The English, slavery and reparation

Daive Dunkley, Guest Columnist

I am delighted the Rev Dr Devon Dick agrees with my position that "the Somerset case in 1772 did not abolish the presence of slaves on English soil". One must emphasise, however, the importance of not using this outcome to devalue the implication of Lord Mansfield's ruling on the Somerset case that "the black must be discharged".

Yes, it was a limited judgment, but Mansfield did not wish to destroy slavery. On the other hand, it is crucial we acknowledge those enslaved people who viewed Mansfield's ruling as empowerment, and continued challenging the presence of slavery in England, in addition to British slave trading and colonial slave-ownership.

Mansfield's decision should not be seen as confirmation of slavery being practiced in England. The English took slaves to England, a number of these enslaved people were traded at places such as Liverpool, but slavery was not the norm in England. By this period, England had become a society with slaves, but not a slave society like its colonies, a distinction on which much has been written.

The rejection of slavery in England, after the Restoration, was also the reason for the Somerset case and other trials involving the enslaved versus enslavers, presided over by English judges before and after the Mansfield judgment.

One may even use Rev Dick's example, from what seems a limited reading of F.O. Shyllon's now dated book: the 1827 decision of Lord Stowell, who ruled that Grace Jones, a formerly enslaved woman, was to be returned to slavery. The judgment was not because Jones was in England. Stowell, an admiralty judge, applied the law of the sea to uphold the ruling of another admiralty court in Antigua, stating that Jones' return to the colony meant submission to slave laws.

Stowell was aware Common Law did not support slavery, but resorted to an observation made by Hugo Grotius from 1609: "A ship sailing through the sea leaves behind it no more legal right than it does a track."

Stowell's manoeuvre was to emphasise Jones' re-enslavement upon leaving England for the Caribbean. This case has suggested Stowell's pro-slavery stance, but also that he had to contend with abolitionists and enslaved people knowledgeable of English law, especially the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679. This act gave them the chance to take slaveholders to court because of the absence of de jure support for slavery in 18th- and early 19th-century England. The Stowell decision is discussed in Edlie Wong's 'Neither Fugitive nor Free', published in 2009. I suggest the reverend updates his reading list.

REPARATION AND THE REVEREND'S RESPONSE

This brings me to the new point raised by Rev Dick: reparation. Highlighting that slavery was unlawful in England after the Restoration supports the reparation case. That the English saw slavery as illegal, but acceptable in the colonies, strengthens the argument for reparation. Colonial slave laws thus represented negligence, England's disregard for its Restoration principles.

This begs the question: Why were the Crown and Parliament not the protectors of African freedom in sections of the empire? The contradiction, created by the English, provides a stronger argument than a moralistic assault.

The issue cannot be merely about "the nature of the beast called slavery". Reparation claims have to be grounded in legal argument, strengthened by historical accuracy. I agree with Hilary Beckles on this: history will help us win reparation, and we all can play a role by taking the subject seriously and through further research.

Recently, Verene Shepherd initiated a research team at the University of the West Indies, Mona, to conduct additional research on the compensation claims by slaveholders in Jamaica, submitted because of the 1834 abolition of Slavery. I am part of this team, along with colleague Dave Gosse, as well as Ahmed Reid, based in the United States. We anticipate that this research will bolster the case for reparation, among other benefits.

PERTINENT DATE

In his response to my article, Rev Dick thankfully has clarified the number of Native Baptist preachers in Jamaica in 1841. He does advise readers in an endnote that, contrary to what is stated in Table 5 in his book, the number he applies to the 1840s is only "related to 1841".

Unless we assume that a number referring only to 1841 can also be used for an entire 10-year period, my suggestion that we move toward using numbers for specific dates is still pertinent. Furthermore, if "there were no Native Baptist pastors/preachers in 1831", why tell readers that there were six in the 1830s, when this decade is inclusive of the date 1831?

And, to benefit readers of his Gleaner article on May 2, 2013, the reverend incorrectly referenced his book. To correct him, he has the numbers for Native Baptist "preachers" in Table 5, not Table 4.

I can only guess that the five entries together in the two tables stating 'N/A' means the unavailability of data, which only shows that the reverend himself has encountered the problem historians have faced. Strangely, he has remained mute on the Anglican clergymen, for whom I found numbers for 1831, 1841, but regrettably not 1805.

Nevertheless, clergymen outnumbered all other pastors in terms of manpower, which gave them "the upper hand in the business of pre-abolition education", as I have argued - information useful to the reparation discussion.

While the Anglican Church is known for its complicity in slavery, clergymen in Jamaica objected to practices of slaveholders. Highlighting these is evidence that slavery was contrary to English customs after the Restoration. Together, these practices represented injustice supported by law in the colonies, which at the same time was abandoned by England itself.

Dr Daive A. Dunkley teaches history at the University of the West Indies, Mona. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and daive_d@hotmail.com.