Ending a trade by making it unprofitable
Can a traffic be stopped by governing it rather than by banning it? The draft licenses the ships, prescribes how the African coast may be worked, orders the conduct of the passage, and means to make every stage so supervised and so expensive that the trade stops paying.
Abolition at a stroke had just carried in the Commons and been drained of force by a gradualist amendment of Dundas's own — the reason the ships sailed for fifteen more years. The paper in the envelope takes the other road, reaching the same end by administration: qualification for owners, rules for the coast, conditions on the passage, inspection at the far end. Historians have read the design both ways ever since, as the most detailed abolitionist scheme yet drafted in Britain, or as a working plan for a lawful, orderly, superintended slavery.
- slavery
- regulation
- maritime regulation
- maritime law
- abolition
- gradualism
- enforcement
- administrative law
- colonial administration
- institutional design
Enter a dialogue
- You distrust principles not embodied in specific rules. Why would a detailed rulebook end the slave trade more surely than a simple ban?
- Your draft allows a ship only one adult captive for every ton and a half of its tonnage. How would such limits discourage the slave trade?
- A movement wins a quick vote against a great wrong. Why did you say the people 'like short methods' they may come to repent?
- Regulating a trade you wish ended makes it lawful. Why did you think that was better than a ban that leaves it 'illegal and unreformed'?