William Paley and the Abolition of the Slave Trade

The campaign for the abolition of the slave trade began in earnest in the 1780’s, reaching its ultimate triumph in the passage of the 1807 Slave Trade Act which would later be followed by the 1833 Slavery Abolition Act. Abolitionism took many different forms in late 18th century Britain. The focus of this essay will be the influence of William Paley on the abolitionist movement, with particular reference to his 1785 Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy, which expounded his system of ethics and served as a collation and contribution to the thinking of John Gay, Edmund Law and Abraham Tucker, in what would eventually be termed by historians, theological utilitarianism. Reference will also be made to Paley’s 1792 Speech Against the Slave Trade made in Carlisle. These two sources give us a direct insight into Paley’s thinking on the slave trade, its evils, and the arguments for its abolition. The secondary literature will be examined and analysed to demonstrate the influence which these works had upon abolitionism and to contextualise Paley among the wider abolitionist movement. There will be reference to the contribution of the Evangelicals and Quakers, as well as the Rational Dissenters, in their parliamentary and extra parliamentary activity. The historical context is crucial and the essay will include discussions of the American, French and Haitian Revolutions as key events which influenced the minds of abolitionists and anti-abolitionists alike. In addition to Paley’s explicit writing about the slave trade there is throughout the Principles an elucidation of his thinking on a range of subjects. As Paley said himself, ‘Political philosophy is properly speaking a continuation of moral philosophy’. His ethical thinking, which was closely tied to his conception of God, informed his political views and therefore it is worth exploring even those sections of the Principles which do not directly deal with the question of slavery. William Paley had a significant influence on abolitionist thinking in Britain in the late 18th century which this essay will demonstrate in reference to his works and to his reception, both positive and negative.

In Book 3, Part 2, Chapter 3 of the Principles Paley concerns himself with slavery. He outlines three causes for it; crime, captivity or debt. Paley argued that none of these conditions were met in the slave trade on the coast of Africa and that its continuation served to destroy families, deprive men of their liberties and contribute to cycles of war and destruction. Adding to the initial cruelty of enslavement was the journey across the Atlantic Ocean and the conditions which existed in North America, especially when slaves were subject to English masters who imposed ‘a dominion and system of laws, the most merciless and tyrannical that ever were tolerated upon the face of the earth.’ Paley refutes any argument from so called necessity, that slave labour is required instead of free labour due to the costs this would impose on the slavers. Parliament is condemned and its worthiness as an institution questioned since it has lent its power to the encouragement and protection of the slave trade. However, despite his criticisms Paley is careful to distinguish between immediate and gradual abolition, favouring the latter; ‘The truth is, the emancipation of slaves should be gradual, and be carried on by provisions of law, and under the protection of civil government’. Paley believed the alterative effects of Christianity were needed in order to correct men’s follies over time. The spread of Christianity would mean the eventual elimination of not only the slave trade but slavery itself. 

George Meadley, in one of the earliest biographies of Paley, considered him ‘one of the most important…writers…by whom the public mind had been interested in favour of the oppressed Africans, before the commencement of the great contest’. Meadley was echoing Thomas Clarkson, one of the most prominent abolitionists of the era, who credited Paley’s influence. In 1788, a year after the founding of the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, Paley wrote them a letter outlining his ideas as to how abolition could be achieved and offered his services in working towards this end. In April 1789, when discussion in the House of Commons on the Slave Trade was expected, Paley wrote a treatise which was widely circulated in the newspapers. Paley’s correspondence with the Society, the conferences he held with Clarkson and his public writings demonstrated his level of involvement and the influence he exercised. The extent of Paley’s influence is also corroborated by Niall O’Flaherty’s account in Utilitarianism in the Age of the Enlightenment: The Moral and Political Thought of William Paley. Paley’s name and works were cited in Parliament on a number of issues, Charles James Fox referred to Paley as a great authority on many subjects and a crucial inclusion by O’Flaherty, Paley’s views on slavery may have helped William Wilberforce to persuade the Prime Minister William Pitt to pursue abolition of the slave trade rather than a mere limitation on the traffic of slaves. This supports John Erhman’s vital contribution when he wrote on the influence upon William Pitt, ‘it may have been significant, for instance, that William Paley, that respected and popular Cambridge figure, had recently pronounced against the institution in a book which the Minister greatly admired’. That book was The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy.It is clear, therefore, that in civil society and in the halls of power, Paley’s works held force. His influence was such that even his critics lamented the extent of it, in 1796, over a decade after the publication of Principles. 

The Principles covers a variety of subjects and contains only one chapter on the topic of slavery itself. Yet a textual analysis is important in understanding the underlying ideas which determined Paley's opposition to the slave trade. His idea of utility was derived from his belief that God willed human happiness. This happiness consisted in living by a standard that was self imposed and self realised, meaning that only the individual could decide their own purpose. The rewards of heaven and hell were essential to understanding man’s action; moral virtue was the act of doing good for mankind in obedience to the will of God for the sake of everlasting happiness. This explains Paley’s rejection of Hume, as he believed that  precluding the reality of an afterlife and attempting to detach morality from religion undermined any sense of moral obligation or human duty. Despite this, it is interesting to note that both men rejected slavery, with Hume making the point that slavery was economically detrimental, contrary to the argument of many anti-abolitionists, as labour freely given would necessarily be more productive than slave labour as free men were more ambitious.

The evidence of God willing human happiness, which lay at the foundation of Paley’s theological utilitarianism, rested in contrivance. God had the power to make human beings miserable, or to be indifferent to the conditions of their existence, yet in the creation of human senses and the external world, evidence of benevolence is clear. This accorded with latitudinarian theology, which also emphasised God’s benevolence. Happiness human existed at a micro and macro level and the latter, when it exceeded aggregate human pain, represented aggregate human happiness. This is directly relevant to the topic at hand as Paley would have seen slavery as a diminishment in aggregate human happiness, which was contrary to God’s will. Robert Forbes’s insight is helpful. He argues that slavery proved contentious for the religious as it rendered the slave incapable of ‘discharging his solemn responsibilities to man and to God that could neither be revoked or delegated’. He went on, ‘Paley’s picture of the slave trade constituted a veritable catalogue of crimes and violations of natural right’. Slavery therefore violated natural right, and undermined the ability of the slave to undertake his responsibilities to God and to man which he would be able to do as a free man. This explains why Paley opposed the slave trade since it contravened what he believed was man’s purpose as well as God’s will for man. In arguing from a conception of God’s will Paley did not eliminate human agency, and his philosophy not only recognised but emphasised ‘the consequences of ideas and the results of human action’. Human conduct in the trafficking of slaves diminished human happiness which was both contrary to God and man’s will and therefore to be repudiated. 

The Principles did not emerge unscathed in its time. The literary critic and philosopher William Hazlitt declared it to be a ‘disgrace to the national character’, while William Wilberforce, bringing to bare his evangelicalism, denounced Paley’s idea of expediency as self serving and materialistic. Likewise, Thomas Gisborne of the Clapham Sect, also an evangelical, criticised Paley for putting the ‘dictates of expediency above the edicts of scripture’. Wilberforce offered a second criticism of the Principles;Paley had failed ‘to produce in us that true and just sense of the intensity of the malignity of sin’. This is pertinent for two reasons. Firstly, Paley, as a Latitudinarian, rejected the notion of original sin, which has its echoes in Wilberforce’s statement and was rooted in his evangelicalism. Therefore by Paley’s own standard of reasoning there had been no mistake or failure to but rather the omission of an idea held to be extremely important by Wilberforce. Secondly, even if Paley’s rhetoric is not one of sin he did believe in heaven and hell and that the institution of slavery was, ‘the most merciless and tyrannical that ever were tolerated upon the face of the earth.’ The idea of sin was not absent in his work but the emphasis was different from Wilberforce’s. Speaking of the concept of expediency and utility, Paley declared that it was the ‘utility of any moral rule alone, which constitutes the obligation of it’ and that ‘whatever is expedient is right’, statements which were clearly misunderstood, by Wilberforce and others. As D.L Mathieu explains, by expediency Paley did not mean that which was convenient or easy but the moral suitability of an action or its ‘utility’ as adapted to specific situations. Paley’s Latitudinarianism explains the criticisms made of him; his philosophy was in many ways anthropocentric and more grounded, relatively speaking, than the beliefs of Catholicism, Calvinism and of the High Church. This is not to support Leslie Stephens’ notion that Paley’s philosophy was an essentially secular world view masquerading as theological. As noted religion and God were integral to Paley’s view of ethics, informing his opposition to the slave trade and his ideas on utilitarianism.

The depth of religious conviction held by Paley was demonstrated by his belief that history was unfolding according to a divinely ordained plan, and thus he interpreted a pivotal event such as the American Revolution as part of this plan to hasten the end of slavery. God played a role, albeit an unspecified one, in human affairs. Theology, ethics and history, therefore, were intertwined. Christopher Brown argues that the loss of the American colonies had a widespread effect on thinking in the late 18th century as questions arose pertaining to slavery, liberty and the Empire. Anthony Page, in an invaluable account of Rational Dissenters and the Abolitionist movement, cites Paley as being one of the heterodox Anglicans who ‘helped stimulate anti-slavery sentiment in the 1780’s’. This is a useful inclusion as it reinforces the argument that Paley was influential in stimulating the abolitionist movement, both in thought and deed. 

The final decade of the 18th century marked a reactionary period in British political history. Following the Revolution in France in 1789 and the onset of the Revolutionary Wars a great fear existed among elites and intellectuals that political radicalism, best represented by Republican France, would spread to Britain. One example of this was the shift in some quarters. In the 1780’s The Society for Constitutional Information spearheaded a campaign for parliamentary reform, composed as it was, of upper class men. By the 1790’s the Sheffield Constitutional Society lowered its membership fees and admitted mechanics, tradesmen and craftsmen. William Wilberforce understood the growing reactionary climate and warned Thomas Clarkson, who supported the French Revolution, to stop speaking of it positively. He also worried that the boycott of West Indian sugar, which had started in the summer of 1791, would incite opposition. This is especially important given James Walvin’s point that a strong link existed between abolitionism and extra parliamentary activism, an activism which was increasingly considered seditious. Paley’s views on the Revolution shifted with time but early on, in his Speech on the Slave Trade, given in Carlisle in February 1792, he made an important connection between the French and Haitian Revolutions (the western half of the Island then known as Saint Domingue). The slaves of Haiti would not stand by as the revolutionaries of France declared themselves free and promulgated the rights of man. Ideas travelled. And it was this fact that engendered the very fear which existed in the minds of many in Britain. Paley nonetheless elected to not only give his speech but also to draw up series of resolutions that formed the basis for a petition which was signed and presented to the House of Commons on the 27th February 1792. For Paley, the evils of slavery did not only reside in the trade but in the destruction it fostered. ‘The unhappy Africans will always have an incitement to mutual wars, and the vanquished will be made captives and sold to the slave merchant’. Britain’s complicity in this also meant that the moral and civil improvement of Africans by way of Christianity was undermined. Finally, Paley argues that resource rich Africa, endowed with rich soil, cotton and sugar cane, could trade freely with Europe if given the chance and this would be to the advantage of everyone. The slave trade therefore served to destroy the potential for moral, cultural and economic development, hence its evil. Paley’s speech was effective in refuting several anti-abolitionist arguments, including the point that slavery had existed long before the Europeans arrived in Africa and that if Britain ceased trading then other nations would take her place. Paley rejected this line of reasoning, ‘what other nations may, or may not do, should have no weight with the inhabitants of Britain; the slave trade has been clearly proved to be incompatible with the natural rights of man, contrary to the principles of religion and morality, founded in extreme injustice and the cause of many cruelties’. The speech refuted anti-abolitionist arguments, served to reinforce Paley’s commitment to abolition and demonstrated the audience he could command, during a time of declining interest in abolitionism amongst the backdrop of revolution and war. 

Providentialism was a significant component of abolitionist thinking throughout the mid and late 18th century. John Coffey’s excellent account of the period provides an insight into the ubiquitous reference to damnation, guilt, God’s wrath, fear and atonement. All Christian denominations involved in the abolitionist cause invoked the idea of providence in parliamentary speeches, poetry and newspaper articles. Boyd Hilton argues the case that William Wilberforce was motivated not by humanitarianism, but by providentialism. This built upon the argument put forward by Roger Anstey that the Evangelicals were driven by an, ‘overwhelming conviction that Providence regulates the affairs of men and in so doing chastises errant nations’. Joseph Priestly, a notable Rational Dissenter, stressed that the doctrine of providential judgment was held by all Christians, regardless of their denomination. Paley fits into this narrative, albeit in a slightly different fashion. He believed in the unfolding of history according to a divine plan, though it was one of benevolence rather than of damnation. Gradualism was key for Paley, and ‘written into the fabric of theological utilitarianism’. Paley counted amongst those thinkers who sought to end the slave trade for its own sake, seeing it, as mentioned earlier, as a contravention of God’s will and contrary to human happiness. Anthony Page argues that the Evangelicals saw abolition as a means of inciting a religious revival in Britain, while the Quakers believed the cause would revitalise their denomination. Although abolition was important to some Rational Dissenters, many did not see it as a frontline issue. Among the wider abolitionist movement, only Thomas Clarkson and Olaudah Equiano focused on slavery as their main priority. Paley counts among these men and his influence and contribution was undoubtedly important.  

There were, however, limitations to the extent of Paley’s influence. His Carlisle Speech referenced the events in St Domingue as inspired by the ideas of the French Revolution and made an important point about man’s natural instinct for liberty. Yet, it was this very fact which terrified the British elite and drove sentiment against abolition. ‘Opinion within the Government, as at Court and outside, had been hardening against immediate abolition’, John Erhman writes in his account. The ‘Black Terror’, as it came to be known, ‘had a great effect’, and combined with the ascendency of Jacobinism in France, worsened the situation. Speaking of the news of the uprising in St Domingue, William Wilberforce wrote, ‘People here are all panic-struck’. While the slave rebellion of 1791 in St Domingue represented practical progress towards abolition it was nonetheless among one of the events which politically paralysed abolitionism in Britain. Amongst this climate, none of the well known and well made arguments against the slave trade, even those of William Paley, respected as he was, would make a difference. Erhman’s account shows that by April 1792, ‘There was no longer any real likelihood of the slave trade being abolished at once’.

Another limitation in the case against the slave trade was the absence of Scripturally mandated arguments. In fact, those citing Scripture were typically on the other side. Paley found this important enough to address in the Principles. He argued that men could not expect to find in the Scriptures specific moral instructions on every matter, and that they served instead as general rules expounding on the virtues of justice, benevolence and purity. Paley also added that since slavery was part of the civil constitutions of many countries when Christianity first emerged, it was a matter of political tact for the religion not to be seen as subversive. Although Paley effectively put forward the abolitionist case in the Principles and in his Carlisle Speech, his inability to invoke Scripture in order to justify his arguments served as a limitation for a Christian advocate of abolitionism. This is not to argue that his case was a secular one but simply that he failed to adequately refute the arguments of the anti-abolitionists who cited Scripture.

William Paley elucidated his arguments against the slave trade in his Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy published in 1785 and in his Carlisle Speech given in 1792. In them are some of the clearest and best written arguments made in support of abolition and in refutation of the anti-abolitionist argument. The essay outlines the influence Paley exerted with other abolitionists, the general public and those in power, a unique combination possessed only by a rare few. Contained within his thought was the moral and philosophical case, driven mostly by his religious ideas, which indirectly made the case for the abolition of the slave trade. Despite the decade of reaction which was inaugurated by events such as the French and Haitian Revolutions, Paley did not limit or withdraw his arguments. In many ways it was the original revolution of the 18th century, that of the British colonists in North America, which stimulated renewed discussions of slavery, liberty and empire. Many partook in the unfolding scenery of abolitionism, including the Evangelicals, the Quakers and the Rational Dissenters. The ultimate purpose of the essay was to make a case for the inclusion of William Paley into the pantheon of those who contributed to the abolitionist cause.