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
- Dundas's own gradualism kept the ships sailing fifteen more years. Why is regulating the trade to death any different from the amendment that saved it?
- Ending a wrong quickly and ending it certainly may not be the same road. How should a person choose between them?
- Making a traffic unprofitable requires licences, inspectors and officers, an apparatus that outlives the traffic. What is the price of ending a wrong administratively?
- Where is the line between a scheme designed to strangle the slave trade and one that merely makes it orderly enough to defend?
- What do you say to someone offered a reform that improves conditions while writing the very thing they want abolished into law?