The Interest: How the British Establishment Resisted the Abolition of Slavery

by Michael Taylor

In 1807, Parliament outlawed the slave trade in the British Empire, but for the next quarter of a century, despite heroic and bloody rebellions, more than 700,000 people in the British colonies remained enslaved. And when a renewed abolitionist campaign was mounted, making slave ownership the defining political and moral issue of the day, emancipation was fiercely resisted by the powerful 'West India Interest'. Supported by nearly every leading figure of the British establishment - including Canning, Peel and Gladstone, The Times and Spectator - the Interest ensured that slavery survived until 1833 and that when abolition came at last, compensation was given not to the enslaved but to the slaveholders. Worth £340 billion in today's money, this was the largest pay-out in British history before the banking rescue package of 2008, incurring a national debt that was only repaid in 2015 and entrenching the power of slaveholders and their families to shape modern Britain.

Drawing on major new research, this long-overdue and ground-breaking history shows that the triumph of abolition was also one of the darkest episodes in British history, revealing the lengths to which British leaders went to defend the indefensible in the name of profit.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, British Literature, Race, Modern

400 pages, Hardcover

First published November 5, 2020

About the author

Michael Taylor is an historian of colonial slavery, the British Empire and the British Isles. He graduated with a double first in history from the University of Cambridge, where he earned his PhD (2015) - and also won University Challenge. He has since been Lecturer in Modern British History at Balliol College, Oxford, and he is currently a Visiting Fellow at the British Library's Eccles Centre for American Studies.

(courtsey of Penguin Books, 2020.)

Librarian note: There are other authors on Goodreads with this name. This profile takes 8 spaces:Michael^^^^^^^^Taylor

Reviews

[BrokenTune · Rating 4 out of 5]

For some reason, Goodreads does not seem to show my full review. It cuts off and I don't know how to fix this. The full review was originally published on my blog and can be found here.

The Interest: How the British Establishment Resisted the Abolition of Slavery by Michael Taylor was a densely written history of slavery in the British Empire, focusing on the Caribbean, and of the abolition of slavery that eventually was passed as law in 1834, 27 years after the prohibition of the slave trade.

Taylor explores the social and political climate at the time and presents why it took 27 years to abolish slavery once and for all after the foundations were laid by Wilberforce and Co. in 1807.

For the past two hundred years, the authors of Britain’s ‘national story’ and the smiths of British ‘national values’ have placed opposition to slavery at the core of their constructions. I have never been persuaded. As this book will show, the British ‘nation’ was in fact deeply implicated in and violently supportive of colonial slavery. If this book achieves anything, I hope it encourages readers to interrogate the myths of British history, to question Britain’s troubling role in the shaping of the modern world, and to think about what should happen next. Perhaps most relevantly, this book poses the question: Should criminals ever celebrate the end of their own criminality?

It took me quite a while to finish the book. It is densely written. Taylor based the book on his PhD research. There is a lot of information to take in and digest.
The topic of the book also slowed down my reading progress. Especially at the beginning of the book when Taylor provides descriptions of the conditions in which humans were traded as chattels made this a difficult read at times. There is just so much I can read about the inhumanity of slavery at any one time.

Once we the introductory chapters over with, however, Taylor tells of the the propaganda created by slave traders and gives a brief overview of legal challenges brought forward by abolitionists and of the political landscape at the time.

I found this section riveting.

It also made me smirk that I could not help but notice certain similarities between the arguments of pro-slavery interest holders and Brexiteers accusing abolitionists as traitors to the Empire etc.
Funny how some arguments don’t change.

Despite this, there were some aspects of the thorough and detailed blow-by-blow description of political maneouvres that were also really, really boring. I guess, it depends on what one is looking for, but I was interested more in the legislation itself than the politics around it.

At times, it also seemed that the author drifted from what I thought the purpose of the book was – i.e. exploring the resistance to the abolition of slavery in the British establishment – to spend a large part of the book entirely focussing on the conditions of slavery in Jamaica, descriptions of riots and retributions, mostly based on eye-witness accounts and reports.
This was interesting enough for the first 5% (of about 20%), but I was decidedly bored with the almost repetitive descriptions. I’m sure there were stories that need to be heard and recorded, but I really wanted to know more about the developments that actually refer to the book’s purpose.

It was at this point that I hoped the book would find its way back to the original premise again, and when it did, it concluded with a lot that the author wanted to impart, and the last 25% made the book for me:

Taylor does not just recount the history of how slavery was finally abolished in the British Empire in 1834, but he also actually analyses the consequences of it and looks into how the “myth of the abolition of slavery” was created, mostly by public figures who previously fervently argued against the abolition re-writing their own history.

[…] the British ‘remember’ that Parliament abolished slavery, but not that Parliament had spent two hundred years encouraging and protecting slavery in the first place; they remember the selflessness of white abolitionists, but not the suffering – let alone the loves, lives, hopes, and dreams – of the enslaved and the sacrifices that they made in order to undermine the institution of slavery.

What really struck me was Taylor’s Epilogue in which he explains that he used to be in favour of keeping statues and memorials to benefactors and philanthropists even if their wealth had derived from slavery but that Taylor had now changed his mind.
This comment was in response to the toppling of the statue of Edward Colston in Bristol last year and in response to the outcry by some elements of the media and some public figures and politicians.
Taylor explains that he used to be in favour of the statues etc. not as a celebration of the personalities or their philanthropy or whatever but because he felt that they are important as reminders of the dark side of history.

“[…] the Abolition Act was neither the inevitable bequest of sweeping anti-slavery sentiment and the triumphant march of British ‘justice’, nor was it a simple coda to the better-known campaign against the slave trade. In reality, the passage of the Act had relied upon several factors: the political collapse of the Tories which led to Reform and the return of a sympathetic House of Commons; the persistent pressure applied by the Anti-Slavery and Agency societies; and the violent slave resistance that finally convinced the British public of the immoral, unsustainable nature of slavery. Until those factors combined in the early 1830s, defending slavery was a tenable, popular position for British conservatives, imperialists, economists, and more besides. Until 1833, slavery had been an essential part of British national life, as much as the Church of England, the monarchy, or the liberties granted by the Glorious Revolution. When we remember it otherwise, we promulgate a self-serving and misleading version of British history.”

However, Taylor changed his mind.

He explains that the statues etc. were erected by people who either created or perpetuated the myth that there were positive aspects of slavery, and that it takes an awful lot of education and awareness to see behind that myth rather than to perceive the statues etc. as a celebration of history (however false that notion of history may be).
Taylor notes that most people just do not know enough about the background and history to be able to see behind the myth of Britain leading the abolitionist movement, when in fact, as he outlines in the book, the interest of maintaining slavery ran through every corner of society at the time, and resistance to the abolitionist ideals did not end – far from it – with the passing of the 1834 Act.

From considerations and debates among Caribbean nations for reparations from Britain for the lasting consequences brought on by slavery to listing how many institutions, individuals, and companies even today benefit from the legacy of the pay-off that enabled abolition to take effect, Taylor highlights that even almost 200 years after the Act, there is still a lot to question and this starts with educating people about why the 1834 Act was not passed earlier.

For all of the book’s boring (to me) parts, this was a timely and very informative book and I am delighted to see it nominated for the 2021 Orwell Prize.

Edit: One day after I wrote the above review, The Guardian published an article about the UK government’s interference in the governance of public cultural institutions and museums in efforts to preserve the sanitised “myth” of British history that Taylor describes in The Interest.

The government announced plans earlier this year to appoint a

[Roman Clodia · Rating 4 out of 5]

The mythology of Britain as the champion of liberty and the enemy of slavery has a long-standing tradition, and abolition has figured as the triumph of British justice and morality since the early decades of the nineteenth century.

Taylor has written an exhaustive, much-needed and timely antidote to Britain's self-congratulatory narrative on slavery, telling the underlying story of how, firstly, Britain abolished the slave trade not slavery as an institution in 1808; how the West Indian Interest of slave-holders in combination with a primarily (though not exclusively) Tory interest of Establishment bodies, including the Anglican Church, bankers and financiers, publishers and newspapers, worked together to maintain around 700,000 enslaved men, women and children in the Caribbean colonies; how it took nearly 30 years for slave-owning to be made illegal; how, even then, it was abolished in name only, with only children under 6 being emancipated, and everyone else having to work for free in order to purchase their freedom; and how the compensation that was so vast it was only paid off in 2018 was allocated to the slave-owners, not the enslaved, to make up to them for the loss of their 'property'.

It's a fascinating and shameful story told in an accessible way - and one of the most insidious aspects is that it's a story that is still 'hidden' and not generally known today. Taylor's narrative is based on his doctoral research so is evidenced extensively and told with balance and judgment (though his own personal feelings are made quite clear) but scholarly paraphernalia is tucked away at the back and doesn't disrupt the story.

One of the most enlightening aspects for me is the extent to which 'popular' figures from the period were pro-slavery and, often, outspoken in the way they racialised the institution: the Duke of Wellington and Robert Peel may be no surprise but that Anthony Trollope praised a propaganda book of pro-slavery stories as did Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and that Elizabeth Barrett Browning mourned the way abolition would 'ruin' Jamaica where her family owned a slave-worked sugar plantation comes as a nasty shock. It's hard to be reminded that figures who we admire for their literary work might have held vastly different and insupportable political opinions.

The point that Taylor discusses at the end is that this isn't 'just' history but has also shaped modern Britain and the Caribbean: the slave-owners who received a vast compensation (see my notes below) have passed down their legacy of capital (part-funded by modern tax-payers - the government bond debt was only paid off in 2018), privilege and status to their descendants, as well as their buildings, monuments and statues amongst which we live. Absolutely of the moment, this is essential reading, I'd say.

Many thanks to Random House/Bodley Head for an ARC via NetGalley.

[Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Published today 5/11/2020

“this book is primarily a history of how white Britons have thought, written, and acted about slavery. To that end, it is worth remembering that just as slavery was always something done to people, it was also something done by people – and almost always, in the British case, by educated white men. It follows that this book, which narrates and seeks to explain that history of exploitation, necessarily focuses on those historical figures. For the past two hundred years, the authors of Britain’s ‘national story’ and the smiths of British ‘national values’ have placed opposition to slavery at the core of their constructions. I have never been persuaded. As this book will show, the British ‘nation’ was in fact deeply implicated in and violently supportive of colonial slavery. If this book achieves anything, I hope it encourages readers to interrogate the myths of British history, to question Britain’s troubling role in the shaping of the modern world, and to think about what should happen next. Perhaps most relevantly, this book poses the question: Should criminals ever celebrate the end of their own criminality?”

This book is an examination of the 25 year or so 19th century debate over whether, when and how to abolish colonial slave holding (slave trading have being abolished in 1807, the Slavery Abolition Act did not take place until 1833).

The book examines the better known figures of the anti-slavery campaign, but its key distinction is its equal treatment of the many influential establishment figures who populated the pro-slavery campaign, including: the Caribbean countries themselves, their terrible practices, their fear of slave revolts both real and imagined and their blatant travesties of justice in suppressing them, their relentless persecution of non-conformist ministers, the inspiration they took from the US declaration of independence and their resistance to British interference; the British based “West Indies Interest” – partly representatives of the colonial interest but also representing the many parties in Britain with financial interest, both direct and indirect, in slavery; those who simply regarded Africans as at best an inferior form of humanity and so in their prejudices tried framed their opposition to abolition on spurious/ignorant religious or scientific grounds; conservatives who simply resisted any attempt at change as being too risky and risking revolution home and abroad; and (perhaps most shockingly to me) many of the political radicals in Britain who saw the anti-slavery campaign as at best a distraction from campaigning for poverty relief and reform at home and at worst were taken in by the propaganda of the interest about the conditions endured by slaves when compared to say factory workers.

The book’s treatment can at times feel lengthy and the changing cast of characters confusing (as the fortunes of the two campaigns oscillate – sometimes with events in the West Indies, sometimes with other political developments: both the 1832 Reform Act and the issue of Catholic emancipation interact in complex ways with the slavery question); but the author does helpfully signpost where he is going at the start and end of chapters.

As the book progresses the author demonstrates comprehensively that:

“the Abolition Act was neither the inevitable bequest of sweeping anti-slavery sentiment and the triumphant march of British ‘justice’, nor was it a simple coda to the better-known campaign against the slave trade. In reality, the passage of the Act had relied upon several factors: the political collapse of the Tories which led to Reform and the return of a sympathetic House of Commons; the persistent pressure applied by the Anti-Slavery and Agency societies; and the violent slave resistance that finally convinced the British public of the immoral, unsustainable nature of slavery. Until those factors combined in the early 1830s, defending slavery was a tenable, popular position for British conservatives, imperialists, economists, and more besides. Until 1833, slavery had been an essential part of British national life, as much as the Church of England, the monarchy, or the liberties granted by the Glorious Revolution. When we remember it otherwise, we promulgate a self-serving and misleading version of British history.”

And that

the British ‘remember’ that Parliament abolished slavery, but not that Parliament had spent two hundred years encouraging and protecting slavery in the first place; they remember the selflessness of white abolitionists, but not the suffering – let alone the loves, lives, hopes, and dreams – of the enslaved and the sacrifices that they made in order to undermine the institution of slavery

An epilogue to the book examines the discussions among Caribbean nations for reparatory justice from Britain for the long lasting impacts of slavery and, perhaps more powerfully, the way in which the legacy of slavery is still deeply embedded in so many aspects of modern Britain, with so many central figures (historians, theologians, politicians, business dynasty founders, writers, journalists) implicated in its defence (or in white washing its history) and so many Universities, businesses, financial firms, infrastructure, buildings, country estates funded not just by slave fortunes (but by the unprecedented “compensation” that the government paid to colonial slaveholders – not to slaves – after emancipation).

Overall this is a very timely book – the author himself admits that events of 2020 have overtaken his epilogue as he was writing it – and one I would definitely recommend as an essential part of any attempt to understand British history.

My thanks to Random House UK, Vintage for an ARC via NetGalley.

[Helen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I received a free copy of this book from Netgalley in exchange for an honest review – thanks so much to Netgalley for sending this to me!

One of my goals for 2020, which I hope to carry on into the new year, has been to educate myself and expand my awareness by reading more non-fiction. I’m extremely grateful to Netgalley for giving me the chance to do that – this book was well outside my comfort zone, and I was really surprised to get approved for an ARC, but so thankful that I did.

The Interest is a meticulously researched account of the long road to abolition that ruthlessly exposes the underbelly of modern-day Britain and the cruelty of the slave trade it was built on. It follows the long, bloody fight of the abolitionist movement, beginning with a plantation rebellion in Demerera in 1823 and concluding with the final dissolution of slavery in 1838, with a final sombering afterword that reflects on the ongoing impact of slavery on modern-day England, and the bloody history that the majority of Brits seem keen to forget.

I was never a keen historian in school, but I do remember that we learned very little about the abolition. Other than the self-congratulatory statement (which I now know to be untrue) that Britain paved the way for abolition, and a very brief outline of the horrors faced by enslaved people, it wasn’t really discussed in any great detail. This book seeks to rectify that with an extremely in-depth examination of everyone involved on the long road to abolition, including the intense opposition that was faced by anti-slavery advocates. It also explores exactly why people were – and still are – so keen to bury their heads in the sand, prioritising their own interests and patriotic pride over the lives of the people who were enslaved.

I was truly impressed at what a detailed and deep dive this book took into the various riots, government meetings, bills and acts that were implemented over the years. For the most part it chooses to focus on the political, social and economic ramifications of the slave trade rather than lingering on descriptions of the atrocities committed in its name, though these are absolutely not brushed under the rug and there is some limited exploration of it. However, the aim of this book was mostly to highlight the willingness of the British people to look the other way, and the tireless efforts of those who refused to do so.

I will admit that at times I was overwhelmed by the sheer number of people who were involved in the campaign, either as an ally or an opposer; there were poets, politicians, writers, missionaries and more, and while the odd name was familiar, I hadn’t heard of most of them. At some points they began to blur together, meaning that I found certain threads a bit difficult to follow. While the details themselves could be a little hard to keep track of, however, the book continues steadily, and in a way it does a great way of showing that the movement really did go in fits and starts, tiny crumbs of progress that slowly built into a roar that couldn’t be ignored. And it wasn’t just the politicians who were involved; as the movement picked up speed, ordinary Brits joined the campaign, some choosing to boycott sugar and other products that had come from plantations, while others shared pamphlets or posters, sewed together petitions that were too large to fit on one sheet of paper, and promoted anti-slavery literature to help spread the word.

I think one of the most illuminating parts of this book was its epilogue, in which the author quickly highlights some harrowing truths about how pervasive slavery has been in British history and culture. He lists reams of well-known British organisations and businesses (banks, insurance companies, universities etc) that were originally funded with the ‘reparations’ paid to former slave owners – reparations paid with a loan which was only paid off in 2015, meaning that modern day Brits, including the descendants of enslaved people, were almost certainly helping to pay the ‘debt’ incurred when their ancestors were freed. He also touches very briefly on the Black Lives Matter movement and the destruction of monuments to prominent slave owners in British history, and the realisation that these statues represent not a sobering reminder of Britain’s failures, but a continuing unwillingness to acknowledge them. He concludes with a short list of ways that we can continue to try and make amends for our country’s horrible, bloody past – by apologising, for a start. Which unfortunately much of the country seems unwilling to do.

This book forced me to confront how little I actually knew about the history of the slave trade – it was a little like flipping over a rock that looks clean on the outside, but underneath there are all these little bugs and worms crawling around underneath. It also provides an illuminating and honestly, somewhat scary insight into how it was that so many people could look the other way, and how that’s been allowed to continue to this day. In many ways, it’s the same old story: because most of the evil happened overseas, out of the public eye, people were easily able to ignore it and focus instead on the financial benefits they reaped from exploiting innocent people. It’s a disturbing and shameful reality that modern-day Britain cannot escape the echoes of the colonialism it inflicted – and continues to inflict – on the rest of the world. The Interest was a heavy and often difficult read, but I’m glad that I read it, and that I now have a better understanding of exactly how the abolition came to pass. It shouldn’t be seen as something to be proud of, but as the bare minimum we should have done, and I hope this book will spread further awareness of this history that my country seems so keen to brush under the rug.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Despite being a history teacher, the story of late Georgian/early Victoria parliamentary history is certainly not one I could claim to be intimately familiar with. Yes, I teach the Transatlantic slave trade to Year 8 students but the details regarding the abolition of slavery itself is not covered in any depth- which is why this book was so engrossing, shocking and essential.
Suffice to say, many contemporary Britons, usually regarded with adulation, do not come out of this story smelling of roses! The Duke of Wellington, Thomas Thackeray and the sainted John Henry Newman are just three of many gleeful apologists for slavery who feature in Michael Taylor's book.
What I found particularly impressive about it is that Taylor was able to boil down the myriad causes of eventual emancipation to four simple complementary factors, all of which occurred virtually concurrently in the late 1820s/ early 1830s. However, no spoilers here! You'll just have to read the book, if only to discover how mean-spirited the act abolishing slavery in the British Empire actually was!
Finally, there is a fine epilogue in which the long lasting legacy of this shameful period of British history is illustrated and brought right up to date with the 'Rhodes must fall ' campaign, Black lives matter and the bringing down of the Edward Colston statue in Bristol in June 2020.
Recommended!

[Chelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was engaging and horrifying and made me so angry on multiple occasions. I learned a lot about both the past and the present. Necessary reading. I listened to the audio and the narrator was excellent.

[Paul Snelling · Rating 5 out of 5]

An important book. It’s Michael Taylor’s Cambridge PhD thesis rewritten, but don’t be put off by that, it’s engagingly written and the pages turn easily enough. He sets out in clear detail how British establishment prevaricated, resisted and delayed setting slaves free in the 30 years after the abolition of the slave trade in 1807. It’s a humbling tale of almost unspeakable brutality, difficult to comprehend from the vantage point of contemporary Britain. It’s really not that long ago. Certainty recent enough that many in power today continue to enjoy the benefits paid for in slaves’ blood.
Taylor’s clear sighted prose makes it easy to apply these appalling lessons of history to modern life, The establishment and ruling elite gave ground only where they had to, dragged kicking and screaming to acquiesce to abolition made possible by the Reform Act – also resisted to the last. Slaveholders, and not their victims, were compensated handsomely and allowed to continue to oppress the now ‘free’ men in ways familiar to many other peoples in the glorious British Empire. The debt at 40% of GDP the biggest single call on the exchequer until the financial crash of 2008 was only fully paid off in 2015.
From this reluctant ‘emancipation’ we somehow get to the popular narrative that this was something be proud off – an altruistic act that led the world. The tale is told by those benefitting from the telling. As much as anyone Churchill knew that , which is why modern telling of his contributions skate quickly over participation in anything other than the glorious victory in 1945, in which, again, ‘Britain led the world.’ Taylor is clear about this mythology – and if anyone doubts its contemporary importance – consider how it has played out in recent decisions that have relied in part on accounts of British exceptionalism and the notion that we shone a moral light across the world.
In a very thoughtful epilogue, Taylor addresses the issue of reparations. He hopes that the book will go some way to addressing the problem of mythology: “it is only by white Britons understanding the systemic oppression and brutality with which Britain treated Africa and the Caribbean that white Britons can understand how black Britons may not feel ‘at home’ today. I am not immune from this criticism: I must learn more, I must do better.” I see some progress, but I also see powerful elites relinquishing their advantage begrudgingly if at all; enslavement gave way to oppressions, and thence to discrimination which lives on. It may be challenged if more people learn more, and wide readership of this excellent book may help.

[Lona Manning · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you're looking for a comprehensive history of the campaign to abolish the slave trade and slave ownership in Britain's Empire, this book would be a good choice. An astounding amount of research has gone into it; Michael Taylor is a good writer with an eye for the apt quote. He explains the arguments--personal, pragmatic, economic, religious, and political--raised by the influential power brokers who opposed the abolition campaign. Taylor also gives us frequent and vociferous condemnations of slavery. I presume this is not because he feels we, his readers, must be convinced that slavery is bad, but rather to forestall anyone who thinks that if he explains the plantation-owners' point of view, he is somehow defending them.
We also have graphic detail of the misery of life on a sugar plantation, where the planters protested that (a) life in the West Indies was delightful, better than living in Africa, and (b) enslaved Africans were naturally so indolent and the work so hot and miserable that there was no alternative but to use the lash.
Taylor shows how the economic booms and busts of the early 19th century affected the progress of the campaign to free the slaves, and of course it mattered who was in power in Parliament as well. Few abolitionists thought that immediate and total emancipation was likely, but some readers might be surprised to learn that few of them thought it was feasible, either, or thought that Blacks could or should become the social equals of their former captors. Rest assured that if anyone on the abolition side has feet of clay, Taylor points it out. Taylor also names and shames the politicians who had opposed abolition but then flipped and called it a great moral achievement once it was accomplished.
I really did appreciate all the detail and nuance that Taylor brings to this history. However, as others have mentioned, it's a lot to read and I skimmed the latter part of the book because I was more interested in what was going on during Jane Austen's time, or during the period when her brother Henry attended an abolition convention. In addition to learning about all the principal players in the debate, we have lots of detail about the ground-level campaign, what journalists and cartoonists had to say, as well as the testimony of that handful of emancipated Blacks who were able to tell their own story. I also checked out some of Taylor's primary sources. This book is a rich resource for finding the key documents, publications, and even novels of the period.
The Interest is adapted from Taylor's PhD thesis. The argument of his thesis, insofar as there is one, is that Britain does not deserve to congratulate itself for having abolished slavery and fighting the slave trade on the high seas; that rather, we all should learn more about the role slavery paid in Empire, we should knock anyone who opposed the abolitionists (like the Duke of Wellington) off their pedestals, and we should criticize the abolitionists for not doing or thinking what we would have done and thought if we'd been in their shoes. We should name the recipients of the payout monies and also publicize the names of their descendants. There ought also to be frank dialogue about reparations.
So far as I can observe, Taylor's point of view is well on the ascendant.

[Connor O'Leary · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating and pertinent account of how the powerful West India Interest resisted the emancipation of over 700,000 slaves for 25 years following the abolition of the slave trade..before £350 bn in compensation was handed to the slave holders, not the enslaved..

[Finton · Rating 5 out of 5]

A necessary contribution to the conversation, rightly combatting British self-congratulation. The chronological approach was a bit repetitive, but easy to follow. Its explicit focus is on the British people resisting abolition, but the voice of enslaved people in the story was not given enough space.

[Sennen Rose · Rating 4 out of 5]

Feel a bit weird giving this a rating but there we go. This popped off! Really, really interesting and detailed. How depressing that everything is the same forever. I’m going to lend this to my dad!

[Kira · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic.

[Conor Tannam · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best books I have read this year. I don't often read tomes like this but I should read more historical tracts. It was a tough read at times but am very glad that I did so.

[Ish Ablewhite · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing. The conditions of the working poor in England were so bad many felt slaves were better off!!!
Shocking book. Blows holes on many preconceptions.

[mylogicisfuzzy · Rating 5 out of 5]

A few days ago, newspapers reported that the British parliamentary art collection has over 200 artworks with links to slave trade, among them many depicting Sir Robert Peel and William Gladstone. What the papers reported however, is that these two former prime ministers’ families had links with slavery but not that both men also personally opposed abolition. Their views were not unique and were shared by many politicians, financiers, landowners, religious, cultural and other figures of the time, as Michael Taylor’s book shows. And yes, nearly two hundred years have passed but these attitudes still haven’t been properly acknowledged and reckoned with as some of the reactions to this summer’s toppling of the statues have shown.

In this important and timely book, Taylor argues that there is much amiss with self-congratulatory view of history in Britain, i.e. that Britain led the way in abolishing the slave trade in 1807 because this obfuscates the fact that the abolition of slavery itself did not follow for over a quarter of the century and, when emancipation finally took place, in 1834, former slaves were forced into coerced labour as ‘apprentices’ for a further period of 4 years. Furthermore, while The Interest details the activities and struggles of the anti-slavery campaigners against the powerful West India interest, it also argues that two decades of campaigning might have almost been in vain if not for the more favourable political climate following the Reform Act in 1832.

As well as the leaders of the abolition movement, Taylor also highlights activities of missionaries and women such as Elizabeth Heyrick who in the 1820s revived the campaign to boycott West Indian sugar in her native Leicester (I remember reading elsewhere than her campaign was very successful, about a quarter of Leicester’s population stopped buying it), Anne Knight and Maria Tothill who organised an extensive petition that led to 187,000 signatures presented to the parliament (and needed 4 MPs to carry it). The narratives of Olaudah Equiano, Mary Prince and Ottobah Cugoano are perhaps well known but James Williams, Jamaican apprentice whose 1834 narrative of ‘post-emancipation nightmare’ helped turned the tide against the apprenticeship that followed emancipation is less so. And then there is the West Indian interest of the title and those who supported it including the famous cartoonist George Cruikshank or, supported slavery itself such as the recently beatified Cardinal John Henry Newman.

The Interest is a heavy read. Having studied slave trade and slavery before (including reading extracts from Thomas Thistlewood’s diaries), at times I still found the book or, rather the attitudes, actions and deeply held beliefs of such a large portion of the establishment shocking and hard to stomach. This itself makes it an essential book. Highly recommended.

My thanks to Bodley Head, Random House UK, Vintage and Netgalley for the opportunity to read The Interest and to Michael Taylor for writing it.

[Amelia · Rating 5 out of 5]

For starters - this is a challenging read. While its very accessible in its writing, it requires concentration. I needed to be away from distractions and allow myself a good half hour or more at a time to read, or I just found it too hard to keep track of.

I think the most damning section is the Epilogue. While there were jaw dropping moments scattered throughout the book, as someone who is not British (and so therefore many of the thousands of characters mentioned are people I'm only vaguely aware of rather than folk heroes of history), looking at what happened AFTER they finally abolished slavery, a point where the story normally ends, is instructional.

This book taught me that while the slave TRADE was outlawed for the British in 1807, slave emancipation wasn't considered until the 1820's, and wasn't completed until nearly 1840. That the Caribbean countries are dealing with an extensive legacy of poverty, ill health, and illiteracy left to them by the awfulness of their "slavery in all but name" century after the emancipation. That Britain was FAR from the first country to outlaw owning slaves.
It also captured why I have been so uncomfortable with the habit of British leaders to refuse to apologise for the actions of their ancestors. Combine this with Shasi Tharoor's Inglorious Empire: What the British Did to India, and wow, British Exceptionalism is filthy.

Some jaw dropping moments:
"Governments today cannot take responsibility for what happened over 200 years ago" (Foreign Office Statement, 2014)
"Because it had taken so long to pay off the debt [the then 20million pounds given to slaveholders to pay them for releasing their property], millions of 'living British Citizens helped pay to end the slave trade" (HM Treasury, 2018)

Say WHAT?!? This is money that made a lot of wealthy people even more wealthy, and living descendants of Carribbean slaves, who may have come over as part of the Windrush generation (who at the time were being told that maybe they should go home as they were overstayers since they had no documentation) were still paying off the debt the government took in 1833 to pay for their ancestors emancipation?!? And people wonder why Black Britons don't feel at home? Brit(ish): On Race, Identity and Belonging

Add to this the extensive list of companies and families whose wealth can be traced back to this payment, and its grim reading.

[Kevin Cannon (Monty's Book Reviews) · Rating 5 out of 5]

A meticulously researched look at the shocking story of the West Indian & British government self-interest that held up the process of emancipation for the slaves in the British colonies of the caribbean.

This is a fascinating insight into the history of abolition and despite the passage of nearly two hundred years this book left me angry and at times almost in tears of frustration as the British government and the West Indian 'Interest' resisted at every turn the freeing of the slaves.

Like most people in Britain I was aware of the slave trade but had no idea of the lengths that the interested parties went to to avoid the anti-slavery campaign coming to fruition.

This is a well written history that charts both the twists and turns of the politics at home as well as the stories of ill treatment and rebellion abroad.

This book fills in many gaps in my education that were ignored when at school in the 1970's and puts a number of English 'heroes' reputations in a new light.

A great read that covers a topic that is now at the forefront of everyone's minds with the Black Lives Matter campaign this summer

If you think you understand about the trials and tribulations of the abolitionists in the 19th century then I suggest you give this a try.

[Mike Langan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Superb book, supported by extensive research with unbiased analysis. This book is a must read if you want to understand how and why slavery was supported by the West India Interest (involving hundreds of MPs, peers, civil servants, business men, financiers, landowners, clergymen, intellectuals, journalists, publishers, soldiers, sailors and judges) for more than two hundred years and for almost thirty years after the Slave Trade Act 1807 became law.

Michael Taylor provides an unbiased narrative regarding why and how the above people, 'their money, their ideas and their politics bequeathed the true and terrible legacies of British slavery, and those are the shameful legacies with which Britain and its former colonies must reckon even now'.

Recommended reading.

[Christopher McKeon · Rating 5 out of 5]

A timely look at Britain’s role in perpetuating the slave trade and, after 1807, slavery itself. The Interest looks at a period of history many in this country would rather forget happened, preferring to focus instead on the role played by British politicians in ending slavery and the slave trade.
But, of course, they were not unopposed. The powerful West India Interest, backed by senior politicians and parts of the press, did everything they could to prevent abolition.
If Britain wishes to claim national glory for abolition, it must also own the other side of the coin, expertly and engagingly described in this book.

[Andy Regan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Impressive narrative of the period between the abolition of slavery in the UK and in the Empire during the 1830s. The book is at its best placing detailed accounts of the historical developments in the context of society at the time - and now. Lack of sympathy for the abolitionist cause from some radicals, whilst espousing social overhaul domestically, provides an uncomfortable juxtaposition.

[David Campton · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a challenging read on a couple of levels. First because if clearly finds its origins in a detailed doctoral thesis and perhaps the author might have been given a bit more editorial help to turn his academic research into a more compelling read. For that reason I might only have given it 3/5 stars until the final chapter, which might well have been published with little amendment as a free standing essay in the light of the toppling of the Colston statue in Bristol and the British BLM protests which conservatives (small c) decried as "rewriting/cancelling history" and "bandwagon-jumping" with a movement that has nothing to do with a nation that prides itself on the abolition of the slave trade and slavery itself. Because the second way this is a challenging read is that it explodes much of that conservative narrative as well as many liberal myths, including noting that Britain was comparatively late to the abolition "party" when you consider the Northern States of the US as separate entities, and the post imperial Spanish States of Soith America, and pre-Napoleonic revolutionary France. Focusing on the abolition of slavery rather than the earlier abolition of the slave trade it notes the political and financial "Interest" that opposed this, including not only a "handful of planters and merchants" but "hundreds of MPs, peers, civil servants, businessmen, financiers, landowners, clergymen, intellectuals, journalists, publishers, soldiers, sailors and judges" underpinned by some twisted enlightenment thinking regarding progress" and Biblically based theologies that supported the establishment. Yes some of the abolitionists were motivated by their faith, with Methodists, Baptists and Quakers being regularly namechecked here (though I do wonder whether they were more regularly noted because of the establishment's antipathy to such "dissenting" sects) but it is notable that there were prominent evangelical Anglicans and Presbyterians among the pro-slavery, or should that be anti-abolition camp. I wonder whether ther may be a similar reckoning in future centuries when it comes to issues of LGBT equality? Along the way I learned a lot about the functioning of early 19th century British democracy (and I thought I already knew more than most), but also of the support of slavery by some key historic figures including Wellington (unsurprising given his conservatism on so many issues), Nelson, Charles Kingsley, (Saint) John Henry Newman, Elizabeth Barrett Browning. But more shocking was the discovery of the basic racism of abolitionists including Wilberforce and Thomas Babington Macaulay. I already knew of the only recent paying out of the Emancipation debt, ironically meaning that some of those that the Home Office were deporting in the so-called "Windrush Scandal" had actually been contributing through taxation to the historic payment of their ancestors' "owners". The inequity of recompensing the owners and not the enslaved obviously strikes us as bizarre, but politics are not always high-minded exercises, but are often merely functions of what is possible given economic factors when balanced by what seems obligatory in the face of popular opinion. Both the previous year's Reform Act and the Abolition of Slavery were a function of a particular mindset in Britain at a particular time (as were the post-WW2 social advances of the Labour government and the recent changes re LGBT equality and abortion reform in Ireland) and this book charts the hard work that led to that point. But as the closing chapter points out it doesn't eradicate what went before or mean that everything thereafter was/is wonderful. I was not surprised to learn of the debt that so many aspects of modern Britain owes to the historic slave-owning sugar industry, and teaching future generations about that is not an exercise in self-loathing as many conservatives would have it. I suspect that the two main concerns of some of them are that a) admitting the truth of the past exposes present and future generations to some sort of financial reparations (although the final chapter points out that the reparations currently called for fall well short of what might have been legitimately demanded), or b) their attitudes to people "not like us" have not really changed much in 200 years.

[Tutankhamun18 · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book narrates the years between 1807 when Britain abolished the Slave trade until 1838 when Britain finally emancipated the slaves. It investigates the modern question- what took so long? The political parties of the day are explained and political and economic situations explained that would not allow the total emancipation of slaves - essentially for fear of economic ruin- and finally the international and national changes that allowed the emancipation to happen. Particularly we following the Interest, chiefly aupported by the East India Company that refused to let go of its riches and the anti slavery lobby who slowly but with much resolve highlighted the truth, the horror and the inhumanity of slavery until it could no longer be ignored. Yet this is not a tale of wonderful and moral emanicpation, but rather of circumstances that were finally favourable to the motally right thing to do. Personally I think this has political (not comparing it otherwise) comparatives to the current climate change debate; where nations are dragging their heals on action for fear of economic losses and at the expense of poor, vulnerable communities who risk higher exposure to natural disasters and loss of livelihoods. The time depicted in The Interest felt astoundingly modern and thus politically parallel events took place. The author was successfully able to describe the whole series of events in a very interesting and understandable manner despite the huge cast of involved actors. I think this topic is incredibly important to know about and also that the political parallels to today are astounding and it is my hope that we can learn from the past. Essential reading for any British person id say. Know your legacy. The only way that the emancipation of slaves could go through parliment successfully was paying the slave holders 40% of the governments annual budget in compensation, a sum only paid back in 2015!

[Sean Currie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Most days I spend at least part of the day thinking about one particular question. Sometimes in the shower; sometimes over a beer with friends; sometimes as part of my job. That is, how can we bring about the change we need, when we are up against such a powerful monster. One way to answer this question is to look at historical examples of (to paraphrase Mashall Ganz) "when David beats Goliath".

As William MacAskill has argued in What We Owe the Future, there are few examples as stark as the abolition of slavery - a system which goes back at least as far as the first civilisations on earth, that was ideologically entrenched within the white supremacist culture of Western Europe, and which seemed economically suicidal for the most powerful countries to consider ending it.

By analysing the political dynamics of the British abolitionist movement and how they won against a British establishment that was vehemently pro-slavery, Michael Taylor helps us to zoom out of our current state of polycrisis and see how we may find our way out.

It's not an easy read. The descriptions of the conditions of slavery are gruesome, while the description of political dyamics are often boring. But, as the first account of the British abolition of slavery that gives a true picture of the protection and prolongation of slavery by the British establisment, it is well worth it or anyone who sees the need for change.

[Arran Douglas · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is such an important book. I think Taylor explains well why he thinks this book is needed very early on and that is to show that British superiority when it comes to abolition is false, naive, and hypocritical.

He shows the links with which many British institutions, from banks and insurance, to businesses and education centres, all have some funding from prominent slave owners. Clearly this has become a subject of interest again recently with the BLM movement, the tearing down of statues, and UCL's legacy of slavery project all shedding light on various aspects that are touched on in this book.

From a modern perspective looking back it is easy to suggest that the actions of abolitionists were righteous and that the politicians and journalists who opposed them were evil. However, reading this book shows that it is far more complex than that and that people of all classes and backgrounds were involved in the slave trade and slavery. It was never a forgone conclusion that the abolitionists would succeed and so this book shows the difficulties they faced in trying to do good, while also showing that they fell short of being the fighters for equality that we sometimes picture them as.

Personally I think everyone should read this, but then a history nerd would say that.

[Jason Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Though slave trading was abolished early in the nineteenth century, emancipation if existing slaves took much longer. This is the story of those who resisted it and why, alongside those who fought for it.

The reasons were many. Fear of economic lapse as depressions crossed Europe. Fear of low man power for wars with France. The issue being side lined by more home grown concerns such as Parliamentary reform, Irish home rule and Catholic emancipation. None of this us a moral excuse but it is context and nuance.

Not all the names we associate with the abolition of shave trade supported full emancipation. The High Anglican Church and the high Tories rallied for the status quo while low church evangelicals and religious dissenters, and the Whigs, ultimately fought for emancipation.

We needed a corrective to the smug response to BLM that we were always a libertarian nation and this book is it. Attempts at rebellion and passive resistance by slaves met with horrific and disproportionate reprisals with much exaggerated tales of slave violence peddled at home. Good stuff to know.

[Bob Cole · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very good. Many MPs were slave owners and fought to keep the slaves in chains.
The central message of the book is that rather than being proud of our government pushing emancipation through Parliament, we should know that it resisted the abolitionists for decades until a combination of factors made it happen.

The Reform Act, the chaos within the Tory party, and brutally repressed slave uprisings combined to make abolition possible.

No reasons to glory in our past. Better to read this book and understand what really happened.

Slaves were not compensated for the brutal conditions they suffered. Murder, rape, torture, were commonplace. The slave owners received massive compensation for their "loss" when slaves got their freedom.

No apology has ever been made by our government for the way we treated the Africans in the West Indies. That would be an important first step in reconciliation for these people.

[Gareth Evans · Rating 3 out of 5]

The established narrative of Britain’s achievement in abolishing slavery has rightly corrected in the last few years. ‘The Interest’ is an important book in that it examines the opposition to the anti-slavery movement and also looks at the attitudes of those in the movement itself. The book is well-motivated and, whilst I am no expert, seems to cover the period between the abolishment of slave-trading and the ending of slavery in appropriate detail.

If it’s a detailed history and important book, why only three stars? My view is that, given the wealth of material, the jaw-dropping horror of the conditions of slavery and the level of political intrigue, I was surprised that the book was not more engaging. I am experienced in reading quite dry history books, but I did feel that for all the excellence of the material was a little dull.

In summary, it’s really a good book on a hugely important subject, but the delivery doesn’t seem to live up to the material.

[Darcy · Rating 4 out of 5]

While I occasionally struggled tracking the numerous personalities discussed throughout this historic journey from abolition of the slave trade to the abolition of slavery itself—a 30 year, deeply troubling journey—Taylor’s work is a must read for any who seek to understand the complexity of the slave system and its ongoing impact on virtually every aspect of our current societies. Taylor points beyond the facade of white saviours coming to the rescue of slaves, and probes the hidden, disturbing realities that facilitated the ultimate demise of slavery. There is much we need to learn and engage if we are to truly learn from history—and reckon with its legacies. As Taylor explains, “This will not be flagrant revisionism or a national bout of self-loathing, instead, it will be a just and necessary corrective to centuries of self-congratulation” (309).

[Stephen Tubbs · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kobo Audiobook. Excellent narration from James MacCallum.

A shameful part of British history. You would like to think that those today who have inherited from slave owners read this book and seek some redemption for their forefathers by paying the compensation back (at today's rate).

[Ellen · Rating 5 out of 5]

A powerful book about how many people in the British establishment were working to keep slavery. It includes accounts of planters killing ministers of churches who were seeking to free people who were enslaved.