had been at an earlier time. They felt that the prosperity of the old English Islands was such that they could afford to sacrifice the slave trade rather than see it revived for the benefit of the recently conquered islands, which were temporarily at least under British control and not allowed to enjoy the advantages of the slave trade. During the War the British navy attacked foreign possessions by cutting them off from this renewal of their labor supply, but after the treaty of peace the conquered possessions, whether kept or returned, would in either case, become rivals of the older British Islands, if permitted to rebuild themselves industrially through the English slave trade.

Another source of strength to the emancipation party in 1807 was also a result of the war. Ireland had been reunited to Great Britain and the Irish members given representation at Westminster. As Ireland had no share in the profits of the slave trade, the Irish members were strongly opposed to it and contributed as much as possible to its destruction. The change in ministry, which took place on the death of Pitt, was also beneficial to the cause. Pitt had always supported Wilberforce, but he never made the success of emancipation one of the main objects of his policy. Fox, his successor, on the other hand, considered this subject one of prime importance, and his supporters knew that he would sacrifice power rather than fail. The changes enumerated above made it possible in 1807 to pass laws to abolish the slave trade.

Notwithstanding this triumph, until the overthrow of Napoleon the further efforts of Wilberforce and his allies were attended with little success, although efforts were made to secure universal abolition of the slave trade and a more rigid enforcement of the English acts. Inasmuch as the British slave trade had been abolished by act of Parliament, all Englishmen were ready for the abolition of the slave trade everywhere. They found at the restoration of peace an excellent opportunity to carry this desire into effect, and by 1816 all the powers had abolished the slave trade, or made promises to abolish it, except Spain and Portugal, which two countries had agreed to limit the trade on the coast of Africa. But with the restoration of peace, England could not prohibit the foreign slave

trade as she had done during the war, and the trade now promptly revived, causing the British colonies to suffer severely from foreign competition and to lose much of their former prosperity.

The abolitionists at once endeavored to put a stop to the clandestine trade into the British colonies by forcing their assemblies to enact Slave Registry Laws, thus putting them at a still greater disadvantage in their competition with foreign colonies. But on the other hand, the efforts made by the abolitionists and the government to stamp out the illicit slave trade on the ocean by concerting a mutual limited right of search, were an aid to the British possessions. The powers, however, were jealous of the maritime supremacy of England, and, though several treaties providing for a limited right of search were secured, in 1823 the traffic in slaves for the benefit of the non-British Islands was carried on as vigorously as ever before. The British Islands were by this time in deep distress and were rapidly losing their economic importance. Moreover, cases of great cruelty in the treatment of slaves were constantly reported in England, so that it was evident to the minds of many men that the institution of slavery itself ought to be abolished by the mother country. Since all efforts to check the slave trade had been unsuccessful, men were fast becoming converted to the view held by Burke, that the one and only way to limit the traffic was to remove the demand by emancipation of the slaves already in the colonies. Still the slave trade to the British Islands does not seem to have been large. The primary motive of the abolitionists in deciding to attack slavery directly was based on the observation that the condition of the slaves in the islands had not improved as had been expected. Wilberforce and his supporters had believed that with the trade cut off, slaves already in service would become civilized and gradually would be set free. Disappointed with the progress of the negroes, the opponents of the slave trade became the champions of emancipation and formed the Anti-Slavery Society in 1823.

This new society had for its object the mitigation and gradual abolition of slavery, that is, it proposed to effect by direct interference in the affairs of the colonies what the aboli

tionists had formerly hoped the colonists would themselves do for the negroes, after the slave trade was abolished. The slaves in the West Indies had been of great interest to the abolitionists from the beginning of the slave trade agitation, and the foundation of the new anti-slavery society merely marks the beginning of a new effort to better the lot of the negroes. This object remained much the same from 1787 to 1833-almost a half century. The older men continued active in interest, new leaders appearing of course to organize and inform adherents of the cause. Buxton, the son of a brewer, took the place of Wilberforce, and Zachary Macaulay, the father of T. B. Macaulay, that of Clarkson. The anti-slavery party organized societies over the United Kingdom and carried on an anti-slavery campaign in much the same fashion that a modern political party carries on an electoral campaign. It issued periodicals, books, and tracts. It took part in the electoral campaigns, inasmuch as its real object was the extermination of slavery by legislative enactments. It sought to bring the greatest possible public opinion to bear on Parliament and to have as many representatives there as possible.

Opposed to this anti-slavery party was the West India party, planters, merchants, manufacturers, ship owners, and money lenders. This party had an organization very similar to that of its opponents and used the same means to influence public opinion and Parliament. It could, moreover, count on the active support of the large class of people financially interested in the prosperity of the islands. The sugar islands were already in a period of economic depression when the antislavery agitation began, and so the planters regarded the new movement as an additional grievance and element of upheaval. The distress, which grew greater every year, was due to a variety of causes; some natural, such as hurricanes, exhaustion of the soil, and increased foreign, British, and East Indian competition: some artificial, such as high duties on West India products in England and a restrictive commercial system prohibiting free trade with America. From the latter group of burdens the colonists made many efforts to be relieved, without, however, wishing to give up the monopoly of the British market.

The men who struggled for the emancipation of the negroes in the West Indies were intensely interested in other reforms, such as the reform of the criminal law, the liberalizing of the commercial system, the emancipation of the Catholics, and the reform of the House of Commons, and thus they won the support of the leaders of the other reform measures. The emancipation of the slaves, then, was not an isolated movement but part of the general movement for the moral and economic betterment of mankind through the removal of oppressive restrictions. It was merely a phase of the struggle against a "form of entrenched abuse."

The anti-slavery leaders brought up the question of direct legislative interference by Parliament in behalf of the negroes in 1823. Canning, the leading minister, opposed the resolutions moved by Buxton and proposed substitute resolutions, which became famous as "the resolutions of 1823" and formed the basis of action for ten years. These resolutions expressed the sympathy of Parliament with the mitigation and gradual abolition of slavery, but they declared that it would be better if such reforms were carried out by the executive branch of the government, that is, by the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the King in Council. Accordingly circular letters and orders in council specifying reforms were sent to all the slave colonies, but these suggestions were rejected by the self-governing colonies. Cases of cruelty and oppression were eagerly seized upon by the anti-slavery people for the purpose of inflaming public opinion and of urging the government to adopt more aggressive measures. Many people denied themselves the use of sugar.

At the end of three years practically no progress had been made in the settlement of the question, and the anti-slavery men thought that this procedure would be dropped and that the time for legislative interference by Parliament had come. But the government continued its policy of merely urging reforms on the self-governing colonies, and the colonial assemblies continued to defy the wishes of the mother country. They were enabled to do this the more easily because there were frequent changes in the office of Colonial Secretary, and the attention of the country was absorbed with the question

of Catholic emancipation. By 1830, that question was settled, and the patience of the government was almost exhausted by the conduct of the colonies. A change in policy was now at hand, and, in this same year, a new order in council, very detailed in its provisions, was issued and urged on the colonial assemblies in the strongest terms. As this order met with no success, merely causing great unrest throughout the English West Indies, the Whig government, on coming into power on the issue of Parliamentary reform, sent out another order in council, which was to be adopted word for word by the legislative as well as the Crown colonies.

The resistance to this measure was so great that the planters living in England were able to secure the appointment of a committee in the Lords to investigate the situation. On their part the anti-slavery party had become powerful enough to secure a similar committee in the Commons. In other words, both of the contending parties had become dissatisfied with the policy pursued by the executive branch of the government. The one party felt that too much had been done and that relief for West Indian distress, not the abolition of slavery, was the vital question. The other party had become more radical, and was dissatisfied with any measures for the mitigation and gradual abolition of slavery, demanding the earliest possible emancipation of the slaves. It had come to the conclusion that men could not be prepared for freedom while in slavery and that civilization could come only after emancipation.

The final settlement, now at hand, was delayed again by the agitation for the reform of the House of Commons. When the first reformed Parliament met in 1833, the government still hesitated to undertake what was one of the most difficult I questions ever confronting a legislative body. Many other problems were pressing, and an effort was made to postpone the consideration of the slavery issue. Hesitation and indecision disappeared when Stanley, the ablest man of business among the Whigs, was made colonial minister in March.

In a few weeks he mastered the situation and carried through the House of Commons against great opposition a bill providing for the emancipation of over 800,000 slaves in