Talk:Slavery in Britain

Comment from another

The opening section merely cites laws, as if this charts the rise and fall of slavery. Slavery was a business. The real end of British slavery is the compensation of British slave owners for the loss of their property, 20 million GBP at the time. It is mentioned once near the end of the article. In the USA, Yankee slave owners were compensated by selling their slaves down the river before passing local emancipation laws. Southern slave owners were never offered compensation of any kind. If they had, this would have contributed to avoiding secession. Britain is to be commended for it's rational policy of paying out compensation to slave owners, thereby ending slavery quickly and humanely.

Comment

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

Irish slavery

You should get your facts right because africans were never enslaved by the Irish, maybe by the British, but not by the Irish. British and Irish are two separate ethnicities and nationalities so don't confuse the two when you're talking of the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.148.2 (talk) 06:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

British slave traders mostly bought people enslaved by others. Trading in human beings is a filthy business no matter who enslaved the poor wretches so abused: nothing lessens the vile immorality of anyone involved in treating human beings as property.

Let us never forget that the Irish, Welsh, Scots, and English all enslaved their own folk in their own lands, in historical times. Historically, all the peoples of the (geographical) British Isles stand guilty of the vile crime of slavery.

Bearing in mind the historical kingdom of Dal Riada, there appears to be evidence contradicting the idea of absolute separation of the peoples of the British Isles (a term I use in the purely geographical sense; one can class the Irish as British in the purely geographical sense, although this is clearly problematic given the modern political meaning of 'British'. Does no-one recall that the island of Great Britain was named by the folk of Brittany/Bretagne?). The idea of separate national identities corresponding to some real difference in supposed race seems from my point of view to have been a fairly modern invention which has caused unending trouble all over the European-influenced world, in Ireland perhaps more than most places. Would the fine folk of Ireland have been so foully mistreated by their eastern neighbours if those neighbours had not derided them so insultingly as wild Irish savages, I wonder?

But are we human beings not all of us the same under the skin? Equal in the eyes of the Lord, as a Christian might put it?

86.152.255.29 (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Some Irish in the United States were among the slaveowners, among them Michael Healy, who had a common-law relationship with a mulatto slave woman for more than 25 years, had 10 mixed-race children with her, among whom were three sons who became Catholic priests (one was president of Georgetown University) and three daughters who became nuns, one an abbess of the Congregation of Notre Dame in Montreal.--Parkwells (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Very little on people been enslaved by the Irish; they were to the British Isles in the Dark Ages what the Vikings would be hundreds of years later. Only with the advent of Christianity did slavery come to an end among the Irish, though the Norse cities of Ireland would remain slave markets till well into the 12th century. Just some food for thought. Fergananim 18:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This article should be removed

This article does not cite any authoritative references and should be removed.

--Kjb (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Article sounds really rather racist

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)

I posted the above comments originally (before I registered). The current version of the article is vastly improved. I think my earlier objections have all been addressed.

Well done and thank you!

Keith2468 (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This section of the article unfortunately remains factually inaccurate and suggests both religious and national bias. Servitude enforced by the government was not "reintroduced as a punishment for Catholics" in the 17th century. The first instances of it in the 1600s that I'm aware of followed the pacification of the Borders in the immediate aftermath of the Union of the Crowns, in which members of those "raiding names" deemed too troublesome were forcibly rounded up and sold off to various locations in the British Isles, the Americas, and the Netherlands to aid in colonisation efforts or to act as unwilling soldiers. The state had an established track-record of seizing and selling on "undesirable" elements: it was a way of removing habitually problematic rebels. Had it been a directly religious matter, it would have had many more targets. Religion certainly had a role to play in Ireland's rebellious state, but to the best of my knowledge it was rebellion - not faith - that was seen to justify enforced servitude and sale.

Even this section contradicts its own assertion that slavery was reintroduced to target the Irish in the wake of the Cromwellian conquest: most of Cromwell's opponents there surrendered in 1652, the same year given for the legal right to deport indigents from Scotland for forced labour in the colonies. Even if one ignores the earlier instances, these two events can't have occurred simultaneously, while targetting different national (and religious) groups, without invalidating the claim that state enslavement of its subjects was a specific punishment for Roman Catholics and Irish....

WikiExile (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The quote about Cromwell sending Irish females to the West Indies for the salacious pleasure of the planters there, was without a page number. I removed it. I left in the references, without quotes, for Romany slavery, but they also do not cite page numbers, only book titles. If a book is specifically quoted, the reference should include a page number. IAC-62 (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Remove this article and start a new unbiased one...

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)

Abolition in 1833?

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)

Removed recent additions

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)

This is just slavery in England

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)

Queen Maredudd

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)

Black Slaves in Britain?

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)

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)

Irish enslavement

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)

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)

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 [1] 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)

In no place can I find that Petty mentioned 'slaves' his work was early day census. Sounds like propaganda. Wiki needs to stop publishing facts without merit... people across the world are reading this and quoting it as fact. http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/William_Petty.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.153.237 (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Indentured labour and slavery

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)

s 71 Coroners and Justice Act 2009

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)

Scotland

A some sources on the bonded labour in scottish mines during the 17th and 18th century can be found at Colliers and Salters (Scotland) Act 1775.©Geni (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

A few words would help, but I'm not sure when slave-raiding, slave trading, serfdom, ... became illegal in Scotland, other than:

* 1138 - Battle of the Standard - Walter Espec's speech before the Battle of the Standard reminds the English Army the Scots have been Slave-raiding into England.

* 1775 - Colliers and Salters (Scotland) Act 1775 - abolition of lifelong servitude for new Colliers

* 1799 - 13 June — Colliers (Scotland) Act ("An Act to explain and amend the Laws relative to Colliers in that Part of Great Britain called Scotland") frees coal miners from bondage to their employers, the last vestige of serfdom in Scotland.

any ideas? A.j.roberts (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Locke and slavery

The article falsely claims that John Locke was opposed to slavery. In fact, in the Second Treatise, Locke defends slavery as being legitimate. Anyone who violates the Law of Nature to a certain degree, he says, is OK to kill. If you spare that person's life, however, you are allowed to keep him or her as a slave. You can also take slaves in war. Locke would only have been opposed to the kind of slavery where you go out and capture people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.151.200 (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The John Locke experts beg to differ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Treatises_of_Government#Conquest_and_slavery "... Most Locke scholars roundly reject this reading, as it is directly at odds with the text. The extent of Locke's involvement in drafting the Fundamental Constitutions is a matter of some debate, but even attributing full culpability for its contents and for his having profited from the Atlantic slave trade, the majority of experts will concede that Locke may have been a hypocrite in this matter, but are adamant that no part of the Two Treatises can be used to provide theoretical support for slavery by bare right of conquest. ..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.74.94 (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to re-open this issue. There's debate about what role Locke had in the Constitution of the Carolinas, and to what extent he was motivated to defend his indirect business interests in slavery in the Treatises. What is not in dispute is that Locke gives a defense of slavery in the First Treatise:

[H]aving by his fault forfeited his own life, by some act that deserves death; he, to whom he has forfeited it, may (when he has him in his power) delay to take it, and make use of him to his own service, and he does him no injury by it: for, whenever he finds the hardship of his slavery outweigh the value of his life, it is in his power, by resisting the will of his master, to draw on himself the death he desires. (Ch. IV, "Of Slavery")

No one disputes that the Treatises reflect Locke's considered political philosophy. So it is manifestly false, as the original poster notes, that Locke was opposed to slavery. Indeed, he thought that it was defensible just in those cases in which someone has forfeited his or her own life and slavery is an alternative to capital punishment. (Also, I'd like to point out that there's a longstanding [who?] tag in the article referenced above that mentions "most Locke experts." My humble guess is that there's not a lot of consensus about much of anything among Locke scholars.)50.191.21.222 (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Schoolchildren

"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)

Impressment, Press Gangs, Conscription

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)

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)

Proposed move

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)

Makes sense. Whizz40 (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

No it doesn't see the Great Britain article. Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

Fair enough Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 14 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Slavery in Britain → Slavery and Britain – Most of what Britain did in relation to slavery was outside of Britain or on the high seas. The standard title of "Slavery in [name of state]" works well for Slavery in the United States and many other countries, except perhaps Slavery in France which does not exist yet and a few others, but the title for this article should be the most appropriate for this topic and the article's scope and contents if the standard pattern does not fit. Note: This article was recently moved on 14 January 2017 from Slavery in the British Isles.  Whizz40 (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I actually think this article should be split into two, Slavery in the British Isles and Slavery in the British Empire. The subjects are distinct enough that it is awkward to coerce them into the same article. Alázhlis (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

We already have Slavery in the colonial United States, Slavery in the British and French Caribbean, Slavery in Canada#Under British rule, Slavery in Africa, Slavery in India#Under early European colonial powers which are consistent with the section headings at History of slavery. Would you agree with leaving these articles titles as they are, and creating new articles as necessary following the current title scheme? Whizz40 (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Revert 14 Jan move return to stable title Slavery in the British Isles. as per Whizz40 we already have Slavery in the colonial United States, Slavery in the British and French Caribbean, Slavery in Canada#Under British rule, Slavery in Africa, Slavery in India#Under early European colonial powers. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

And then WP:FORK as Alazhlis suggests. These really are different subjects. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Withdrawn having read through this and the related articles listed above I am satisfied the current article title and series of article titles cover this topic adequately so I withdraw this move request. Whizz40 (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose proposed move since the title could lead the reader to assume that the article is about two distinct unrelated subjects. (I'm neutral on anything discussed during this discussion that does not related to the move as proposed.) Steel1943 (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Remove all Ireland from article

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)

In the news – citation needed

• Malcolm, Noel (21 October 2017). "There were hundreds of Africans in Tudor England – and none of them slaves: Black Tudors, Miranda Kaufmann, review". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 26 October 2017. First, the 'S'-word. The Wikipedia article on 'Slavery in Britain' discusses the slaving voyages of the mariner John Hawkins down the West African coast in the 1560s, and adds: 'Britain soon became the leader in the Atlantic slave trade.' But no, it didn't, unless 'soon' means 'in the following century'. Hawkins's three voyages were a one-off – or rather a three-off – and there was no serious attempt to repeat them until the 1640s. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |deadurl= (help) So, citation needed. . . dave souza, talk 10:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Slavery in England 1547

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)

Modern evaluations section

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)

Habeas corpus

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)

Modern slavery in Britain

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)

References

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)

(edit conflict) (@Ghmyrtle:) Coming from a medical-writing background (and per WP:RELATED), I feel the need to question the appropriateness of the current hatnote:

For slavery in the present-day UK, see Human trafficking in the United Kingdom.

"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[2] page titled Human trafficking in the United Kingdom.
86.186.168.207 (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

I've just added a redirect. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle and IP editor - I have created a short section on Modern slavery, and also expanded the lead to attempt to cover more of what is contained in the body. The article could possibly benefit from a bit of restructuring, but I don't have time to attempt that myself now. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Workhouse

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)

Race, chattel slavery and indentured servitude

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)

Briton's enslaving Britons

Where have this been shown. I find no evidence anywhere. Online or off. 94.173.17.182 (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Article is wrong

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)