Talk:Slavery in Britain

message: (Needs a lead section) Richard001 03:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: This article does not cite any authoritative references and should be removed.
--Kjb (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should be removed 

message: I also notice a lot of connotative words and adjectives.  Really the article sounds anti-English.
From the Wikipedia article on St. Patrick, "When he was about 14 he was captured by Irish raiders and taken as a slave to Ireland".
Ireland is one of the British Isles but proto-Ireland's tradition of enslaving the proto-English (or "Roman Britians") is omitted.
Similarly with the Scots, the degree of enslavement of clan members by clan chiefs is skimmed over, and the enslavement of members of one clan by members of other clans is omitted.
The article says slavery ended in 1100, but it didn't.  The article goes on to an end date for the enslavement of ethnic Europeans in England.  
Really, the Norman Conquest revived slavery in England.  The lowest level of the Norman feudal system was the "slave", and the next few levels up from that were varieties of slave that could normally only be sold together with the land.
To me, the article reads like a racial attack on the English.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.74.94 (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article sounds really rather racist 

message: This article must have been very anti-English before the revisions (re:. It reads so badly and is so biased that it should be restarted from a factual basis. Facts are; The irish did have a slave trade (they were one of the main markets for English slaves); indentured servants were not the same as slaves (they had a fixed period of labor, and were free to own land); britain didn't have a policy of eradication of catholics..... as I said... start again, this article is a mess.
"britain didn't have a policy of eradication of catholics." that is a lie. Please stop making stupid ignorant assertions and consult some history books you brainwashed fool. The Penal laws for a a start you excruciatingly slack apologist for genocide.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.122.231 (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove this article and start a new unbiased one... 

message: The article says at the beginning: "It [= slavery] was finally abolished by the Slavery Abolition Act 1833." This appears to be in relation to "Britain and Ireland".
This seems to me incorrect. In 1833 slavery did not exist in the law of any part of Britain or Ireland. Hence it did not need to be abolished. Indeed, the very opening words of the Act explain what the Act is about: "Whereas divers Persons are holden in Slavery within divers of His Majesty's Colonies, and it is just and expedient that all such Persons should be manumitted and set free..." Note the word "colonies."
ThomasBabbington1950 (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abolition in 1833? 

message: I have removed three additions, all unreferenced, by an IP. They are:
however the it has long been held that slavery was not legal in the England under the common law, This was repeatedly upheld by judicial decisions.
(a very dubious claim needing suitable caution and references, already better covered elsewhere and in its own article.)
Re Locke:
though he also caveted this by stating that a slave taken in a just war was better than killing that slave, this is often seen as his attempt to justify his own investment in slave trading companies..
(again, this needs references)
The Royal Navy would establish the West Africa Squadron which would unilaterally interdict the atlantic slave trade. This would lead to the first British colony in africa, Sierra Leone where the majority of free slaves were returned to. The effort would expand to interdict all slave trade, and at it's height the operation would account for a sixth of entire Royal Navy.
(Apart from being unreferenced, this doesn't actually relate directly to slavery in the British Isles.)
Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed recent additions

message: This entire article should be renamed to purely slavery in England as most if not all is in regard to English history and judiciary. I see no relevant information toward either Scotland or Ireland which have lead very different histories prior to unification.
If there is need to look at the history of slavery in Scotland and Ireland they should be given their own pages. If this is supposed to be an article discussing slavery in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland then the only relevant information is in the leading paragraph and to be honest is all that might be said on the subject.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtc872 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is just slavery in England 

message: Maredudd is a male name.  There were a number of rulers called Maredudd in North Wales and I presume the reference is to one of them.  No Queen's by that name though - its as if there was a reference to a 'Queen Henry' in English. 80.40.144.68 (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen Maredudd 

message: Like most such articles, this one explains the pivotal role of Britain in the interbnational slave trade. It also shares their characteristic of not shedding any light on Black slaves in Britain. It's obvious their numbers were few compared to the colonies, but they did exist. Who were they, and who were the slave-masters? What jobs did they do - evidently they didn't displace ordinary labourers, and some were household servants and the like. But surely tehre is more to it than this? Who can tell us the truth about this part of our history?The Yowser (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was lead to believe that they were primarily fashion accessories for the nobility, that there was rarely more than one slave per owner, and the younger the better. But I have nothing to back this up with, and would be fascinated if someone can shed more light on the issue. 69.61.148.242 (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Slaves in Britain? 

message: I reverted this edit as it's uncited, appears to be a copy of this on globalresearch.ca (not a reliable source), and is dubious: James II could not have made a "Proclamation of 1625" as he wasn't king then. —Ashley Y 21:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you I just came on here to say that. I couldn't find any other source on that claim so I'm starting to think it's just plain a lie. Space fountain (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

text: It looks like this keeps cropping up.  The impossible reference to James II making a proclamation 60 years before he took the throne has reappeared, while even a cursory glance at the cited source confirms that indentured servitude is here being conflated with slavery - as noted by others, the two things are not one and the same, and an encylopaedia should not treat them as identical.  Likewise, the source itself refers to 300,000 "British and Irish" being subject to this; even the cited material doesn't support the ethnically-focused write-up here (and  indicates that the Montserratian plantation-owners were themselves predominantly Irish).  This seems to be nothing but sensationalist material selectively culled from a single unreliable source.  There certainly are valuable narratives to be told about Stuart monarchs selling their subjects into servitude, but such an account should be honest, should encompass such things as the treatment of the Anglo-Scottish Border region under James VI & I, and should not be shoe-horned into a page about a different topic.  Does anyone have some properly-sourced, reputable material on this? WikiExile (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish enslavement 

message: A clear distinction needs to be drawn in this article between indentured labour and slavery. At the moment the article confuses the two terms, and uses them interchangeably. This is not encyclopaedic as the terms have distinct meanings.
This confusion is also found in political or righteous sources that often use the term slavery when what they are describing is indentured labour because slavery has a more  ardent ring to it. There are other terms that are used in similar inexact ways eg genocide when what is really meant are "multiple types of crimes against humanity" (as happened in the Belgium Congo), or the bombing created a firestorm when what it actually created was "multiple fires that devastated the city centre" (as at Coventry).  -- PBS (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indentured labour and slavery  

message: Coroners_and_Justice_Act_2009#Slavery.2C_Servitude_and_Forced_or_Compulsory_Labour
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/71
– Kaihsu (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  s 71 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 

message: "Article 4 of the Convention also bans forced or compulsory labour […]"
What about compulsory schooling?  I presume some provision excepting it has been made in the various Acts and Conventions, but I don't seem to see one mentioned anywhere…
Paul Magnussen (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schoolchildren 

message: What about Impressment and Conscription ? 
8 million men were conscripted (forced into the military or go to prison) during the World War II, 2.7 million conscripted in World War I, and 250,000 were 'press-ganged' (kidnapped and/or forced ) into the British forces in the 18th century alone.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.50.134 (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If a reliable source discusses this point, it would be relevant, but probably to the general article on slavery rather than this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impressment, Press Gangs, Conscription 

message: I propose to move this article to Slavery in Britain. Even allowing for the disparity between the two islands' populations, only a disproportionately small part of this article concerns Ireland, and we now have Slavery in Ireland. Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense. Whizz40 (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Seeing the article with the title, I have changed my view. Britain implies Great Britain or the United Kingdom which changes the meaning very significantly therefore I think this should go through a formal move request. Whizz40 (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't see the Great Britain article. Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Most readers would interpret it as the nation state. Large parts of the article are devoted to the Atlantic Slave Trade and slavery in British colonies. There should be a better discussion about the title for this article and the best way to get multiple experienced and impartial editors looking at it to to propose a move request. This title might be fine, e.g. for consistency, or another one might be better, e.g. for scope and content, but since we have started the discussion let's do it properly. Whizz40 (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: Since this has been moved to be Slavery in Britain, all discussions on slavery in Ireland should be removed. Additionally the lead should be changed since the move (not 100% with consensus but whatever) has changed the scope of the article from the British Isles (Great Britain and Ireland) to just be Great Britain. As a reslut all discussions and mentions of Ireland should be removed and a new article created for that content since the scope has been reduced as part of the page move as Britain does not equal British Isles (see British Isles article for scope of the term.) Canterbury Tail talk 02:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove all Ireland from article 

message: * So, citation needed. . . dave souza, talk 10:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: In the news – citation needed

message: From the Wiki page on 'vagrancy'
In 1547, Edward VI ordained that "if anyone refuses to work, he shall be condemned as a slave to the person who has denounced him as an idler. The master has the right to force him to do any work, no matter how vile, with whip and chains. If the slave is absent for a fortnight, he is condemned to slavery for life and is to be branded on forehead or back with the letter S; if he runs away three times, he is to be executed as a felon...If it happens that a vagabond has been idling about for three days, he is to be taken to his birthplace, branded with a red hot iron with the letter V on his breast, and set to work, in chains, on the roads or at some other labour...Every master may put an iron ring round the neck, arms or legs of his slave
From which one may readily see that slavery had not disappeared in England by this period. Cassandra.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.70.153 (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavery in England 1547 

message: The Modern evaluations of economic impact section did not really seem to include much information that relates to the section heading. I have not changed what was there (but someone might like to review it), but have added some relevant links to a variety of sources, news reports of companies apologising for past connections, plus reviews conducted or being conducted by Jesus College and English Heritage. I think there may have been a review of some kind in the banking sector some years ago but cannot find the source, it would be nice to link if someone has it. I also included mention of the UCL database as although it was already linked it was a long way from the Modern evaluations section and is such relevant and extensive work it is likely of interest to readers of this section. There is likely more fleshing out that can be done here.DrThneed (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern evaluations section 

message: The first sentence of the section on Abolition says "Somersett's case in 1772 held that slavery had no basis in English law and was thus a violation of Habeas Corpus."  Actually the sole role of habeas corpus in that case preceded the case itself and was instead the basis for removing Somerset from the ship Ann and Mary (about to sail for Jamaica) in order to present him before Lord Mansfield.
Had the ship's captain, John Knowles, refused to bring Somerset to court he would have been in violation of habeas corpus.  Being a law-abiding person he did not and there was therefore no such violation.
The only way to violate habeas corpus is to refuse to bring someone to a court to allow them (or their counsel) to speak for themselves, even if someone else claims control over them in any capacity whatsoever. So even if slavery did have a basis in English law one must still obey a writ of habeas corpus for anyone, even a slave.  This has been English law since Henry II.
Apropos of the decision itself, Lord Mansfield held that any laws of other countries and colonies that might or might not have made Somerset the property of Charles Stewart did not apply in England and that Stewart therefore had no right to remove Somerset from England. His decision made no determination as to whether or not slavery had any basis in English law.  Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Habeas corpus 

message: As a real-world phenomenon, modern slavery in Britain currently seems to be largely missing from the page. 86.186.168.207 (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the note right at the top of the article?  - For slavery in the present-day UK, see Human trafficking in the United Kingdom.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  (@Ghmyrtle:) Coming from a medical-writing background (and per WP:RELATED), I feel the need to question the appropriateness of the current hatnote: "Modern slavery" is by definition pertinent to the present page. Given its relevance, I believe it is wrong to exile the topic to a relatively obscure page titled Human trafficking in the United Kingdom. 86.186.168.207 (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's no more "obscure" than any other page.  Wikipedia is all about links.  Having a separate article about modern slavery in fact makes it more prominent, in Google searches and so on, than just having it as a section in a wider-ranging article.   The link you gave to searches doesn't explain why the article on history gets more hits - it may be because of school pupil searches, etc etc.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @Ghmyrtle: Please note that I'm not arguing that Human trafficking in the United Kingdom is inherently wrong. What I am saying is that reliably-sourced content regarding (modern) slavery in the U.K. shouldn't be excluded from the present page ("Slavery in Britain"), via the inappropriate use - per WP:RELATED at least - of a 'For' hatnote. (By way of comparison, see Slavery#Contemporary slavery - imo, editorially appropriate per WP:SUMMARY.) 86.186.168.207 (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to stop anyone adding a short summary section on modern slavery, linking to the main article on human trafficking.  Other editors, who have been involved with this article much more than me, may have different views, but I'll leave further discussion to them.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ghmyrtle to wait and see what others have to say. For now, I'll just briefly add (regarding visibility and other considerations) that no redirect/s currently exist for Modern slavery in Britain, etc, etc. 86.186.168.207 (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just added a redirect.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern slavery in Britain 

message: The fact that children in workhouses were expected to work is not slavery. Most children on farms were expected to work. That might have been harsh, but doesn't equal slavery, which is about ownership of one person by another as property. So section removed as out of place in this article. Burraron (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Workhouse 

message: This article appears to blur together various forms of servitude and bondage without any distinction or nuance. Racialised chattel slavery was not anything like Medieval slavery in Northern Europe, while indentured servitude, while similar in practice to Medieval slavery, was legally distinct and a separate labour system altogether. This article essentially empties the transatlantic slave trade of its racial element as it casually shifts between topics of slavery, chattel slavery and indentured servitude.
In light of the fact that there is already a gigantic mass of ignorance on the internet on this particular subject, the article should either be rewritten with a greater focus on distinguishing different forms of bondage (legally and in practice), or narrowed down to cover one type of slavery.Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race, chattel slavery and indentured servitude 

message: Where have this been shown. I find no evidence anywhere. Online or off. 94.173.17.182 (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Briton's enslaving Britons  

message: The Industrial Revolution made Britain rich, not slavery. Recent research has proven this. You need to include that research in the article for balance, otherwise the article becomes just  another load of wikipedia lefty anti british propaganda.
https://iea.org.uk/publications/imperial-measurement-a-cost-benefit-analysis-of-western-colonialism/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.137.136.30 (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is wrong