AP

In 1786 Edmund Burke, the renowned orator and politician, was sure that the abolition of the slave trade was a fantasy – that it stood no hope of being accomplished. We might find this surprising, and think it would be obvious that something as horrendous as the capturing and selling of people should be abolished. Thus, it is difficult for us to understand just how impossible the abolition of the slave trade looked.

Although he was certainly not the only one against the Slave Trade, William Wilberforce has rightly taken primary place as the man who achieved the impossible. But how did Wilberforce achieve the impossible in a world that looked down on his faith and what he was trying to achieve?

Early Life

Born in Kingston upon Hull on 24th August 1759, Wilberforce was a physically weak child who was often sick. His father died when he was 8, and he was sent to London to live with his aunt Hannah and uncle William, who were evangelical Christians influenced by George Whitefield. Young William was impressed by the faith of his uncle and aunt, and also that of John Newton whom he met. However, Wilberforce’s mother feared this evangelical influence on him and brought him home.

At 17 Wilberforce was sent to Cambridge University and following the deaths of his grandfather in 1776 and his childless uncle William in 1777, he became an extremely wealthy man. As a result, he spent most of his time and money enjoying himself and not studying. His tutor actually encouraged him not to study. He would regret this lost time, and all his life he struggled with concentration.

Entering Politics

At university he met William Pitt, son the Prime Minister of the same name. They would watch parliament together, and in 1780 Wilberforce decided to become the Member of Parliament for Hull. In 1784 he would become the Member for Yorkshire, a much larger and more important electorate.

He spent his first few years as a MP advancing himself politically, though he remained independent in his voting. He could have pushed himself into the highest levels of the parliament if the most dramatic event in his life had not occurred.

Conversion

In 1784, during the parliamentary break, Wilberforce decided to go to France with his mother and sister, but he wanted to bring someone with whom he could converse. By God’s providence, he invited Isaac Milner. What Wilberforce didn’t realise was that Milner had become an evangelical Christian. Thus, on the trip, they discussed Christianity, reading both the Bible and Philip Doddridge’s The Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul.

Wilberforce’s “Great Change” took place over 18 months. At first, he intellectually believed Christianity, and spent many months considering its implications for public office, as evangelicals were considered, at best, “odd”.

It is at this time in December 1785 that Wilberforce asked for counsel from John Newton. He was struggling with whether he could be a Christian and still be a politician. He was so apprehensive that he walked around the block twice before knocking on Newton’s door. Newton’s advice would change world history. Newton advised him to stay in politics, later writing to Wilberforce that “God has raised you up for the good of the church and the good of the nation, maintain your friendship with Pitt, continue in Parliament, who knows that but for such a time as this God has brought you into public life and has a purpose for you.”[1]

Thomas Scott, John Newton’s friend and fellow pastor, highlighted the historical significance of the meeting, claiming that “Had that counsel [to quit politics] been followed, the slave trade might have been continued to future generations”.[2] Even Pitt reinforced Newton’s advice, exclaiming: “Surely the principles of Christianity lead to action as well as meditation.”[3]

One of the first and most significant changes in Wilberforce after his conversion was his newfound love for the Bible. For Wilberforce, the Bible was to be the very sustenance for the Christian life. He was transformed from barely reading and studying, to now spending hours a day over the Bible. He lamented the lack of biblical understanding and study amongst the “Christian” population of Britain, asking: “Why is it so hard to get people to study the Scriptures? Common sense tells us what revelation commands: ‘Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God’–‘Search the Scriptures’–‘Be ready to give to everyone a reason for the hope that is in you.’ These are the words of the inspired writers, and these injunctions are confirmed by praising those who obey the admonition. And yet, for all that we have the Bible in our houses, we are ignorant of its contents. No wonder that so many Christians know so little about what Christ actually taught; no wonder that they are so mistaken about the faith that they profess.”[4]

Historical Context

Why was there so little interest in biblical Christianity in the 18^th century? Many in 18th century Britain thought that Christianity was out of step with their modern society. Christianity and religion had served their purpose in their grandparents’ age, but it was not relevant to their modern way of life. The approach to Christianity is best summed up by Lord Melbourne, who uttered a modern-sounding lament: “Things have come to a pretty pass when one should permit one’s religion to invade the public life”.[5] If you want to be religious, good for you, but it has no place in influencing society!

The reason for this is partly due to events in the 17th century, which had witnessed the “Wars of Religion” between Catholic and Protestant monarchs. Religion and Christianity were seen as the cause of conflict, and was oppressive and bigoted. Therefore, religious expressions needed to be tamed. England kept the veneer of religion (mainly for its stability in society and social structure) but none of the personal devotion to the teachings and subsequent ethics. Wilberforce’s minister before his conversion was Theophilus Lindsay, the “father” of modern Unitarianism. Lindsay denied the divinity of Jesus, but continued to preach Christian ethics so people could still live a “good” life.

But could this Christ-less Christianity really change society and help abolish the slave trade? Many historians seek exclusively humanistic causations for the abolition of the Slave Trade. For example, English historian Laurence Goldman claimed a few years ago that “…the development of politeness and kindness and sympathy in the mid 18th century, that feeds into a changed sort of mental world where people begin to think that labor that is forced, that is held against people’s will is wrong and that slavery is associated with a lot of ancillary evils that have to end … And they grew and grew and grew.”[6] In other words, people became nicer and there were more nice people than not.

To deny the possibility of a genuine spiritual transformation leads to the acceptance of such shallow and unconvincing interpretations of history. Also, this is not how Wilberforce understood his time. He observed that, despite the numbers attending church and considering themselves Christians, “The truth is, their opinions on these subjects are not formed from the perusal of the word of God. The Bible lies on the shelf unopened; and they would be wholly ignorant of its contents, except for what they hear occasionally at church, or for the faint traces which their memories may still retain of the lessons of their earliest infancy … The fatal habit of considering Christian morals as distinct from Christian doctrines insensibly gained strength. Thus, the peculiar doctrines of Christianity went more and more out of sight, and as might naturally have been expected, the moral system itself also began to wither and decay, being robbed of that which should have supplied it with life and nutriment.”[7] In other words, people in his time were becoming nicer, more progressive people, but they were living self-centred lives.

For Wilberforce the key to transforming society wasn’t a vague hope that people would become nicer but a truly spiritual transformation from a deeper understanding of God and the work of Christ – which had gone out of fashion.

Object 1: Abolition of the Slave Trade

By the 1780s, the slave trade was generating considerable wealth for many significant people in society. Powerful merchants, plantation owners, bankers, shipowners, and politicians controlled and protected the system through organisations like the lobby group, West India Interest, using their wealth and political influence in Parliament to resist abolition and preserve profits from slavery. One clear illustration of the place of slaves in this period is found in the infamous story of the Zong.

In September 1781, the slave ship Zong left Africa bound for Jamaica carrying around 470 enslaved Africans; during the voyage many died from disease and harsh conditions. Fearing financial losses, Captain Luke Collingwood ordered 54 sick slaves to be thrown overboard, followed by another 42 the next day and 36 more after that — while still alive and some still chained — claiming a shortage of water so that insurance would cover the loss of “cargo.” Although evidence later showed there had been sufficient rainfall and water supplies, Collingwood received an insurance payout, and when abolitionist reformer Granville Sharp attempted to prosecute those responsible, Judge Lord Mansfield ruled the case as an insurance dispute rather than murder, highlighting how enslaved people were treated as property under British law.

Wilberforce took some convincing to take up the abolition cause. He thought others would be better, like Lord Middleton. Yet after much deliberating and prayer, by 1787 he warned parliament that early in the new year he would ask the parliament to investigate the Trade – an investigation that would drive his life. He had written earlier in the year, on October 28, 1787: “God has set before me two great objects: the suppression of the Slave Trade and the reformation of manners”.[8] Wilberforce knew he needed to do a lot of research on the trade to prove that it was harmful.

Wilberforce and Thomas Clarkson went on fact-finding missions. They realised that the slave trade ruined the lives of all involved. Many soldiers were forced into it and wanted to escape it as 25% of them died each year. African chiefs kidnapped people to sell to the Europeans for money or goods. No one was innocent, but it was the Europeans who had instigated it; therefore Wilberforce saw it as his task to care for Africa

Most years from 1787 to 1807 saw Wilberforce propose a bill to abolish the Slave Trade. In his speech he delivered in the House of Commons on Tuesday 12 May 1789 he exclaimed: “so enormous, so dreadful, so irremediable did its wickedness appear, that my mind was completely made up for abolition…let the consequences be what they would, I from this time determined that I would never rest till I had [secured] its abolition”.[9]

He never attacked anyone about the trade in his speeches as he knew his own sinfulness: “I mean not to accuse anyone but to take the shame upon myself, in common indeed with the whole Parliament of Great Britain, for having suffered this horrid trade to be carried on under their authority. We are all guilty – we ought all to plead guilty, & not to exculpate ourselves by throwing blame on others”[10]

What was his motivation? Some historians think that Wilberforce’s Christian beliefs had very little to do with his opposition to the Slave Trade, and that a more “humanistic” causation is more accurate. But Wilberforce himself makes his motivation clear:

“Policy, however, … is not my principle, and I am not ashamed to say it. There is a principle above everything that is political … When 1 reflect on the command which says, “Thou shalt do no murder, “believing the authority to be divine, how can 1 dare to set up any reasonings of my own against it?

And … when we think of eternity, and of the future consequences of all human conduct, what is there in this life that should make any man contradict the dictates of his conscience, the principles of justice, the laws of religion, and of God…”[11]

Opposition to Wilberforce

What opposition did Wilberforce face in order to abolish the Slave Trade? For at least 5000 years the idea of human civilisation without slavery was unimaginable. Nearly every society from ancient times through to the 18th century had some form of slavery. Eric Metaxas claims that abolition was so impossible that it couldn’t even be mentioned in public.[12]

Almost immediately after raising the issue. Wilberforce almost died in early 1788. He was given opium to treat his illnesses, but the cure eventually made him sicker. He was constantly sick and endured tremendous suffering.

Then on 14^th July 1789 the Bastille fell in France. The violence of the French Revolution worked against the abolitionists. The pro-Slave Trade politicians presented the abolitionists as wanting change as in France. They relied on fear mongering tactics and vague, emotional arguments that presented freeing slaves as equivalent to wanting to destroy the British aristocracy and social structure.

By the 1790s, Britain was at war with France so many, like Robert Jenkinson, thought abolition should wait till after the war. In 1796 when it was recommended that the question of the Slave Trade should be suspended due to the war, Wilberforce responded with “There is something not a little provoking in the dry, calm way in which gentlemen are apt to speak of the sufferings of others. The question suspended! Is the desolation of wretched Africa suspended? Are all the complicated miseries of this atrocious Trade – is the work of death suspended? No, sir, I will not delay this motion, and I call upon the house not to insult the forbearance of heaven by delaying this tardy act of justice.”[13] The bill was defeated in March 1796, 74-70 because 10 MPs were at the opera. In the aftermath, Wilberforce became very ill after, taking months to recover

He also faced death threats. In a diary entry from early 1795 Wilberforce wrote: “God protected me from Norris, Kimber and innumerable other dangers. He is still able to protect me, and will, if it be for my good.”[14] Robert Norris and John Kimber were captains of slave ships. In 1792 Wilberforce accused Kimber of murdering a slave girl but he was found not guilty by a pro-Trade judge. In retaliation, Kimber resorted to threats of violence for the next two years, with Wilberforce needing an armed bodyguard.

One of the severest criticisms he ever received was from William Cobett, in August of 1823. This is from a pamphlet attacking Wilberforce:

“You seem to have a great affection for the fat and lazy and laughing and singing and dancing Negroes…[But] Never have you done one single act in favor of the laborers of this country…You make your appeal in Picadilly, London, amongst those who are wallowing in luxuries, proceeding from the labor of the people. You should have gone to the gravel-pits, and made your appeal to the wretched creatures with bits of sacks around their shoulders, and with hay-bands round their legs; you should have gone to the roadside, and made your appeal to the emaciated, half-dead things who are there cracking stones to make the roads as level as a die for the tax eaters to ride on. What an insult it is, and what an unfeeling, what a cold-blooded hypocrite must he be that can send it forth; what an insult to call upon people under the name of free British laborers; to appeal to them in behalf of Black slaves, when these free British laborers; these poor, mocked, degraded wretches, would be happy to lick the dishes and bowls, out of which the Black slaves have breakfasted, dined, or supped.”[15]

Kevin Belmonte wrote this of the 1796 defeat: “The years of constant struggle, the strains on long-standing friendships, the continuing threats of personal violence, and the weight of oft-disappointed hopes concerning abolition had taken their toll. Gravely ill, exhausted, and emotionally spent, Wilberforce suffered what appears to have been a second nervous breakdown. Any thought of re-entering the political fray, which had dealt him so many setbacks and blows, filled him with anxiety.”[16]

But he wasn’t alone. Newton wrote him a very touching letter in 1796: “You meet with many things which weary and disgust you … but then they are inseparably connected with your path of duty; and though you cannot do all the good you wish for, some good is done …

It costs you something … and exposes you to many impertinences [rude acts] from which you would gladly be exempted; but if, upon the whole, you are thereby instrumental in promoting the cause of God and the public good, you will have no reason [for] regret.

Nor is it possible at present to calculate all the advantages that may result from your having a seat in the House at such a time as this. The example, and even the presence of a consistent character, may have a powerful, though unobserved, effect upon others [salt and light]. You are not only a representative for York-shire, you have the far greater honour of being a representative for the Lord, in a place where many know Him not, and an opportunity of showing them what are the genuine fruits of that religion which you are known to profess …

It is true that you live in the midst of difficulties and snares, and you need a double guard of watchfulness and prayer. But since you know both your need of help, and where to look for it, 1 may say to you as Darius to Daniel. “Thy God whom thou servest continually is able to preserve and deliver you.”[17]

As John Wesley had written back in 1791: “Unless God has raised you up for this very thing, you will be worn out by the opposition of men and devils; but if God be for you, who can be against you?”[18]

Even opponents recognised his determination and resilience. Stephen Fuller, who was a leading spokesman for the West Indian planter lobby, whose wealth depended on enslaved labour: “It is necessary to watch him as he is blessed with a very sufficient quantity of that Enthusiastic spirit, which so far from yielding that it grows more vigorous from blows.”[19]

Victory

For 20 years Wilberforce had been defeated, and he was now old and tired. But in 1806 William Pitt died and was replaced by Lord Grenville, who was an abolitionist and supported Wilberforce. On 2 January 1807 the bill had its first reading and a second reading a month later on 5 February. The third reading in the House of Lords was on 10 February and passed, which meant the bill now went back to House of Commons

The third and final reading in the House of Commons was on 23^rd February, where many hailed Wilberforce for his efforts. Wilberforce wept, which then set off three cheers from the parliament (which was quite unusual for that time); the vote was taken and won 283-16.

Later that night Wilberforce joked to Henry Thornton “Well Henry, what shall we abolish next?” He had achieved his first object. But what about the second object?

Object 2: The Reformation of Manners

Wilberforce knew that the reason for the reformation of manners (morals) was that there was no point abolishing the slave trade if British society remained evil and cruel – it would just find a new way to abuse the vulnerable for their own ends.

What kind of society was Britan in the 18^th century? Life was brutal for most of the population. Public executions were encouraged to create fear in the lower classes which in turn bred a culture of violence and abuse. Poverty was seen as a state given by God, so it was unfashionable (and even ungodly) to help the poor. Only the elite were educated, and many children resorted to stealing and a life of crime. In London 25% of unmarried women were prostitutes, with the average aged being 16.

But it is here that Wilberforce is different from many before and after him. Instead of making more laws and using the legal system to try to transform society, he wanted to “make goodness fashionable”[20] as he thought that changing people is more important than changing laws.

But this seems like an impossible dream on top of an already impossible dream. So, how did he achieve so much? This goes beyond merely understanding historical context. He knew laws changed no one so what he wanted to do was to shine the joy of Jesus to a society gripped by darkness and decay. Wilberforce saw that joy was the beating heart of his faith: “We can scarcely indeed look into any part of the sacred volume [the Bible] without meeting abundant proofs, that it is the religion of the Affections which God particularly requires … Joy … is enjoined on us as our bounden duty … A cold … unfeeling heart is represented as highly criminal.”[21]

His default emotion to the world around him was not one of bitterness or frustration but joy – joy in Jesus. This is probably the thing to be most admired about Wilberforce. Wilberforce never allowed the evil and darkness of the issues he stood up against to twist his own joy in God. He didn’t allow anything he discovered about the trade or society make him an intense and bitter man.

This deep joy changes his society and the world because it radiated out to others. The poet Robert Southey said of Wilberforce: “I never saw any other man who seemed to enjoy such a perpetual serenity and sunshine of spirit. In conversing with him, you feel assured that there is no guile in him; that if ever there was a good man and happy man on earth, he was one.”[22]

James Stephen, recalled after Wilberforce’s death: “Being himself amused and interested by everything, whatever he said became amusing or interesting … His presence was as fatal to dullness as to immorality. His mirth [joyful amusement] was as irresistible as the first laughter of childhood.”[23]

A Miss Sullivan wrote to a friend about Wilberforce around 1815: “By the tones of his voice and expression of his countenance he showed that joy was the prevailing feature of his own mind, joy springing from entireness of trust in the Savior’s merits and from love to God and man … His joy was quite penetrating.”[24]

This joy wasn’t a private emotion, but one fed by a hunger and thirst to see God’s righteousness known and shown, and that led to an extraordinary impact on world history. After 20 years of fighting, in 1807 Wilberforce accomplished the abolition of the Slave Trade. In 1833, 3 days before he died, he saw the abolition of slavery in the British empire. But that’s not all.

• He was involved in founding the Bible Society;
• He helped found the Church Missionary Society;
• He led agricultural reforms to supply more affordable food for the poor;
• He organised support for the blind and disabled;
• He led the campaign to improve housing for the poor;
• He was a co-founder of the RSPCA;
• With Hannah More, he set up (and funded) schools for the poor;
• He fought hard in parliament to allow missionaries such as William Carey to evangelise in India;
• He also advocated that the First Fleet should have a chaplain, and that the early colony of NSW should have missionaries;
• He lobbied for humane treatment of convicts and Indigenous Australians in 1811 under Governor Macquarie.

Legacy

It is hard to disagree with Eric Metaxas conclusion that “Taken all together, it’s difficult to escape the verdict that William Wilberforce was simply the greatest social reformer in the history of the world.”[25]

John Pollock similarly concludes on Wilberforce’s legacy: “There is little doubt that Wilberforce changed the moral outlook of Great Britain … The reformation of manners [morals] grew into Victorian virtues and Wilberforce touched the world when he made goodness fashionable.”[26]

May there be more Wilberforces in our world today.

– Paul Barnes

[1] John Pollock, Wilberforce (London: Constable and Company, 1977), p. 38

[2] John Scott, The Life of the Rev. Thomas Scott, (Philadelphia: W. W. Woodward, 1823), p. 387

[3] Kevin Belmonte, William Wilberforce: A Hero for Humanity (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), pp. 82–83.

[4] William Wilberforce, A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System of Professed Christians, in the Higher and Middle Classes in this Country, Contrasted with Real Christianity (Dublin: Robert Dapper for B. Dugdale, 1797), pp. 9–10.

[5] Eric Metaxas, Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery (Milton Keynes: Authentic Media, 2013), p. xx.

[6] Lawrence Goldman and Robert Tombs, “The British Campaigns Against Slavery,” History Reclaimed Podcast, Season 2, Episode 3, 2023.

[7] William Wilberforce, A Practical View of Christianity, ed. Kevin Charles Belmonte (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996), p. 198.

[8] Metaxas, Amazing Grace, p. 77. ‘Manners’ meant ‘morals’, as in Shakespeare’s day.

[9] Pollock, Wilberforce, p. 56.

[10] Ibid. p. 89

[11] Ibid. p. 90

[12] Metaxas, Amazing Grace, p. xiv.

[13] Robert Isaac Wilberforce and Samuel Wilberforce, The Life of William Wilberforce, Vol. II (London: John Murray, 1838), pp. 139–140.

[14] Ibid, pp. 115–116.

[15] Pollock, Wilberforce, p. 287

[16] Belmonte, William Wilberforce, p.136

[17] Pollock, Wilberforce, pp. 146–147.

[18] Ibid, p.105

[19] Ibid

[20] Ibid, p.64

[21] Wilberforce, A Practical View of Christianity, pp. 45–46.

[22] John Piper, Amazing Grace in the Life of William Wilberforce (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007), p. 58.

[23] Ibid, p.59.

[24] Ibid

[25] Metaxas, Amazing Grace, p.xviii

[26] John Pollock, “A Man Who Changed His Times,” in Os Guinness, ed., Character Counts: Leadership Qualities in Washington, Wilberforce, Lincoln, and Solzhenitsyn (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1999), p. 87.