! JAMES CROPPER AND LIVERPOOL'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE ANTI-SEAVERY MOVEMENT1

K. CHARLTON, M.A., M.ED.

N 1790 at the age of seventeen James Cropper was apprenticed Iby his father Thomas Cropper to the Eiverpool firm of Rathbone, Benson and Co. Brought up in a Quaker family of long standing in the rural area of Winstanley near Wigan, he now took lodgings with Abraham and Margaret Binns in Church Street. As a young member of a Quaker meeting Cropper would have been well aware of the attitude of the Society of Friends to the slave trade and of the Yearly Meeting decision in 1783 to set up a sub-committee of its Meeting for Sufferings to foster the cause of abolition. The head of his firm, William Rathbone, was a member of that sub-committee, whose work led in 1787 to an amalgamation offerees with Granville Sharp and his allies and the founding of the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade. The new society's Liverpool members included William Wallace, John Yates, Jonathan Binns, William Roscoe and William Rathbone senior and junior (i.e., William Rathbone IV, Cropper's employer, and William Rathbone V).2 Cropper thus found himself at the outset of his career in the midst of a small liberal-radical circle of non­ conformists,3 at a time when the group was actively campaigning for the abolition of the slave trade in a city whose commercial prosperity largely depended on it. It was not surprising that, Polonius like, his father wrote to him: I cannot but consider thy situation in the present times of disturbance rather a dangerous one when I consider thy youth and inexperience how frequently thou may be exposed to converse with men of different senti­ ments concerning parliamentary business, the subject of reform etc. etc. In this respect my advice to thee is to be on thy guard, always watchful and careful to offend no party. Keep cool and say little, remembering our principles as members of a religious society are for peace with all men.4 But he had his own commercial way to make (he became a partner in Rathbone, Benson and Co. in 1795, and having in 57 58 JAMES CROPPER 1797 'commenced business on his own', in 1799 joined with Thomas Benson to form the firm of Cropper, Benson and Co.) and much of his time was taken up with the affairs of the American Chamber of Commerce newly founded in the port in 1801.5 Having secured their Act in 1807 the abolitionists were con­ vinced that slavery as an institution would die a natural death without further parliamentary intervention. The African In­ stitution, founded in the year of the Act, continued to keep the plight of the slaves before the public, and Cropper was a subscribing member from the start. Through the Institution Cropper worked with William Alien at whose house in 1816 he met Thomas Clarkson to discuss the Sierra Leone colony,6 which had been founded in 1787 for the settlement of freed slaves in Africa. Cropper soon sensed that its policy of concentrating attention on the abolition of the slave trade by other countries would be ineffective, and in 1821 he made his first public con­ tribution to the anti-slavery debate in a series of letters addressed to William Wilberforce, which he published in the columns of the Liverpool Mercury.1 The line which Cropper took in his letters was quite different from the usual emphasis on the inhumanity of slavery. Instead he virtually took this point for granted and stressed the im­ policy of slavery in the West Indies, appealing to reason and to free trade principles to show that a system of plantation cultiva­ tion by slave labour was inefficient, costly to the consumer and in the long run not in the interests of the planter. Indicating at the outset the 'advantages so obviously arising on every side from measures of sound policy grounded on principles of humanity', Cropper concentrated his attention on providing factual evidence for an economic argument. He was well aware, of course, 'that the supposed connection of my own private interests in this case with the interests of my country and humanity render my motives liable to suspicion', 8 but went on to argue in favour of equalisation of the duties as between the East and West India sugars in order to allow the products of the free labour of the East to come into open competition with the slave-produced products of the West. It was characteristic of Cropper's early campaign, however, that he was not looking to any immediate emancipation of the slaves. His solution was to be found in fiscal measures which he was convinced would themselves contribute to the ultimate ending of the system of slave cultivation. Even so he was far from sanguine about the kind of response his views might produce. As he wrote to Zachary Macaulay: JAMES CROPPER 59 I am quite prepared to expect that the public papers would be all shut against us and though so much has been said in some of the Reviews of the horrors of slavery as it now exists, 1 have little expectation that many of them will notice my letters or if they do it may be to abuse me. The fact and arguments which I have stated are on the same firm ground as the multipli­ cation table or any other mathematical truth. They cannot refute them. 9 It was clear, too, that the early hopes that the abolition of the slave trade would inevitably contribute to the ending of slavery were ill-founded. Whilst slavery continued to be supported by fiscal measures at home there was little hope that either the trade or the institution of slavery itself would be got rid of. At the same time Cropper pursued this line of argument through his membership of the Liverpool East India Associa­ tion, which had been founded in 1818 to urge the opening of trade to the East and more particularly to achieve an equalisa­ tion of the duties on sugar from the East and West Indies. Cropper was convinced that abolition and equalisation were inseparably linked) insisting that once the West Indian planters came into direct competition with sugar produced by the free labour of the East and no longer supported by differential duties, bounties and drawbacks, it would no longer be economic to continue slave-grown methods of cultivation. The report published by the association in 1822 and largely written by Cropper made clear the economic arguments, though his col­ leagues in the association were reluctant to link the economic question of East India trade with the slavery question.10 He therefore turned his mind to the formation of a society in Liverpool, which would aim at the amelioration of the condi­ tions of the slaves but would at the same time promote the gradual and final extinction of slavery itself. He told Macaulay of his plans in a letter of 12 July 1822. 11 The immediate object, he explained, would be to collect reliable information about the condition of the slaves (he had already written to various people in America seeking information) and about the cheapness of free labour relative to slave labour. He had also spoken to William Alien, pressing on him the desir­ ability of forming a similar society in London. In October he reported to Macaulay that replies were coming in from America and enclosed copies for circulation in London, once again urging the need for the formation of a society there. In Decem­ ber a printed sheet announced the foundation in Liverpool of a Society for the Amelioration and Gradual Abolition of Slavery. Enclosing a copy, he wrote to Clarkson 'I think it of great importance that a society should be formed with the same views in London', indicating that the help of the Manumission Society of New York had been sought and that a correspondence with 60 JAMES CROPPER the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade in France would soon begin.12 Meanwhile in Liverpool Cropper had been holding private meetings with friends, usually in the house of his son, Edward, in Rodney Street. On 14 January 1823 he wrote to William Roscoe telling him that 'for sometime past we have had a small society here for the mitigation and gradual abolition of slavery', and invited the veteran campaigner to join them as their presi­ dent. Roscoe regretted that 'other engagements' prevented him from accepting the invitation, but Cropper persisted and by the end of the month had persuaded Roscoe to attend another meeting at Edward Cropper's. 13 This appears to have clinched the matter, for in March there appeared a Declaration of objects . . . over the signatures of Roscoe as president and Isaac Hodgson as secretary. 14 The campaign was to be fought not only against the traffic in slaves but against slavery itself, a system which was inconsistent not only with Christianity and the constitution but also with efficient management and production. The Declaration made it clear, however, that emancipation could not be accomplished 'without some necessary precautions, some deliberate and gradual process which should progressively give the slave the feeling of independence without the danger of licentiousness',15 and ended with a list of information required by the society. Cropper had obviously played a large part in drafting the Declaration and he further publicised the objectives of the society by producing a pamphlet in the form of a Letter to the society ... in which he amplified the economic arguments with a set of calculations. Once again, however, he was careful to indicate that 'though such calculations as these give most in­ controvertible proofs, yet in following them are not we in danger of forgetting the subjects of them are our brethren and fellows heirs of immortality?' Even so he made clear his disagreement with those 'many warm friends to the cause' who wished to 'keep perfectly clear of all commercial considerations', for (as he wrote), 'is it not reasonable to suppose that these are a means appointed by the Supreme Governor of the universe for the extinction of slavery where higher motives have failed to effect it? We have only to clear away the obstacles which prevent the natural course of things and we may rest satisfied with the result'.16 Bounties, drawbacks and differential duties cost the country about £1,200,000 per annum and in effect it was these which were supporting slavery. The country should and would gladly grant indemnity to the planters if changes produced temporary loss, but this would require less than one quarter of JAMES CROPPER 61 the sum now paid out in bounties. It was clear, Cropper con­ cluded, that the abolition of the slave trade had not fulfilled earlier hopes that it would lead to the abolition of slavery itself. Other methods were therefore required.17 In the meantime Cropper's ideas bore fruit in London, for on 31 January 1823 a meeting was held at the King's Head Tavern, Poultry, to form the London Society for Mitigating and Gradually Abolishing the State of Slavery Throughout the British Dominions. William Smith, the Unitarian, was its chairman, with Zachary Macaulay, William Wilberforce, Luke Howard, Edward Forster, Samuel Gurney and T. G. Babbington amongst its founding members. 18 Cropper's letters to Macaulay, Clarkson, and Roscoe during the latter half of 1822 clearly show that the Liverpool society ante-dated the London society, though from the start Cropper made it clear that he looked to London to provide the leadership in a national campaign.19 But he insisted, as he continued to do throughout the next decade, that the real problem was one of information. He pinned his faith on rational and informed argument, and, as he put it:

it now remains with the people of this country to choose whether they will without investigation [his italics] submit to the enormous pecuniary sacri­ fices which according to the West Indian estimates it will require to support them in their present system; whether we will restrain the industry of England, close up against her the boundless resources of India; whether we will cramp our own energies and submit to enormous pecuniary sacri­ fices for no other purpose than to support the expense of holding in chains of bondage 800,000 of our fellow beings or whether we will adopt an enlightened policy suited to the times and the age in which we live. 20

Canning's resolutions for the amelioration of the slaves had been passed through the House of Commons in 1823,21 yet (as Cropper argued) 'whilst we are making laws for the gradual extinction of a system, we are affording to that system by means of bounty its only support'.22 His proposals for immediate action were fiscal. First of all, he recommended the giving up of the bounty on the exportation of sugar and refined sugar and substituting for what the West Indians would lose by this an absolute but direct bounty of six shillings per hundredweight on all sugars imported from the West Indian colonies, this bounty not to be paid directly to the importer but to be divided amongst the West Indians according to the number of slaves now on their estates. Secondly, he would admit all sugars to entry at a duty of thirty shillings per hundredweight whether the growth of the West Indies, British India, China, Siam, Java, Cuba and the Brazils, attaching to the two latter the condition of the abolition of the slave trade. And thirdly, to encourage the 62 JAMES CROPPER refining business, he would admit all sugars to be refined in bond, charging the duty on their entering for home use. 23 These were matters for parliament. On that front, however, in the face of a highly organised West Indian lobby, progress was likely to be slow. In the meantime, therefore, the task was to make sure that the country knew as much about the issue as the campaigners could tell them. As Cropper had earlier written to Macaulay, The time has come for the most open avowal of our sentiments. We have no wild schemes of emancipation. We wish to collect and then spread information of what has taken place in other places . . ., but I am more than ever convinced that we cannot have the public voice unless we do openly attack the system of slavery.'24 n Cropper had already by this time decided to devolve some of the day-to-day working of the firm on his sons John and Edward in order to devote more of his time to his anti-slavery work. At its third meeting on 9 April 1823 the committee of the London society invited Cropper (and his partner Robert Benson) to become members of the committee, and he was immediately placed on the Home correspondence and Publications sub­ committees, the latter deciding to reprint his Letter addressed to the Liverpool Society. On 23 April 1823 a division of labour between the London and Liverpool societies was arranged, with the latter taking over the distribution of anti-slavery material in Cheshire, Lancashire, Yorkshire and parts north, as well as in Ireland and the U.S.A. In June Cropper made a proposal to the committee, through a letter to Macaulay, that a representative of the society should be commissioned to travel throughout the country to spread the views of the society, and suggested that Thomas Clarkson, who had already indicated his willingness, be invited to undertake the journey.25 He had obviously been thinking of the plan for sometime. His letter to Macaulay was in fact written from Playford Hall and indeed he had made tentative reference to such a plan in an earlier letter to Macaulay. 26 The committee accepted with alacrity not only the proposal but also Cropper's offer to donate £500 to cover the costs of the journey. It was plans such as these, together with the society's manifesto urging its supporters not to be satisfied with Canning's resolu­ tions and to organise themselves into local associations, drawing on the resources of the London society and especially distribut­ ing copies of the society's new organ The Anti-slavery Reporter, that led to a considerable counter-campaign. Cropper had JAMES CROPPER 63 himself added fuel to the fire by publishing in the Mercury a letter, which he had previously discussed with the London com­ mittee, entitled 'The impolicy of slavery'. In this letter he stressed once again the importance of the economic argument and the need to equalise the duties as between East and West Indian sugar as the best way of ensuring the decline of slave- grown produce in the West Indies. 27 His letter produced an immediate reply, first from Thomas Fletcher, 28 a West Indian merchant of Liverpool, and on the following day in the Courier from 'Mercator', who turned out to be John Gladstone, the most powerful West Indian in Liverpool. 29 Despite the immoderate tone of Mercator's letters and their explicit questioning of Cropper's motives, as an East Indian merchant, in calling for equalisation, Cropper maintained his usual cool determination to argue from a statement of the facts as he saw them. Cropper was in fact quite used by now to facing this line of argument. Fletcher had already used it in his reply to the letters to Wilber- force. 30 Gladstone had done the same in his reply to Cropper's original letter to the Mercury,31 and John Reid's Appeal to the British nation . . . summarised with approval a recent Black- wood's Magazine article, classifying the abolitionists into three types, viz., 'the Saints' (Wilberforce and Buxton) who were actuated by benevolence and religious zeal, the Whig party who were prepared to oppose anything, and 'the commercial men whose East India connections induce them to declaim against the terrors of slavery existing in rival colonies where they have nothing at stake. Mr. Cropper is the colossus of this mercantile association.' 32 Cropper was, of course, well aware of the dangers of such arguments and usually anticipated them by declaring his interests. His stand, however, proved too radical for some of the members of his Liverpool society. John Ashton Yates, for example, claimed (with some truth) that many anti-slavery writers had exaggerated the ill-treatment of the slaves, whose condition had in any case materially improved since 1807. Even so he commended Cropper's pamphlet Relief of West Indian distress and Macaulay's East and West India sugar35 and acknowledged that the West Indian's fears were exaggerated: 'They are not accurately informed in the subject and they dread all changes . . . the present system is gradually mouldering away; it is becoming every year more unprofitable and unsafe; it trembles with every breeze for it hangs by a hair.' The real point at issue, however, was how to free the slaves whilst avoiding the dangers of immediate and unprepared emancipation. 34 The Liverpool corn merchant Joseph Sandars, on the other hand, 64 JAMES CROPPER went further and published a letter to the Liverpool society indicating his intention to resign within months of his becoming a member. Claiming to have 'had some share in reducing the tone and character of your declaration of principles', Sandars felt himself 'compelled to oppose every proceeding calculated to commit the society as to the period of emancipation and to combat many of the notions entertained as to the treatment and condition of the slaves'. He found he could go no further with the society when he realised that the London society, instead of concentrating on the abolition of the slave trade, was committed to continuing the fight for emancipation 'and that petitions were to be got up after the means of Major Cartwright's for reform'.35 This tarring of the anti-slavery movement with the brush of 'agitation' plagued it throughout its life. Gladstone in the Correspondence had referred to the sending of 'emissaries to almost every manufacturing and market town in the country to stir up the population to meet and sign petitions to parliament'.36 Fletcher had described the move as an attempt 'to overawe the government' and asked his readers: What is this but an attempt to carry their imprudent schemes into effect by the force of popular clamour ? . . . not contented with the circulation of this inflammatory matter . . . this violent committee are not satisfied, and are thus endeavouring to renew and increase the clamour and absolutely to overawe the government. 37 But it was not merely a matter of rousing the population in Britain. Time and again the abolitionists were accused of in­ flaming the slaves.38 Sandars was quite explicit: 'I know what is generally understood by emancipation must and will take place, but never I fear as you propose; your measures will accelerate the crisis, and then for emancipation you will have to read revolt.'39 At the same time Gladstone reported that 'Consider­ able alarm has been felt in the southern states since Mr Crop­ per's publications have been circulated amongst the slaves there', and referred his readers to 'the awful warning of Demerara'.40 The revolt of the slaves on his plantation there, and the subsequent imprisonment and death of the Baptist missionary, John Smith, had resulted in bitter controversy both in and out of parliament. The Liverpool society immediately prepared a petition calling for a reconsideration of Smith's case, but Gladstone remained unmoved: 'I was not sorry to hear of Smith's death as his release would have been followed by much cavil and discussion here.'41 Yet Cropper's stand and his reliance on fiscal measures to provide a gradualist solution were relatively conservative. Certainly he was as much embarrassed by the call of his co- JAMES CROPPER 65 religionist Elizabeth Heyrick for Immediate not gradual aboli­ tion ... as he was by the insistence of his townsman (who signed himself 'Mungo') that the planters had no property rights in slaves at all and should therefore be refused compensa­ tion or indemnity. 42 in Cropper's offer, made when proposing Clarkson's tour in 1822, that he would do the same himself in so far as his business affairs allowed, was to prove no empty gesture. In October 1824 he set off with his daughter Eliza on a three month tour of southern Ireland. Speaking at meetings in public and in private, he stressed the link between the development of manufacturing industry in Ireland and the opening of the East India trade, and particularly of the sugar trade by the abolition of the differential duties which favoured West Indian produce. Measures such as this, he claimed, would not only contribute to the prosperity of Ireland and India, but by bringing the free labour of the east into direct competition with the slave labour of the west would also bring about the abolition of slavery itself. 43 Back in England he continued to be a most active member of the London committee, preparing with Zachary Macaulay a new 'Impolicy of slavery' sheet to which was attached a map which he had produced showing the sugar growing areas of the world.44 Then in the autumn of 1825 he proposed yet another tour, this time through the midlands, the north and the west of England, his plan being to address local anti-slavery societies as well as Quaker meetings. He started in Bristol, with meetings on the way back to Liverpool at Tewkesbury, Warwick, Worces­ ter and Birmingham.46 Within a few weeks he was back in Birmingham, addressing a meeting there on 8 November and another in West Bromwich on the next day.46 Whilst in Bir­ mingham he was the guest of Joseph Lloyd junior, and was in close contact with another leading Birmingham Quaker, Joseph Sturge, to whom he confided his doubts about the effectiveness of his work. 47 It was, of course, an extension of the Quaker principle of personal confrontation, but in West Bromwich he had spoken in a dissenting meeting house holding 1,000 people, a confrontation which led him to wonder whether audiences of that size would be well enough informed to understand the complexity of the economic arguments he was putting forward. But of the importance of getting into the large cities and spread­ ing information he had no doubt. Only in this way could a sufficiently forceful body of opinion be built up in the country to make any impact on parliament.48 66 JAMES CROPPER On 14 November Cropper spoke in Kidderminster, on the 15th in Stourbridge and on the 16th in Coventry, with R. Cadbury in the chair.49 On the 24th he addressed a meeting of a flourishing anti-slavery society in Derby which had already sent petitions to parliament both on colonial slavery and on the East and West India sugar question.50 At Leicester he had 'a more select meeting' and hoped that this would lead on to a county meeting.51 From there he moved on to Lancaster for a meeting on 1 December and to Hull on the 9th, where he was joined by Daniel Sykes, the town's M.P.52 At the end of the month Cropper was in London for com­ mittee meetings of the London society on 21 and 23 December, and was present at the society's general public meeting at the Freemason's Hall, but after the New Year he took to the road again, addressing a gathering at the Friends' Meeting House in Manchester on 16 January 1826.53 On the 18th he spoke at Cutler's Hall, Sheffield,54 and after meetings at Doncaster and Gainsborough returned to Birmingham where on the 22nd he addressed about 2,000 people in a dissenting meeting house.55 During the next three days he spoke in Wednesbury, Wolver- hampton and Dudley56 and then moved south, with Joseph Sturge in support, for a visit to Whitmore at Bridgnorth57 and meetings at Hereford,58 Leominster, Gloucester and Stroud.59 From there he went on to Bath for a meeting on 3 February60 and then to Bristol, before setting off for meetings at Exeter on the 7th and Plymouth and Devonport on the 9th, returning home via Glastonbury where he attended a private meeting of Quakers.61 For over four winter months, then, Cropper travelled the roads of Britain. Yet there seemed little evidence that the hopes underlying Canning's resolutions of 1823 were being achieved. Many of the colonial planters had, indeed, rejected the resolu­ tions as an outrageous interference on their freedom of action. Most of the orders in council through which the resolutions were meant to be enforced applied only to the Crown colonies, with the hope that the colonial legislatures would implement similar orders themselves. In March Cropper attended a long meeting of the London committee when the failure of the colonial legislatures to respond to the resolutions was the main topic of discussion.92 In the following month he took the chair at a public meeting of the Liverpool society in the Music Hall, at which a letter from William Roscoe was read regretting that poor health prevented his being present but urging the meeting to further the cause. Cropper spoke at length, as did Adam Hodgson, Isaac Hadwen, Samuel Hope and William Rathbone, JAMES CROPPER 67 Hodgson making a particular point of confirming that it was before any of the societies had been formed that Cropper and he, at a meeting with Lord Liverpool, had made clear their commitment to compensation for the planters in some form or other once emancipation had been achieved. 63 A petition was therefore drawn up and sent forward to both Houses, though Brougham's motion that emancipation be considered was lost, in the face of Canning's insistence that the House had already decided that it would not enact the emancipation of the slaves but would rely on 'a sober and gradual course of measures'. 64 Despite his campaigns in London, in Liverpool, in Ireland and on tour Cropper had little to show for his efforts. His own business affairs had had to cope with the slump which followed the short-lived boom of 1825. During 1827 ill-health prevented Thomas Fowell Buxton, M.P. for Weymouth and since 1824 leader of the anti-slavery party in the Commons, from taking any part in the campaign inside or outside the House, and when he returned it was only to hear Sir George Murray, the new colonial secretary, assert once again that it was not the intention of the government to depart from the principle of the 1823 resolutions, which were perfectly capable of caring for the slaves without infringing the rights of private property."5 The minute books and annual reports of the London committee reveal only routine business and repetitious arguments about the inade­ quacies of the government's amelioration policy. By December the committee was unable to find a quorum for its meetings, a situation which was repeated in January, May and July 1829, by which time the society's treasurer reported that he did not have sufficient money to pay the society's bills.66 A feeling of dis­ enchantment pervaded the society's activities and was echoed by Cropper in a letter to Sturge: The Catholic question absorbs everything. I expect when that is settled Brougham will bring in a bill about slave's evidence. This is one simple and clear point and if the House introduces legislation on one point it may be followed by others. If the bill is rejected we must look to some other course, and to the effects of free trade amongst other things. ... If the chief towns would support Liverpool and join in sending deputations 1 believe we should do so this session to support Whitmore's notion for inquiry and to make a beginning on the India monopoly question.67

IV Early in 1830 the society received the jolt which was ap­ parently necessary to revive its flagging zeal. On 9 February the committee heard a report from a deputation which had been to see Sir George Murray, at which he had talked of the 1823 resolutions 'as rather an opinion than a pledge'. It was plain that 68 JAMES CROPPER the government was not prepared to interfere with colonial legislatures, and the deputation left with the firm conviction, which they communicated to the committee, that 'if left to the government and the colonial legislatures West Indian slavery may exist with very little mitigation for ages yet to come'.68 Pressure on the government through deputation or the work of M.P.s like Buxton and his constant supporter, Stephen Lushington, M.P. for Tregony, Cornwall, and later for Tower Hamlets, seemed at last to be acknowledged as ineffective. A positive alternative was to step up the campaign in the country in the hope that influence could be brought to bear via the constituencies on members of parliament other than the recog­ nised 'anti-slavers'. A sub-committee of the London society was therefore set up 'to consider whether or what arrangements can be made in order that the plan and operation of the society may be carried out with greater effect'.69 At the same time Cropper wrote to Sturge 'with respect to the anti-slavery cause I think it is beginning to be generally felt that the time has come for the advocates of the case to unite in some definite plan . . . [but] . . . emancipation by whatever means it is to be effected must be carried by a majority of both houses of parliament'.70 In parlia­ ment, however, the West Indians had a very powerful lobby indeed, led by Wilmot Horton and Charles Ellis, who could always rely on the support of Liverpool's tory member, Lord Sandon. At the same time Cropper's old rival John Gladstone continued the fight with a twenty-page pamphlet in defence of slavery, an historical institution which (he claimed) was 'not only authorized and protected but encouraged by Acts of the British legislature at various points in its existence, by which the planters have acquired in their people the rights of property; property as effectively sanctioned and secured to them by the law of the land as any freehold estate in Great Britain can be to its owner'. If free labour could be obtained for hire then the planters would prefer it, but such was the negro's aversion to outdoor work that previous limited attempts had failed. 'When, however, it is the duty of the slaves to work in the field, such is their disposition and sense of that duty that the labour is cheer­ fully performed without injury to their health or comfort.' But the important point, Gladstone argued, was not the conditions of or even predisposition to work. It was a question involving property exceeding £100 millions, a question which could not be settled by reference to the 'writings and speeches and reckless impertinence of a class who have no pecuniary interest or property at stake', and who would do better 'to pay attention to the working conditions of labourers at home'.71 JAMES CROPPER 69 The sub-committee urged a redoubling of effort along the usual lines, but added a further suggestion which was to prove crucial in the campaign. This was 'the employment of agents to visit various parts of the United Kingdom to attend meetings of auxiliary societies and those held for forming others . . ,'.72 Remarkably enough it was not until September that the com­ mittee got round to writing to 'our friends in the country' soliciting the names of possible candidates. In the meantime, however, on 15 May 1830, at the annual public meeting of the society in the Freemason's Hall, a further call for radical action had come right at the end of the meeting. Then Henry Pownall had expressed disappointment with the lack of urgency with which members were treating the situation and especially in their continual reliance on mitigation, moving thereupon 'that from and after the 1 January 1830 every slave born within the King's dominions shall be free'. 73 Matters came to a head when, after a committee meeting of the society, Cropper invited George Stephen to dine with him to discuss a more radical programme, which would include the sending of agents round the country to campaign on behalf of the society and for which Cropper promised £500, to which Joseph Sturge added £250 and John and Edward Cropper £100 each. 74 Even so it was not until the next general meeting of the society, held in the new Exeter Hall on 23 April 1831, that signs of action were apparent. Slavery, it was insisted, was not simply an abuse to be mitigated but an enormity to be suppressed. Only by the direct intervention of parliament could any effectual remedy be expected, and towards this end an Address to the people of Great Britain was drawn up in which it was urged that electors should enquire of their candidates whether or not they would support immediate emancipation.75 In May the com­ mittee met representatives from all over the country with Cropper, Sturge and Robert Benson all present, and at which it was resolved finally 'to appoint stipendiary agents to travel in various parts of the country to promote the more general dif­ fusion of correct information on the system of slavery through­ out every class of the population'. 76 In June a sub-committee referred to in the minutes of the meeting as the 'Agency sub­ committee' was appointed to engage the necessary agents.77 Its members, nominally 18, were effectively Joseph Sturge, Emmanuel and Joseph Cooper, with Cropper acting as link-man with the parent committee. 78 From the start, however, difficulties arose about the status of the sub-committee. First of all, it was the brain-child of cam­ paigners who were not necessarily members of the London 70 JAMES CROPPER committee. Secondly, it wished to hasten the pace of activity and was therefore impatient of the parent committee's insistence that it should send all its proposed publications and announce­ ments to that committee for prior scrutiny. After nine months of uneasy co-existence the beginning of a parting of the ways became apparent when Cropper presented a report to the com­ mittee to the effect that in future the Agency committee wished its funds to be separated at the bankers from the general funds of the society, a request which was accepted by the general committee.79 In the meantime the stipendiary agents, the Rev. E. Dewdeney, Rev. J. Thorpe, Edward Baldwin and George Thompson, to­ gether with Charles Stuart, John Scoble and George Pilkington who travelled and lectured at their own expense, were scouring the country addressing large audiences. The agents had been allocated geographical areas and given precise instructions about the purpose of their work: the chief object of the agency committee at the present crisis is to prepare the way for a general expression of public feeling when the proper time shall arrive by widely disseminating an accurate knowledge of the nature and effects of colonial slavery. . . . Your judgement must be guided by reference to principle alone, that the system of colonial slavery is a crime in the sight of God and ought to be immediately and for ever abolished.80 The most successful of the agents was George Thompson81 whose debates with Peter Borthwick, the agent appointed by the West Indians, attracted very large audiences and unprecedented publicity. 82 The debates which took place in the Liverpool Amphitheatre during August and September 1832 created great excitement both in the city and in the hall itself, the arrangement being that Thompson and Borthwick should speak on alternate evenings. The tone of the lectures was unabashedly emotive and personal, so much so that at Borthwick's second lecture John Cropper, James Cropper's eldest son, was heard to say to his neighbours 'Hiss the scoundrel down', whereupon, in support, Adam Hodgson leapt on to a table and attempted to address the meeting. 83 Cropper's subsequent note of apology to Charles Horsfall the chairman 'I unhesitatingly regret that from a want of self control and from a momentary impulse of feeling merely emphasised the atmosphere of the meetings deliberately built up by the speakers. M They must have caused James Cropper a good deal of heart-searching, for throughout his own cam­ paigning he had insisted on a cool clear presentation of facts as the best mode of operating. Indeed the very point was made at the time of the debates by a correspondent in the columns of the Mercury: T have been disgusted with the personalities in which JAMES CROPPER 71 the doughty polemics indulged, and by the unfairness with which each sought to disguise the weak points of his case, and the boldness with which they drew general conclusions from isolated incidents . . . the West India question, above all others, is of an awful importance, which requires cool investigation'. 85 But Cropper himself had earlier acknowledged that the old methods had been ineffective, 86 and there could be no doubt that the debates and their attendant publicity stimulated the forma­ tion of local anti-slavery societies, from whose meetings emerged petitions in enormous quantities, from the great manu­ facturing towns, from market towns and from ports, to say nothing of 'the students of Airedale Independent College at Calverley', and 'the females residing at Mazarion'. In addition there was a flood of petitions from church congregations includ­ ing the Liverpool congregations of Byrom Street Chapel, Stanhope Street Chapel, Brunswick Chapel, Pitt Street Chapel, Herculaneum Pottery Chapel, Mount Pleasant Chapel, Leeds Street Chapel and Cockspur Street Chapel. 87 But during 1831, the reform bill agitation was under way, and though Cropper had told a Liverpool meeting that the first effective step towards the improvement of the slaves would be the extinction of slavery itself, 88 he was only too well aware that at this stage of the campaign nothing should get in the way of reform. He therefore strongly advised his followers to make explicit enquiry of the candidates as to their views on the slavery question, for only by doing so could the electorate produce a new parliament committed to immediate emancipation. The Liverpool society publicly advertised the need for such enquiry in August 1832, 89 and Cropper himself drew up a paper on the subject for the London committee, which included the direct question 'In the event of your becoming a member of the next parliament will you vote for and seriously support the immediate abolition of colonial slavery under such regulations as parlia­ ment may deem necessary to secure the industrious habits and orderly conduct of the negroes?' 90 Despite ill-health during the spring and summer of 1832, Cropper remained the working link between the Agency and the parent committee. The tensions remained, however, and Thomas Pringle, the secretary of the society, (presumably on instructions of the committee) publicised in the provincial press the separateness of the two bodies, though in fact the move was as much financial as political, for the parent society was desperately short of funds and Pringle's letters ended with a request that donations should be sent direct to him or to the society's bankers. 91 Not surprisingly John Crisp, the secretary 72 JAMES CROPPER of the Agency committee, replied in kind, 92 but in the end the need for co-operation was seen to override all other considera­ tions, and in December 1832 a joint meeting was requested by the Agency. From then on the two groups published joint circulars and members of the Agency attended meetings of the parent committee as 'visitors'. 93 By now Cropper was spending almost all his time in London attending meetings of both committees, and at the same time a stream of pamphlets came from his pen. 94 In his Review of the select committee report Cropper challenged the main conclusion of the committee that the basic cause of distress was the over­ production of West India sugar, which found itself in com­ petition with Brazilian and Cuban sugars whose planters continued to restock their plantations through the slave trade. In the first place, Cropper argued, the report itself provided evidence that the Brazilian trade was unprofitable too, for it was unsupported by the bounties and drawbacks allowed to the West Indians, measures which cost the consumer in Britain over £1 million per annum. Maintaining slavery was an enormous burden to the country which could be relieved only by im­ mediate emancipation, which in its turn would benefit not only the negroes but the planters and consumers as well. 95 But over­ production by an unprofitable system was not the only cause of distress among the planters. Their mortgages were an even greater burden, mortgages on which, one witness calculated, they were paying 20 per cent per annum. As a consequence, another witness claimed: in many respects the planter is in a great measure a nominal person, who has an account on the books of the merchant; advances are made to him, but he exercises no control over the detailed management of his property; the merchant is not in a situation to take the minute direction of the person who is put in the management of the estate, and often a great deal of mis­ management arises on that circumstance. 96 Cropper also discounted the widely canvassed assumption that the 'change from slavery to freedom . . . must necessarily be attended with loss and require compensation'' (his italics), and asked what would be the response if British factory owners sought compensation from public funds when they replaced obsolete machinery. 'It is absurd to presume beforehand that such improvement must be attended by loss, and highly unjust to lay the burden of this assumed but unproved loss on the innocent party.' 97 He acknowledged however that 'the country [had] nursed the West Indians into these difficulties and must help them get out of it', 98 and proposed therefore that the planter be rescued from his plight by a public loan of £15 mil- JAMES CROPPER 73 lions, which could be offered by the Government at a rate 10 per cent below the current mortgage rates, the loan being offered on condition of immediate emancipation. This would achieve the freeing not only of the negroes from the bonds of slavery but also of the planters from the bonds of their mortgages. In return there would be an equalisation of the duties on East and West Indian sugars and the bounty on refined sugar would be given up. The removal of unjust taxes would thus be achieved not by the usual unsatisfactory way of transferring taxation from one commodity to another, but by a lessening of the costs of produc­ tion and a cheapening of the commodity to the consumer. In this way lower prices would produce an increase in consumption which in its turn would bring an increased revenue. 'It may be said [Cropper wrote] that we are meddling in with things we do not understand; our reply to this is that the planters want our money to compensate for their own neglect and it is strictly our business to look at that', 99 and with a reformed House of Commons he was convinced that ministers would bring forward an emancipation bill of their own. The important matter now was to influence the decisions about compensation to the slave owners and the manner in which and the conditions under which slaves would be freed. Yet when the new parliament assembled there was no mention of the slavery question in the King's speech. The London com­ mittee promptly urged Buxton 'to obtain from the ministers some public pledge of their determination to bring forward on an early and specific day their own measure for the immediate extinction of colonial slavery'. 100 Later in the month, however, he and Lord Suffield reported their doubts as to whether Goderich, the colonial secretary, could be relied on to bring forward his own measure and accordingly a public meeting at Exeter Hall was called for 2 April to demand 'immediate and complete emancipation'.101 The next day it was agreed to call a meeting of deputations from all over the country to be held on 19 April, and at the same time the committee accepted a pro­ posal from Cropper and Sturge that they should undertake a tour of the west and north of England to encourage the sending of deputations. Some of the deputies met the committee on the 17th, at which Cropper and others were asked to draw up a memorial and a set of resolutions for the public meeting at Exeter Hall the next day. 102 At the meeting the most important resolutions were 'that all persons detained in slavery in any part of his Majesty's dominions ought forthwith to be emancipated' and, in a much more explicit phrasing of the compensation question, 'that when the debt of justice which is due to the 74 JAMES CROPPER negro shall have been fully paid by immediate emancipation the country will cheerfully consent to promote such fair measures of relief on the West Indian planters as may be deemed useful by parliament'. 103 At the same time the meeting unequivocally came out against any plan (and such a proposal had already been mooted) by which the slaves would 'buy' their own freedom by a period of unpaid work for the planters. On 14 May 1833 Stanley, who had newly succeeded Goderich as colonial secretary, introduced the long-awaited government plan to the Commons. He referred back to the persistent failure of the colonial legislatures to implement the 1823 resolutions and reminded the House that despite a decrease in the number of slaves the number of recorded lashings was increasing each year. In addition he pointed to the overproduction of sugar as a major contributory factor to the current economic plight of the planters. It was on these grounds therefore that he proposed on behalf of the government a series of resolutions to the effect that the House should proceed to the 'immediate and entire' aboli­ tion of slavery, with children under fourteen to become im­ mediately free and with freed slaves to serve a period of unpaid apprenticeship for three-quarters of the working day for a period of twelve years. For the remainder of the day he proposed that the slave could work for wages with which he would ulti­ mately purchase his freedom at valuation. The planters would in return be compensated by a loan of £15 millions. 104 The London committee immediately decided to co-ordinate action between the society, the Agency and the deputations, and a standing committee representing all three groups was set up. 105 At last it seemed that concerted action was under way. It was clear that the main points at issue would be the loan and the apprenticeship clause. The former question was immediately transformed in June when Stanley proposed that the £15 millions loan be changed into an outright grant of £20 millions, on the grounds that only by doing so would he be able to gain the sup­ port of the West Indians and thus 'the concurrence of all parties so essential in a matter of this kind'.106 Though Buxton (and indeed all the leading members of the movement) had always conceded some form of financial con­ sideration 'slavery is an injustice, but it is an injustice sanc­ tioned by our law; the crime is ours and ours must be the expense of getting rid of it' he opposed the change. 107 But he gradually saw that emancipation itself might be lost on this clause, and in any case this was a matter between parliament and the planters. What concerned him most was the requirement that the slave should contribute to the payment by a period of JAMES CROPPER 75 apprenticeship and he continued to oppose this when, the resolutions having been debated throughout May and June, the bill itself was introduced on 5 July. 108 The reaction of the other campaigners was even more forceful. Cropper wrote to his son John 'I am sorely disappointed with the bill. In its present shape it is a wasteful expenditure of public money without absolutely securing anything in return.' Even if the principle of apprentice­ ship were accepted the proposed details of its implementation were fraught with difficulty. Not only were the food and clothing allocations insufficient but the detailed administration of the land allocation was to be left in the hands of the colonial legislatures, who would at the same time be responsible for the implementation of the act. They would even be allowed to amend the act if the amendments were satisfactory to the Crown 'which means the ministry for the time being' (Cropper's italics). 109 The standing committee redoubled its efforts, meeting almost daily whilst the bill was being debated. On 11 and 12 July, with Cropper in the chair, it discussed and adopted a paper prepared by George Stephen, which a deputation including Cropper, Buxton, Stephen, Sturge, Suffield and Smith presented to Stanley at the Colonial Office. They returned, however, tho­ roughly disappointed with the meeting, and resolved on yet another public meeting to be called for the 20th. 110 At the same time petitions had continued to flood into parliament, including one from Adam Hodgson as chairman of the Liverpool society 'taking notice of the slavery abolition Bill and praying that the same may not pass into a law as it now stands1 .111 On 24 July the government's apprenticeship clause was passed by 158-151. On the next day, however, Stanley acknowledged the strength of feeling in the House and proposed that the periods of apprenticeship for field slaves and domestic slaves be reduced from 12 years and 7 years respectively to 7 and 5. Lord Sandon objected that this would break a 'contract' made with the West Indians at the time the resolutions were introduced back in May. William Ewart Gladstone, recently elected member for Newark, thought the Government was 'throwing the West India interest overboard on the strength of a division of the House'. In the light of the young member's subsequent parlia­ mentary career Stanley's tart reply was interesting: 'if it should ever occur that the honourable member have a place in the government he would come to different conclusions upon such divisions'. 112 In the end Stanley's amended apprenticeship clause and the £20 millions grant were voted through. The two main issues had been settled, though to no-one's entire satisfaction, and the bill 76 JAMES CROPPER was read for a third time on 2 August 1833. The main thing for Buxton, and for the bulk of the anti-slavers, was that emancipa­ tion had been achieved. Wilberforce had died on 29 July and Macaulay was stricken with an illness which effectively ended his public career. For the past ten years or so Cropper had devoted untiring energy to the linked causes of emancipation and the opening of the West India and China trade. In one and the same session he had seen both campaigns brought to a successful outcome. He now turned his main attention to a scheme of agricultural education for which he had long wished to spare time.113 It remained to Joseph Sturge, with the constant support of Cropper on the side lines, to fight the outstanding battle concerning apprenticeship.

NOTES 1 D. B. Davis, 'James Cropper and the British anti-slavery movement 1823-33', Journal of Negro History, XLV (I960), pp. 154-73, tells the story from the national standpoint and is based almost entirely on the minutes of the Anti-Slavery Society and on Cropper's pamphlets. 2 Jean Trepp, The Liverpool movement for the abolition of the English slave trade', J. Negro Hist., XIII (1928), p. 274. 3 Cf. lan Sellers, 'William Roscoe, the Roscoe circle and radical politics in Liverpool, 1789-1807', Transactions of the Historic Societv of Lancashire and Cheshire (hereafter THSLC), CXX (1969 for 1968), pp. 45-62; and R. B. Rose, 'The Jacobins of Liverpool, 1789-1793', The Liverpool libraries, museums and arts committee bulletin, IX (1960-1), pp. 35-49. 4 Cropper Papers, Thomas Cropper to James Cropper, 17 Dec. 1792. The Cropper Papers are preserved at Tolson Hall, Burneside, near Kendal. The material relating to James Cropper has been kindly deposited with the author. Some of his original letters were transcribed after his death by his daughter-in-law Anne Cropper and then apparently destroyed. The transcription was published privately in lithograph. Where letters are quoted from this source they are indicated as coming from the Letter book. The author is indebted to Mr James Cropper of Tolson Hall for permission to study the papers in his possession. 5 Cropper was a founder-member of the Chamber and served as its president in 1806 and 1810 and as its treasurer in 1807-8. Cf. W. O. Henderson, 'The American Chamber of Commerce for the port of Liverpool, 1801-1908', THSLC, LXXXV (1955 for 1953), pp. 1-61. 6 Letter book, note by Anne Cropper. Cf. Life of William Alien (1846), pp. 268 and 290. 7 The letters were reprinted in pamphlet form in 1822: James Cropper, Letters addressed to William Wilberforce recommending the encouragement of the cultivation of sugar in our colonies in the East Indies as the natural and certain means of effecting the total and general abolition of the slave trade (Liverpool, 1822). 8 Ibid. p. vii. 9 Cropper to Macaulay, 12 July 1822, British Museum, Additional Manu­ scripts 41627A, Clarkson Papers, VII, f. 102. 10 Report of a committee of the Liverpool East India Association appointed to take into consideration the restrictions on the East India trade (Liverpool, 1822); cf. my forthcoming article 'Liverpool and the East India Trade', Northern Historv, 1972. 11 Cropper to Macaulay, 21 Oct. 1822, he. cit. f. 128. 12 Cropper to Clarkson, 12 Dec. 1822, ibid. f. 126. JAMES CROPPER 77 13 Cropper to William Roscoe, 14 Jan. 1823, Liverpool Record Office, Roscoe Papers, 1091, in which he also lists the members of the society; and Cropper to Roscoe, 21 Jan. 1823, and 27 Jan. 1823, ibid. 1092 and 1093. 14 Declaration of the objects of the Liverpool Society for the Abolition of Slavery (Liverpool, 1823). Unfortunately any minute books or other records which the society might have kept seem not to have survived. 15 Ibid. p. 12. 16 James Cropper, A letter addressed to the Liverpool Societv for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery (Liverpool, 1823), pp. 28 and 23. 17 Cropper argued the financial details in Relief for West India distress showing the inefficiency of protecting duties on East India sugar and pointing out other modes of certain relief (1823). 18 Rhodes House Library, Oxford, MSS Brit. Emp, 520, E2/1-4, Minute books of the Anti-Slavery Society, 31 Jan. 1823, I, fol. 2. 19 Cropper to Macaulay, 12 July 1822, B.M. Add. MSS, 41627A, f. 109. 20 Relief for West Indian distress . . . pp. 32-3, and cf. James Cropper, The support of slavery investigated (Liverpool, 1824), pp. 1 and 17. 21 Hansard, 2nd ser. IX, 15 May 1823, cols 285-6. 22 Support of slavery investigated, p. 1. 23 Relief for West India distress . . . pp. 30-1. 24 Cropper to Macaulay, 5 Aug. 1822, B.M. Add. MSS, 41627A, f. 112. 25 Minutes, 9 and 23 April, 9 June, 1823, I, ff. 10, 15 and 34ff. Cropper to Macaulay, 6 June 1823, B.M. Add. MSS, 41627A, f. 102. 26 Cropper to Macaulay, 12 July 1822, ibid. f. 108. 27 Liverpool Mercury, 31 Oct. 1823. 28 Ibid. 4 Nov. 1823. 29 Liverpool Courier, 5 Nov. 1823. The whole of the correspondence which extended over three months was reprinted as a pamphlet by the Liverpool West India Association, The correspondence between John Gladstone Esc/., M.P., and James Cropper Esq. on the present state of slavery in the West Indies and in the United States of America and on the importation of sugar from the British settlements in India (Liverpool, 1824), hereafter cited as Correspondence. . . . 30 Thomas Fletcher, Letters in vindication of the British West Indian colonies ... in answer to James Cropper's letters to William Wilberforce M.P. (Liverpool, 1822), p. 65. 31 Correspondence ... p. 15. 32 John Reid, An appeal to the British nation to think for themselves instead of allowing Wilberforce Buxton and others to think for them (Liverpool, 1823), p. 3. See Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, XIV (LXXXI), Oct. 1823, pp. 451-2. Similar arguments were used by Vindex in the Correspondence, Appendix A, p. xxvi and by J. Macqueen, The West India colonies; the calumnies and misrepresentations circulated against them by the Edinburgh Review, Mr. Clarkson, Mr. Cropper etc. examined and refuted (1824). 33 Z. Macaulay, East and West India sugar, or a refutation of the claims of the West India colonists to a protecting duty on East India sugar (1823). 34 John Ashton Yates, Colonial slavery: letters to the rt hon. William Huskis- son on the present conditions of the slaves and the means best adapted to promote the mitigation and final extinction of slavery in the British colonies (Liverpool, 1824), pp. 83-5. 35 Joseph Sandars, Letter to the Liverpool Society for the Abolition of Slavery (Liverpool, 1829) reprinted as Appendix C of Correspondence, pp. 1-2. Huskisson supported Sandars in his move, Huskisson to Sandars, 22 Jan. 1824, B.M. Add. MSS, 38745, ff. 102-3. 36 Correspondence. .. p. 25; and cf. the draft anonymous letter he proposed to send to Cobbett, S. G. Checkland, The Gladstones; a family history (1971), pp. 192-3. 37 Correspondence. . . Appendix A, p. xii. 38 Cf. T. Fletcher, Letters on the West India question chiefly in answer to James Cropper (Liverpool, 1825). 39 Sandars, Letter ... p. 4. 78 JAMES CROPPER 40 Gladstone, Correspondence ... p. 66. For other Liverpool contributors to the debate see Anon. Cursory remarks on the emancipation of the slaves (Liverpool, 1823) and John Naylor, Negro emancipation and West Indian independence the true interest of Great Britain (Liverpool, 1824). 41 Gladstone to Frederick Cort, 22 March 1824, cited in S. G. Checkland, 'John Gladstone as trader and planter', Economic History Review, 2nd Series, VII (1954-5), p. 225. The Smith case is discussed in the Mercury, 14 May, 11 and 18 June 1824, and Hansard, N.S. XI, 1 June 1824, cols 961ff, 1206ff. The Liverpool petition is printed in Commons Journals, 79, 18 June 1824, p. 519. 42 Elizabeth Heyrick, Immediate not gradual emancipation (1825); Anon. An Address to the friends of negro emancipation in Liverpool (Liverpool, 1824). Cf. Cropper to Roscoe, 10 Oct. 1825, L.R.O. Roscoe Papers, 1096, 'I should be glad to see a plan in operation which would extinguish the system in thirty years.' 43 James Cropper, The present state of Ireland with apian for the improvement of the people (Liverpool, 1825). For a detailed account see my The state of Ireland in the 1820's: James Cropper's plan', Irish Historical Studies, XVII, No. 67 (1971), pp. 320-39. 44 Rhodes House Library, Oxford, Anti-Slavery Society reports and letters, 1823-34, contains copies of the sheet and the map. 45 Cropper to Roscoe, 10 Oct. 1825, L.R.O. Roscoe Papers, 1096. 46 Birmingham Chronicle, 17 Nov. 1825. 47 Cropper to Sturge, 14 Oct. 1825, Letter book. Sturge was later to marry Cropper's daughter Eliza who accompanied her father on most of his travels. Cropper himself anticipated a good deal of'the woman movement' by encouraging the Anti-Slavery Society to mobilize the energies of women in the campaign. Minutes, 20 Nov. 1827 and 3 June 1828. Cf. G. Stephens, Anti-slavery recollections (1854), pp. 197-8. 48 Cropper to Sturge, 14 Nov. 1825. 49 Coventry Herald, 18 Nov. 1825. 50 Derby Reporter, 24 Nov. 1825. The lecture was published by the local society as a pamphlet, James Cropper, Slave labour and free labour (Derby, 1825). 51 Cropper to Sturge, 30 Nov. 1825. 52 The [Hull] Rockingham, 10 Dec. 1825; The Hull Advertiser, 16 Dec. 1825. 53 Manchester Mercurv, 17 Jan. 1826, 25 March 1826. 54 Sheffield Iris, 24 Jan. 1826. 55 Cropper to William Roscoe, 6 Feb. 1826, L.R.O. Roscoe Papers, 1097; Cropper to Sturge, 13 Jan. 1826, Letter book. 56 Joseph Sturge's diary, cited H. Richard, Memoirs of Joseph Sturge (1864), pp. 81-2. 57 Cropper to Sturge, 13 Jan. 1826, Letter book. 58 Hereford Independent, 28 Jan. 1826; Hereford Journal, 1 Feb. 1826. 59 Cropper to Roscoe, 6 Feb. 1826, L.R.O. Roscoe Papers, 1097. 60 Bath Journal, 6 Feb. 1826. 61 Cropper to Sturge, 9 Feb. 1826. 62 Minutes, 8 March 1826, II, ff. 7Iff. and 8Iff. 63 Liverpool Mercury, 28 April 1826; Anti-Slavery Monthly Reporter, No. 12, 31 May 1826, pp. 185-8. Cf. Anon. A letter to Mr James Cropper upon the abolition of West Indian slavery (Liverpool, 1826) which comments on the Music Hall meeting. 64 Hansard, N.S. XV, 19 May 1826, cols 1284ff. The petitions are printed in Commons Journals, 81, 19 May 1826, p. 367 and Lords Journals, 58, 2 May 1826, p. 356. For a counter-petition from the West Indians, Commons Journals, 81, pp. 368-70. 65 Hansard, N.S. XIX, 25 July 1828, cols 1779ff. 66 Minutes, 2 Dec. 1828, 6 Jan., 5 May, 7 July 1829. 67 Cropper to Sturge, 2 April 1829. Sturge made the same point to the 1830 Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends, Richard, Memoir, pp. 87ff. 68 Minutes, 9 Feb. 1830, III, f. 20. 69 Ibid. JAMES CROPPER . 79 70 Cropper to Sturge, 22 June 1830. 71 John Gladstone, Facts relating to slavery in the West Indies and America contained in a letter addressed to the Rt Hon. Sir Robert Peel (1830). Cf. R. Wilmot Horton, Letter to the freeholders of the county of York on negro slavery, being an inquiry into the claims of the West Indians for equitable compensation (1830). 72 Minutes, 8 June 1830, III, f. 48. 73 Anti-Slavery Monthly Reporter, No. 61, 13 June 1830, pp. 256-8. 74 Agency committee, Report for 1831 (1832), p. 21. Cf. Richard, Memoir, p. 94 and Stephens, Anti-Slavery recollections, p. 130. 75 Minutes, 23 April 1831, III, ff. 84ff. Anti-Slavery Monthlv Reporter, No. 80, 9 May 1831, pp. 249-51. 76 Minutes, 25 May 1831, III, f. 92. 77 Ibid. 1 June 1831, III, f. 94. 78 R. G. Coupland, The British anti-slavery movement (1933), p. 137. Christine Bolt, The anti-slavery movement and reconstruction (1969), p. 5, misquoting Coupland, refers to 'Emmanuel and Joseph Cropper', and W. L. Burn, Emancipation and apprenticeship in the British West Indies (1937), p. 90, refers to 'Emmanuel and James Cropper'. 79 Minutes, 7 March 1832, III, f. 124. 80 Agency committee, Report for 1831 (1832). 81 William Lloyd Garrison (ed.), Thompson's lectures and debates on slavery (Boston, 1836). For Thompson's early lectures in Kent see his letters to his wife in the Raymond English Collection in the John Rylands Library, Manchester. For Edward Cropper's report on Stuart's lectures in the midlands, cf. Edward Cropper to Thomas Pringle, 1 Sept. 1831. Rhodes House Library, MSS Brit. Emp. 518, Cl/15. 82 The lectures were fully reported in the Mercury, the Courier and the Advertiser. 83 For a similar uproar when Thompson and Borthwick lectured in Man­ chester cf. Manchester Courier, 2 Aug. 1832. 84 Liverpool Courier, 5 Sept. 1832; Liverpool Mercury, 1 Sept. 1832; and the correspondence in the Albion, 3 Sept. 1832. 85 Liverpool Mercury, 7 Sept. 1832, letter to editor signed 'Presbyter'. 86 Liverpool Mercury, 28 Jan. 1831. 87 Cf. Commons Journals, 86 (1) Sept. 1830-Nov. 1831, in which 13 pages of index are required to list the petitions. 88 Liverpool Mercury, 28 Jan. 1831. 89 Liverpool Mercury, 24 Aug. 1832; The Albion, 30 July 1832. 90 Minutes, 21 and 22 Nov. 1832, III, ff. 177-9. With his sons Edward and John, Cropper played an active part in the reform campaign in Liverpool, cf. Liverpool Mercury, 29 April and 23 Sept. 1831 and 18 May 1832. 91 York Courant, 19 Oct. 1832; Liverpool Mercury, 9 Nov. 1832. 92 See his letter in the General election guide (Tower Hamlets), Cropper Papers. 93 The question of joint circulars was not settled easily. Clearly some mem­ bers of the committee wished to have nothing to do with the Agency. Minutes, 14, 15, 17 Jan. 1833, IV, ff. 2-5. 94 In the space of five months Cropper published A letter addressed to Thomas Clarkson against the American Colonization Society (Liverpool, 1832), The extinction of the American Colonization Society (London, 1832), A vindica­ tion of a loan of £15 millions to the West India planters (London, 1833), The interests of the country and the prosperity of the West India planters mutually secured by the abolition of slavery (London, 1833), A review of the report of the select committee of the House of Commons on the state of the West India colonies (London, 1833) and A bonus to the planters or the advantage shown of an equitable purchase of the monopoly and bounty on West India sugar (London, 1833). The first two pamphlets concerned the debate about the American Colonization Society, whose agent Elliott Cresson was at this time touring England and Scotland to gain support for the Society. Together with Charles Stuart, Cropper played a major part in waging war against Cresson. SO JAMES CROPPER 95 Review of the Report, pp. 6 and 16. The Review was noted at length in Liverpool Mercury, 1 Feb. 1833. 96 Report of the select committee appointed to inquire into the commercial state of the West Indian colonies. Parliamentary Papers 1831-2, XX, pp. 220 and 87. 97 Vindication, p. 3. 98 Review of the Report, p. 23. 99 Vindication, p. 13. 100 Minutes, 9 March 1833, IV, f. 12. 101 Ibid. 21 March 1833, IV, f. 14. 102 Ibid. 17 and 18 April 1833, IV, f. 27ff. 103 Ibid. 18 April 1833, IV, ff. 30ff. 104 Hansard, 3rd ser. XVII, 14 May 1833, cols 1193ff. 105 Minutes, 23 May 1833, IV, f. 40. 106 Hansard, 3rd ser. XVIII, 10 June 1833, cols 549ff. 107 Hansard, M.S. IX, 15 May 1823, col. 352. 108 Cf. Hansard, 3rd ser. XIX, 24 July 1833, cols 1184ff. 109 Cropper to John Cropper, 10 July 1833, Letter book. 110 Minutes, 11 and 12 July 1833, IV, ff. 48-9. 111 Commons Journals, 88, 22 July 1833, p. 610. 112 Hansard, 3rd ser. XIV, 25 July 1833, col. 1242. 113 K. Charlton, 'James Cropper and agricultural improvement in the early nineteenth century', THSLC, CXII (1960), pp. 65-78.