistic use of labels, most MPs in the antislavery coalition were Liberals, especially in the early part of the decade. In both 1833 and 1838 antislavery Conservatives disproportionately voted as "moderates" compared to their Liberal counterparts. Party affiliations are listed in J. H. Hanham, ed., Charles R. Dod's Electoral Facts from 1832 to 1853 Impartially Stated (Brighton, 1972).

10. William Adam's account of slavery in India suggested that what he had to say would "establish a charge of inconsistency against England, tending to lessen the force of her example in the West Indies." The Law and Custom of Slavery in British India, in a Series of Letters to T. F. Buxton, Esq. (London, 1840), p. 8.

11. Slave emancipation roll-calls are located in Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, XIII:97, XIV:1127; XVIII:547, 598; XIX:1219, 1270; XX:96, 206, 220, 339, 592.

12. The schedules are located in The Tourist: A Literary and Anti-Slavery Journal (London), September 24, December 3, December 17, 1832. This may not be inclusive of all MPs pledged during the campaign as the last issue mentions 216 pledged candidates.

13. Hansard, XVIII:545-546, XLII:161, 191-192, 204, 209; XLIII:89, 115, 123, 467, 476-477, 546. Of those MPs whose votes on slavery emancipation were recorded in 1833 and who later voted on apprenticeship in 1838, between 73 and 93 percent opposed apprenticeship depending upon the specific division. "Negro apprenticeship" roll-calls are located in Ibid., XLII:257-261, 472-474; XLIII:123-126, 430-433. Crosstabulation of voting patterns on apprenticeship and the importation of hill coolies reveals that proponents of the former, along with "moderate" antislavery MPs, were more likely to favor the latter policy than were "abolitionist" MPs. Those that voted to reduce sugar duties were disproportionately opposed to apprenticeship or the importation of indentured labor. Ibid., XLIII:92, 97; LIV:951, LV:105-106. Roll-calls relative to importing hill coolies and reducing sugar duties are located in Ibid., LIV:951-952, 1407-1409, LV:106-107.

14. Samuel Kydd (Alfred), The History of the Factory Movement From the Year, 1802, to the Enactment of the Ten Hours Bill in 1847 (London, 1857), I:88-89, 115.

15. J.T. Ward, The Factory Movement, 1830-1855 (London, 1962), p. 413; Kenneth Lux, Adam Smith's Mistake: How a Moral Philosopher Invented Economics and Ended Morality (Boston, 1990), pp. 40-42, 163-165, 175; John Fielden, The Curse of the Factory System; Or, a Short Account of the Origin of the Factory Cruelties; Of Their Attempts to Protect Children By Law; Of Their Present Sufferings; Our Duty Toward Them; Injustice of Mr. Thomson's Bill; The Folly of Political Economists, A Warning Against Sending the Children of the South into the Factories of the North (London, 1836), p. 243; Edward Baines, Jr., History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain: With a Notice of Its Early History in the East, and in All the Quarters of the Globe; A Description of the Great Mechanical Innovations, Which Have Caused Its Unexampled Extension in Britain; And a View of the State of Manufacture and the Condition of the Classes Engaged in Its Several Departments (London, 1835), pp. 494-495, 499, 502.

16. In examining roll-call division lists for the 1837-1840 period, I incorporated the use of Guttman Scaling essentially as outlined in Lee E Anderson, Meredith W. Watts, and Allen R. Wilcox, Legislative Roll-Call Analysis (Evanston, Illinois, 1966), pp. 89121. The number of roll-calls per issue varied: Handloom Weavers (3), New Poor Law (3), Factory Bill (4), Chimney Sweepers' Bill (1), Corn Laws (5), Sugar Duty (1). The New Poor Law scalogram for 1839 should be interpreted with caution. The attempt to repeal the New Poor Law in the late 1830s received the support of only seventeen MPs when the division was taken. The "anti" political economy response, therefore, does not necessarily indicate a desire to dismantle the new relief system. The roll-calls instead pertain to restoration of certain privileges that the poor held under the older allowance system or to the Poor-Rates Collection Bill. The scalogram provides a means of identifying those MPs that were dissatisfied with the New Poor Law and desired its modification to include some of the older practices. A more elaborate statement on the Guttman Scaling method and roll-call appendices is available on request from the author. Partial divisions for the 1833-1835 period also should be interpreted with care. MPs listed in five votes on the Factory Act favored additional regulatory legislation. MPs that appeared in nineteen roll-calls on the New Poor Law either opposed readings of the bill or favored amending bustardy or other clauses deemed excessively harsh. One of the Corn Law divisions indicated both sides of the vote; the other two only recorded MPs opposed to protection. Roll-call divisions used as measures of political economy are located in Hansard, XVII:1378; XVIII:976; XIX:254, 913; XX:451, 528, 578; XXI:1345; XXIII:842, 971, 1002; XXIV:318, 330, 337, 351, 433, 477, 541, 544, 547, 719, 1061; XXV:275, 1096, 1224, 1227; XXXVII:690-691; XXXVIII:695-700, 824-834, 1790-1798; XXXIX:1090-1098, 1403-1418, 1742; XL:207-210, 1413-1415; XLI:946-949; LXV:691-695; XLVI:859-864; XLVIII:1063-1096; XLIX:965-972; LIII:541-544; LIV:639-644; LV:106-107, 109-110.

17. Turley's emphasis on free trade generally is appropriate when speaking of the small group of "abolitionist" MPs, but increasingly necessitates free trade being subsumed within a larger reform complex, if one moves analysis onto the sugar issue or focuses on the entire membership of the "antislavery coalition" in the House of Commons. Voting behavior indicates that a relationship existed in the late 1830s between an MP's response to free trade issues and the motions to terminate apprenticeship. "Moderate" free traders include those MPs that favored repeal of the Corn Laws but upheld sugar duties.

"Negro
Apprenticeship"      Free Trade      Moderate      Protection

Pro                  (2)  9.5%       (8) 23.5%     (24) 42.8%
Moderate             (9) 42.8%      (20) 58.8%     (26) 46.4%
Anti                (10) 47.6%       (6) 17.6%      (6) 10.7%

Total:              (21) 100.0%     (34) 100.0%    (56) 100.0%

18. It might be argued that the foregoing comparison of voting divisions obscures the possible existence of a core faction that advocated political economy within the antislavery coalition. To test this proposition for the post-emancipation period, I combined the voting responses of MPs on the issues of a minimum wage for hand-loom weavers, the New Poor Law, and repeal of the Corn Laws in order to identify those MPs that consistently supported, or at least did not consistently oppose at least two of three measures of political economy. By a slight margin, proponents of political economy showed more support for "Negro apprenticeship" than opposition. But the trend among MPs opposed to political economy also was to uphold the apprenticeship system. Hansard, XLII:206; XLIII:91; Kydd, History of the Factory Movement I:115.

19. Drescher, Capitalism and Antislavery, pp. 161-162, 166.

20. Eltis, Economic Growth and the Ending of the Transatlantic Slave Trade, p. 22.

21. British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, Proceedings of the General Anti-Slavery Convention Called by the Committee of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, and Held in London ... 1843 (London, 1843), pp. 156, 191-192; Davis, "The Benefit of Slavery," p. 45; Drescher, Capitalism and Antislavery, pp. 162, 166.

22. Hurwitz, Politics and Public Conscience, pp. 77, 82; William L. Mathieson, British Slave Emancipation 1838-1849 (New York, 1967), p. 33; BFASS, Proceedings of the General Anti-Slavery Convention ... 1840, pp. 18, 379, 381; BFASS, Proceedings of the General Anti-Slavery Convention ... 1843, pp. 158, 191.

23. BFASS, Proceedings of the General Anti-Slavery Convention ... 1840, pp. 13, 381, 384; Hansard, XLIII:389, 478; Davis, "The Emergence of Immediatism in British and American Antislavery Thought," pp. 209-230; Hurwitz, Politics and Public Conscience, p. 82; Frank Tannenbaum, Slave and Citizen: The Negro in the Americas (New York, 1946), pp. 82-83; Howard Temperley, "Capitalism, Slavery, and Ideology," Past and Present (1977): 94-118.

24. Hansard, XI:283, 780-785; XVIII:978; XXV:613, 886; Eltis, "Abolitionist Perspectives of Society," p. 212; Gross, "The Abolition of Negro Slavery," pp. 84, 87; Gross, "Parliament and the Abolition of Negro Apprenticeship," pp. 560-576; Hurwitz, Politics and Public Conscience, pp. 49, 87, 94.

25. BFASS, Proceedings of the General Anti-Slavery Convention ... 1840, pp. 13, 211.